There is an entire industry — 100% legal — which is focused on people who get sexual pleasure from LEGALLY CONSENTING to being “blackmailed” or “extorted” by a Master (it’s called “FinDom” or Financial Domination).
Not every case of FinDom involves actual ‘blackmail’. Some people engage in fantasy stuff only.
However, some of them do involve REAL blackmail and NOT pretend blackmail, without limits.
In some cases, the clients provide their “master” (or dominatrix) with lots of personal information, such as evidence of them cheating on their spouse (or information that could ruin their career if made public) —- which the master is authorized to ‘blackmail’ them with.
When blackmailing such clients, the master will use this ‘blackmail material’ to get the client to pay them exorbitant fees, sometimes even draining their bank accounts.
Other times, they’ll ‘blackmail’ the client into doing sexually embarrassing or kinky things (things they may not normally consent to). So it’s sexual too, not just financial.
I’m talking about REAL blackmail here, where the master has been authorized to release the blackmail material IF the client doesn’t consent to their blackmail demands (i.e., I’m not talking about “fantasy” or “pretend” blackmail scenarios).
Is this stuff REALLY legal?
Can Keith use this as a viable defense at trial?
While I’ve read that most of these arrangements have a ‘signed’ contract to protect the master, I’m still not sure if a signed contract can legally allow somebody to blackmail you into ruining your life and draining your life savings and possibly engaging in unwanted sexual encounters.
The actual ‘demands’ are usually not spelled out in the contract. The master has full discretion on what his ‘demands’ will be, such as draining your entire bank account or merely asking you for $50. It’s this “discretion” that gives these perverted clients their satisfaction. LOL.
Since I’m not an attorney, I really don’t know how well such a defense would work in federal court.
BTW: I wouldn’t count on Claviger to tell us much about this type of defense —- since that fucker wouldn’t know how to interpret these laws any more than he’d know how to stop chasing ambulances.
This may be legal for adults, as contract law is very much relied upon. Howeve, since an underage person’s signature is not legally binding, all of the kiddie crimes would fall outside of this theoretical situation.
I’m still a little puzzled by one other issue: How do you feel about Claviger?
I’m almost certain that anyone’s signature on a contract that involves illegal acts, or acts such that are illegal in the absence of ongoing consent such as sex, is not legally binding – otherwise, for instance, people could sign away the rights to their life, and their killer would be safe from prosecution, which is obviously not the case. Also, as we know, no one can any longer enter into a bond of indentured servitude and have it be enforceable. Any such contract only provides the dominator or “master,” or someone in a similar role, some protection if the issue of consent is in question.
Fascinating information has been learned regarding Bangkok’s home state and interestingly enough Bangkok resides in the same state as owner of the fake Sultan of Six Twitter account. More information may be forthcoming Saturday night.
hey there, i worked with dommes, including findommes. the act is very vague, purposefully, which is part of the thrill. sometimes there are contracts but often not. these d/s relationships rarely begin alone, it’s a step further from other d/s acts, therefore setting a context that itself could be said to define limits. in the world of bdsm i’ve never seen anybody actually fleeced or exposed. even without a contract there is a de facto set of rules that all real players follow. you give your domme a bankcard and a week later she’s spent $500 on a high end latest costume that she then teases you about. it’s all about possibility, not destruction. the savage acts of vanguard have no equal to “legit” d/s. i’ve thought all along that this would be tried but it won’t hold up. it does not reflect the bdsm worlds actions or intent, save for maybe some sociopathic outlier. it could add a haze to some charges but those criminals did so much more. i believe the findom/domme angle when placed in the context of interstate trafficking, and the many other actions will fall apart. i don’t think they would, but if the prosecution were to subpoena 100 dom/dommes they would all say this is not akin to their roleplaying. i’m a bit frazzled today from being in the middle of moving right this moment so please excuse any lapses in my explanation, but i thought i’d throw in my experience. i know its not definitive but cultural “rules”exist without some contract that all know is symbolic. this shit follows the patterns of domestic abuse, not of the bdsm community. my opinion is guilty, and i don’t think this angle shows anything that absolves that guilt. my 2¢.
That is a great color photo of VanCrook.
Did you use F/1.8, AF-S, ISO 3200?
Thought-provoking piece, thanks. This example had actually come to mind.
I notice a number of people making at least implicit references to consensual BDSM when trying to downplay or excuse what went on in DOS. Those who do, ought to look closely at the norms of even the BDSM world, where issues of consent are taken very seriously, and where for instance submissive parties are always supposed to be given a “safe word” that they can use to end the situation if they no longer want to continue – which always has to be honored. Part of the reason for the careful constructs in BDSM, aside from a lot of real respect for individual rights, is to be certain that what is done is legally defensible.
I’ll be interested to hear what our legal eagles have to say, but I believe that if a financial submissive said that they didn’t want to play the game any more, and the dominator then did actually try to blackmail them, that at that point it would be a crime – again, it comes down to consent. Someone pointed out the example the other day, of marital rape, in which even in the context off prior explicit or implicit agreements, an act becomes a crime once consent is withdrawn – and even if explicit consent is absent.
I expect any legal defense of what went on in DOS would try to make arguments that are generally similar, but I think that attorneys would be hesitant to specifically mention BDSM practices in court, both because it’s sensational and starts to draw parallels that could be perjorative rather than exculpatory in some jurors’ minds, and because it would invite comparison with the actual strict practices of ethical practitioners. But then again maybe they would go there, with references to something “vanilla” like 50 Shades of Grey.
p.s. I’m not a part of the BDSM world, but I’ve known people who were
There is also “suicide by cop” but we don’t want to encourage stupid behavior.