Best part? The font.

February 18, 2006 11:07 AM

"You will be naked within 20 minutes of the kids being in bed…You are to do everything that is requested or expected of you, if you do not, you are considered noncompliant." – from Travis Frey's "Contract of Wifely Expectations" which also includes detailed instructions what panties she can wear, what sex acts she must perform, how often and where she must shave and how she can earn "good behavior days." Frey, 33, of Iowa, has been charged with kidnapping his wife.
posted by CunningLinguist (345 comments total)

Man, what is that creepy font?
posted by Nelson at 11:13 AM on February 18, 2006

OK, the font comment was me trying to be lighthearted. Then I read the rest of this "contract' and I'm now seriously freaked out and apologize for trying to even make a joke of it. Man, disgusting.
posted by Nelson at 11:16 AM on February 18, 2006

Sounds to me like she chose "9-1-1" as her safe word.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:19 AM on February 18, 2006

Yeah... wow.
Why- how- I mean, what was that poor woman thinking when she said "I do"?!?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:20 AM on February 18, 2006

I hear ya, Nelson. The more you read, the more disturbing it gets...
posted by VulcanMike at 11:21 AM on February 18, 2006

Boy it sure is a good thing von Sacher-Masoch wasn't born in the United States. Venus in Furs wouldn't be nearly as much fun to read if it were posted on The Smoking Gun.
posted by felix betachat at 11:22 AM on February 18, 2006

The scary part to me is that the guy is out on bail.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 11:23 AM on February 18, 2006

Well, the decorative caps in context definitely speak to this guy's disturbed nature. This guy has some serious issues.
posted by effwerd at 11:24 AM on February 18, 2006

[This is insane.]
posted by zenzizi at 11:25 AM on February 18, 2006

Oh my God. How could someone receive a document like that and *not* run for the hills? That's the creepiest, sickest thing I've ever seen!
posted by tastybrains at 11:25 AM on February 18, 2006

I guess there are *some* people who like that sort of thing.

Speaking as a happily married new man, of course.
posted by athenian at 11:28 AM on February 18, 2006

Where can I get one of these contracts?
posted by lemonfridge at 11:29 AM on February 18, 2006

Tastybrains: Because running for the hills WITH your children, prior to gaining full custody (good luck with that) gets you jailed and leaves your kids in the care of the nutter.
posted by onegreeneye at 11:29 AM on February 18, 2006

Anyone make software? Paste this into your EULA. Fun times ahead.
posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 11:30 AM on February 18, 2006

The truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

My gut feeling is [...] that the stories she's telling are exaggerations (and falsehoods) in order to get a measure of perceived justice.


I've heard far more fantastic stories than this from plaintiffs alleging police brutality. Even if this were interesting, which it's not, there's absolutely no reason to believe it's true. The only value of tales like this lies in weeding out people who firmly believe in a presumption of innocence toward any [woman] but instantly accept as fact the most insubstantial allegation against [men] or government authority.
posted by orthogonality at 11:31 AM on February 18, 2006

No, the scary part is that they apparently have kids, go to church, and live in Iowa.
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 11:32 AM on February 18, 2006

instantly accept as fact the most insubstantial allegation against [men] or government authority

Was it the rape or the kidnap part that was insubstantial?
posted by onegreeneye at 11:36 AM on February 18, 2006

well, isn't that special?
did he write this in junior high school or something?
he's lucky he didn't wake up to a knife in his throat.
posted by Busithoth at 11:37 AM on February 18, 2006

Bobbitt.
posted by onegreeneye at 11:38 AM on February 18, 2006

Hey, children, give it a break - the criminal parts of it are child-porn and that the wife says she never agreed to the rules. If so, he is an abuser (and a child-porn viewer).

But if she agreeded to the rules and signed the contract, well then, "consenting adults behind closed doors", that is, none of your puritan business. It may sound strange and surprising to you, but there are lots of women out there who would happily sign such a contract and live by it. If you think the little piece of scanned paper is disturbing, insane, freaks you out and is the creepiest, sickest thing you've ever seen, I'd say you have seem very little.
posted by nkyad at 11:38 AM on February 18, 2006

orthogonality is really weird.
posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 11:40 AM on February 18, 2006

what a dick
posted by pyramid termite at 11:41 AM on February 18, 2006

there are lots of women out there who would happily sign such a contract and live by it.

You know, I'd type more in response to this, but I really need to go find my jaw, which just dropped out of my head and bounced under the desk.
posted by scody at 11:43 AM on February 18, 2006

Protocols of the Elders of Awesome : "orthogonality is really weird."

Weird I wouldn't know, but certainly subtle in excess of R-17.
posted by nkyad at 11:43 AM on February 18, 2006

nkyad writes "It may sound strange and surprising to you, but there are lots of women out there who would happily sign such a contract and live by it."


Yeah, sure, some women like being dominated and ordered around, or humiliated, or even rough-housed (and we've all dated some of them). But that contract just ain't sexy. There's no fun in it. It's tedious and the guy comes across as a pussy, not a dominant guy.

Blowjobs lasting all of five minutes?? "Good Behavior Days"? It sounds like a bureaucrat or an accountant fantasizing about being a prison warden. It's just not sexy. It's sick, but it's not sexy.
posted by orthogonality at 11:45 AM on February 18, 2006

You know, generally speaking, people who engage in BDSM are treated quite decently here on Mefi. Occasionally I've run into close-mindedness and assholery, but it's been very infrequent. Overall, I'd say that MeFi's been very good to me and to people like me. So I regard this post as rather a large disappointment.

But to get to the point here:

There's nothing wrong with the set of rules he lays out. Yes. You heard me. Nothing at all. I challenge you to point to even one sentence in this document which calls for behavior that is (a) physically harmful to either party (b) illegal (c) harmful to the general public (or any group of people you care to name).

Now, if the wife didn't consent to some or all of these rules and he forced her to go along with them, that's wrong. If he assaulted her (and the police are saying he did), that's wrong. Ditto for the sexual assaults. And if he did any of these things, obviously, he broke the law. But the rules themselves and the document itself are (for people like me, anyway) not all that unusual and certainly nothing to get alarmed about.
posted by Clay201 at 11:47 AM on February 18, 2006

Protocols of the Elders of Awesome writes "orthogonality is really weird."


Follow the links. I'm quoting some comments from another thread, trying to point out that this story too would be "unbelievable" if not for the contact -- and the guy's lawyer is claiming the contract is forged.
posted by orthogonality at 11:47 AM on February 18, 2006

That contract is gonna go down really well with the jury.
posted by sour cream at 11:48 AM on February 18, 2006

Whether she signed it or not, such a contract is basically one of slavery, or at best servitude, isn't it? Which is to say, not legally binding, right? I mean, even if you signed such a document, which she says she didn't, it's not like he can use it as an affirmative defense in court, right? He couldn't get away with a "she asked foragreed to it" defense, could he?
posted by Gator at 11:49 AM on February 18, 2006

scody : "You know, I'd type more in response to this, but I really need to go find my jaw, which just dropped out of my head and bounced under the desk."

Does it get any better if I tell you that a lot of men out there who would happily sign such a contract and live by it. I mean heterosexual, employed, church-going men. And if you adapt the dressing rules then you get an even larger number of men...
posted by nkyad at 11:49 AM on February 18, 2006

During My Time you -
WILL:
1) Be subservient, submissive, and totally obedient.
2) To do what you are asked, when you are asked, exactly how you are asked.
3) Be cheerful and adoring towards me.

The whole thing's disturbing, but it's that third point that shows his disconnect with reality. It's not enough for him to control her every action, his real need is to control her internal emotional state. If she's someone who wants to participate in this contract, that point is superfluous. And if she's not, it's pointless.
posted by scalefree at 11:51 AM on February 18, 2006

Gator: "Which is to say, not legally binding, right?"

Seems like it will be up to the jury to decide whether the binding was legal.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 11:52 AM on February 18, 2006

What I found striking was the bureaucratic nature of the document (initial here please) and the almost prissy tone. "You will not be condescending to, or about, me."
And, you know, that 12-year-old girl's font. What, no unicorns and rainbows?
posted by CunningLinguist at 11:52 AM on February 18, 2006

Clay201 writes "I challenge you to point to even one sentence in this document which calls for behavior that is (a) physically harmful to either party (b) illegal (c) harmful to the general public (or any group of people you care to name). "

You are also noncompliant if you start something and can not [sic] or will not finish, even if you state that you are in pain or something huts. If you don't have enough GBD's [sic] to cover the loss, then you will be tied to the bed and I will do whatever I wish to you. This will continue every night until you are ready to be compliance [sic], at which time you will need to apologize and explain how you are ready to be my sex slave again.

According to court records, Frey's wife told police her husband tied her to their bed with a rope and sexually assaulted her at least three times. Frey's wife also provided police with an alleged "marriage contract," which was entitled "Contract of Wifely Expectations." ....

Frey's wife said she never signed the contract.

posted by orthogonality at 11:53 AM on February 18, 2006

But she knew what she was getting into with a man who would present her with such a document.
posted by CunningLinguist at 11:54 AM on February 18, 2006

I'm sure there are plenty of people who'd create/agree to such a contract (perhaps one for men from women could legislate romantic gifts, phone calls, etc). Because dating/sex/relationships is hard and confusing, and the idea of taking the mystery out of it is sort of appealing. But, then again, it also sort of ruins the fun, so I think I'll pass.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 11:54 AM on February 18, 2006 [1 favorite]

That's the most outlandish thing I've ever read.
posted by Meagan at 11:54 AM on February 18, 2006

Contracts signed under duress are invalid.

The kiddy porn, at least, probably ensures that he won't get custody.

Protocols: I think you need to read the thread ortho linked to. That said, it probably wasn't the best thing to do.
posted by dhartung at 11:57 AM on February 18, 2006

Gator:

You're absolutely right about the legality of such a contract. According to lawyers I've spoken with and articles I've read on the subject, a master-slave (or top-bottom or whatever term you prefer) contract could, concievably, have some arrangments that would be legally enforceable. But these would usually be things that the top would provide for the bottom (say, a place to live or financial support) rather than services the bottom was expected to perform (I'll leave examples of this to your imagination).
posted by Clay201 at 11:58 AM on February 18, 2006

Another piece of information: the contract itself is not supposed to be a legally binding, it is just part of the "role playing" (and I am NOT talking about D&D v3.5).

It's Raining Florence Henderson : "Seems like it will be up to the jury to decide whether the binding was legal."

Or the bondage...
posted by nkyad at 12:02 PM on February 18, 2006

ohhh.......... shit.
posted by BlackLeotardFront at 12:02 PM on February 18, 2006

Clay201: Now, if the wife didn't consent to some or all of these rules and he forced her to go along with them, that's wrong. If he assaulted her (and the police are saying he did), that's wrong. Ditto for the sexual assaults. And if he did any of these things, obviously, he broke the law.

Clay, I think this is exactly why most of us were so repulsed by the contract -- given that she says she never signed it, etc., it doesn't appear to be a mutal, consenting BDSM contract, but rather a unilateral, coercive one. That's the horrifying thing to me.
posted by scody at 12:09 PM on February 18, 2006

I said:

I challenge you to point to even one sentence in this document which calls for behavior that is (a) physically harmful to either party....

orthogonality, in response, points to the section of the contract that reads:

You are also noncompliant if you start something and can not [sic] or will not finish, even if you state that you are in pain or something huts.

That would be a problem if he hadn't given her an out:

...it is not misbehavior to state that there are specific situations requested or expected of you that hurt or cause pain. It is also not misbehavior to suggest ways to avoid these specific situations, other than to propose not to do them[.]
posted by Clay201 at 12:09 PM on February 18, 2006

I think you're doing the BDSM community a disservice by aligning with this guy. There's no safety here. Her only safety mechanism is also a mechanism for control (i.e. GBDs can be taken away at his discretion). This document exceeds closed bedroom doors. If that makes me a puritan, so be it.
posted by Skwirl at 12:11 PM on February 18, 2006

nkyad, you could have made your first post without being an arse, you know. Even with a good amount of experience in dominant/submissive interaction, this guy comes across as extremely creepy. There's a hell of a difference between the dominant partner who's aware of the two-sided nature of their interaction with a sub and is aware that both are getting something they want out of said interaction, and the sort of person who could genuinely control another person against their will, force them to live in misery while waving a legally-binding contract (should such a thing be enforcable) and enjoy it.

This resembles the sort of contract/rules-list that comes up all the time in relatively long-term sub/dom relationships, and can be pretty damn hot when both parties are aware, even if not actively thinking about the fact, that it's not binding and lasts as long as they want it to. The difference is that those relationships are (or should be) entered into consensually - it sounds as if this guy sprung these rules on a woman who'd entered a binding relationship with him on very different terms, presumably those of a marriage where both parties were equal.

If this contract really was part of a role-play or scene, then fair enough. It's certainly not fair that it be presented as something the guy wanted to be permanent and serious. I'm just really not convinced that that's what the situation is.
posted by terpsichoria at 12:11 PM on February 18, 2006

No, the scary part is that they apparently have kids, go to church, and live in Iowa.

Hmm, paging David Lynch?
posted by tweak at 12:14 PM on February 18, 2006

Clay201 writes "It is also not misbehavior to suggest ways to avoid these specific situations, other than to propose not to do them[.]"


Read that more closely: She says, "the ass-fucking hurts".

He says "well, you can propose a way to avoid that 'other than to propose not to do' it.

So it hurts, and she can ask him to try some more lube, but not to stop. And if she complains, she loses "GBDs" until it's "ok" for him to tie her to the bed and rape her any way he pleases.

But the take-home point, Clay, is that she never consented to this shit.

Consensual BDSM is all well and good (although frankly it gets tiresome hearing "lifestyle" folks go on and on about their exploits, believe me, nobody else finds your perversion du jour as fascinating as you do, guys and girls), but this wasn't that.
posted by orthogonality at 12:18 PM on February 18, 2006

Right, except that if you don't realize that something will cause pain, and then you start getting busy, asking to stop is considered misbehavior. I read this as, "if you start something, you're going to finish it, regardless of your wellbeing." The contract does state that negotiations can occur only at certain times -- and one of those times isn't when you're in the middle of meeing your wifely duites. The "out" you've highlighted, Clay, isn't a "safe word" situation.
posted by Medieval Maven at 12:18 PM on February 18, 2006

Skwirl:

I think you're doing the BDSM community a disservice by aligning with this guy.

I'm sorry... why would you think I am "aligning with this guy"? I said earlier that, assuming he did what they're alleging (and I rather suspect he did), he's both wrong and in violation of the law. I don't see how that's "aligning" with him.
posted by Clay201 at 12:18 PM on February 18, 2006

Jesus, this is a terrible story. It reads closely to situations of trafficking and debt bondage, where one party enters a contractual situation with another that she cannot stop. Sadly, I suspect that what makes this situation memorable isn't that it's so uncommon but that the contract is available for us to see. The problem here is the construction of a contract without an exit clause.
posted by allen.spaulding at 12:20 PM on February 18, 2006

A guy who knows what he wants.
posted by HTuttle at 12:22 PM on February 18, 2006

wow, it is so refreshing to see so many people explaining precisely what is and is not sexy, or what is and is not acceptable bedroom procedure.

nkyad is right, this contract is precisely the kind of thing that some women and/or men would love to sign. It is a formal statement that says "You are mine. You do what I say, here's what happens to you if you don't." The reason it is so codified and rigid is because part of the fun for some people involved in submissive roles is specifically disobeying the rules and accepting your punishment. If you know what you're in for, you can help make the experience better for yourself by choosing a rule-break that merits a preferred punishment.

For doms, these contracts are an open and honest way to say what kind of dom behavior you prefer and can be expected to engage in.

This isn't creepy, as a document. The question is what went wrong, why is this coming up now, and where did their communication break down enough that the authorities needed to be involved. It is entirely possible that this guy took something that was supposed to be fun and consensual and turned it into a nightmare. Unfortunately, the law doesn't differentiate between the two and the distinction is nearly impossible to prove. But if he did, then THAT'S what's fucked up, not the document itself.

Rapists and abusive husbands don't make documents like these with cute little nymph and bondage letters heading every paragraph. They just rape and beat their wives. It bears considering that if the guy drew this up, showed it to her, and she didn't immediately get the fuck out of dodge, that there's a reason for that.
posted by shmegegge at 12:22 PM on February 18, 2006

On one hand, this guy is clearly an asshole of Gorean proportions. On the other hand, she saw this agreement (even if as she says, she didn't sign it), and married him anyway without demanding a (re)negotiation of terms.

That being said, non-consentual sex is the definition of rape and it seems likely that's what happened.
posted by ilsa at 12:26 PM on February 18, 2006

But the take-home point, Clay, is that she never consented to this shit.

The take home point, ortho, is that you have no idea what she consented to. You also have no idea what actually happened between them. It is entirely possible that this guy took something or many things way too far. If so, hey he'll go to jail, hopefully. But it specifically says in the document that it's not a contract, but a set of rules. The fact that she didn't sign it doesn't say anything. She wasn't meant to. Like I said, we don't actually know what we agreed to. For all we know, she caught him cheating and is taking advantage of their relationship to put him in jail instead of just getting a divorce. It's entirely possible that she even broke a rule one time specifically so that he would tie her to the bed and have his way with her. People engage in rape fantasies sometimes, because their fantasies. This is why crimes that happen in private bedrooms are so difficult to investigate and prosecute and defend. So much of it depends on the preconceptions of the judge, jury, officers and attorneys that an objective ruling or presentation of evidence is damn near impossible.

I think a lot of people in here would do well to put aside their own preferences and comforts before assuming they know what happened between these two people.

I mean, hell, haven't any of you watched law and order?
posted by shmegegge at 12:29 PM on February 18, 2006

It bears considering that if the guy drew this up, showed it to her, and she didn't immediately get the fuck out of dodge, that there's a reason for that.

I disagree. I think this community is significantly more familiar with the fetish community than with victims of trafficking, but I think this situation strongly resembles the latter. Who knows what methods of intimidation he used to keep her from the police. I think it bears considering that she was only able to alert the authorities when he was already in custody and didn't fear reprisal.

We won't know until the trial. However, if she had been repeatedly tied down and raped, I understand why she would be worried about seeking help.
posted by allen.spaulding at 12:29 PM on February 18, 2006

we don't actually know what we agreed to

what she agreed to. whoops.
posted by shmegegge at 12:30 PM on February 18, 2006

allen.spaulding:

I agree completely. my point is to say that it's a mistake to assume that we know what happened. A lot of people are saying the existence of the document is all they need to know that this guy is fucked up and doing fucked up shit to the woman, and that's not a safe assumption. Very little is safe to assume in this case. What you suggest is entirely possible, and if it's the case I sincerely hope the guy gets punished to the fullest extent of the law.

also, I agree with Maven, above, when she said that the rules fail to establish a suitable safe word exit situation. You also said this, I think. That's a definite problem. I kind of wonder if it's the result of people new to accepting their fetishes going overboard or the husband legitimately looking for validations for rape and abuse.
posted by shmegegge at 12:34 PM on February 18, 2006

terpsichoria : "nkyad, you could have made your first post without being an arse, you know. Even with a good amount of experience in dominant/submissive interaction, this guy comes across as extremely creepy. There's a hell of a difference between the dominant partner who's aware of the two-sided nature of their interaction with a sub and is aware that both are getting something they want out of said interaction, and the sort of person who could genuinely control another person against their will, force them to live in misery while waving a legally-binding contract (should such a thing be enforcable) and enjoy it."

Creepy? No. Very childish? Yes, in my opinion - the whole point here rests on who is telling the truth. As I said, if she married him thinking she going into a normal weeding just to be made a sex-slave without her consent, nail him, lock him out because he is a danger to any woman who cross paths with him. On the other hand, if she otherwise wanted to play the game and now decided it would be a good lever in divorce the picture changes, doesn't it?

Skwirl : "I think you're doing the BDSM community a disservice by aligning with this guy. There's no safety here. Her only safety mechanism is also a mechanism for control (i.e. GBDs can be taken away at his discretion). This document exceeds closed bedroom doors. If that makes me a puritan, so be it."
First, as Clay said, no one is "aligning with this guy".

I noticed there is no safeguards included in the contract - as someone else said, the contract is quite childish in form and style. It looks like he wrote it when he was 14. I also agree it's loose language ("I will do whatever I wish to you") is very dangerous is such context. But there is very little information to understand what happened. but then again, as I said before, there are plenty of educated, informed people who would sign it.

On preview, what shmegegge said.
posted by nkyad at 12:37 PM on February 18, 2006

shmegegge - Yeah, I have no idea what the motivation behind this was, whether she was ever into it, whether it was ever enforced in the first place, and so on. I don't really care, other than out of some weird concern about the kind of people in the world. This is a job for the courts to figure out, which I imagine will be hard. It's weird that some people are so quick to jump to defend either of them, personally, I think the normal response would just to feel sad. No relationship should have to end this way.
posted by allen.spaulding at 12:39 PM on February 18, 2006

orthogonality writes: So it hurts, and she can ask him to try some more lube, but not to stop. And if she complains, she loses "GBDs" until it's "ok" for him to tie her to the bed and rape her any way he pleases.

You've got half a point here. By giving himself authority to do anything he wants, he does open up the possibility that she could be hurt. But the contract also gives her the right to suggest ways of doing things that won't harm her; assuming this right is respected, this could serve to keep things within the realm of safe and sane.

If I were the bottom negotiating this contract, I wouldn't agree to it unless it included a list of hard limits for both parties. Or, if it included a set of clauses like the ones under discussion, I'd insist on some clarifications. But is there anything here that is necessarily bad, provided both top and bottom consent to it? No, I don't think so.

However, orth, you definitely get points for actually looking at the contract to find what's wrong with it instead of just saying "Eww, gross. Throw the bastard in jail."

And of course you're absolutely correct that the "take home point" is that she didn't consent to any of this. [Note to shmegegge: I'm just assuming for the sake of discussion that she didn't consent. You're absolutely correct that we don't know whether she did or didn't. We don't even have a statement from her on this, or any, subject]. It's not the oral sex requirements or the pubic hair shaving or the naked sleeping that make all of this so awful. It's the lack of consent, just as you said. But the lack of consent is nowhere to be seen in this document. Nor is the consent, for that matter.
posted by Clay201 at 12:45 PM on February 18, 2006

IANALP, but I do not pick up a dom/sub vibe when I read this thing. My infantile pervert sense is ringing off the hook, though.

"... there are plenty of educated, informed people who would sign it."
Really? Folks I know would steer clear of this guy, as the contract clearly makes him out to be at best a wannabe poseur, at worst a liability.
Any experienced BDSM person would laugh in this guy's face if he gave them this document; it reads almost like a parody of an actual D/s contract, or a little kid or lame-o's idea of how the real thing would read. If he's played with anyone but himself - and his poor wife, who, for all we know, could have humored him until things became intolerable - I'd be surprised.
Strictly n00b.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:48 PM on February 18, 2006

Rapists and abusive husbands don't make documents like these with cute little nymph and bondage letters heading every paragraph. They just rape and beat their wives. It bears considering that if the guy drew this up, showed it to her, and she didn't immediately get the fuck out of dodge, that there's a reason for that.

Good grief. Spent any time in a Domestic Violence court? Hearing cases of victims of both genders with children and how difficult it is to just leave? Seen the Brame case in Tacoma, WA where the victim did everything she was supposed to and still was murdered, by the chief of police, in front of her children? "Why didn't she just get out of Dodge?" is naive, and also a sad comment on how little people understand the dynamics of abuse inside a marriage, how little the law can really protect a victim, and how difficult it is to just leave, especially when children are involved.
posted by onegreeneye at 1:04 PM on February 18, 2006

you're misinterpreting my statement.

I'm saying that it's telling that she didn't get out of dodge at the beginning of the relationship. There's no information available as to when this document was drawn up and shown to the woman. It is entirely possible that this was something they agreed to a long time ago. The mention of kids could very easily be an assumption that they will one day have children, to account for that possibility.

The point is that she could easily have agreed to this set of rules, early in their relationship, and happily lived by them for years. I've already said that it's entirely possible that the man also just came up with a series of rules he liked and proceeded to use them to abuse and rape his wife. If that's the case, then may he go to jail forever.

But how many domestic rapists and spousal abusers are you aware of that draw up sets of rules like this? I'm not aware of any. Usually they just beat and rape their wives and don't bother making up rules for when they're allowed to.

No, it seems more likely that once upon a time she agreed to these rules. If that's the case (IF) then there's a lot more to this trial than just some guy with a weird set of rules who abuses his wife. That's all I'm saying.
posted by shmegegge at 1:21 PM on February 18, 2006

another possibility: 2 people, married with kids, discover an affinity in each other for dom/sub play. they, as first timers at this, come up with a set of rules (poorly designed) and agree to them. Sure, it would have been much harder for her to leave if she didn't like the rules, but it also would have been much easier to change the rules in a way she liked.

Out of all the possible ways this set of rules came into their lives, the one where he just presents her with a paper 10 years or so into their marriage and says "this is how it is now" is simply the least likely, near as I can see.
posted by shmegegge at 1:25 PM on February 18, 2006

terpsichoria made my point much better than I did. Sorry, I really meant defending the document, as we understand it, was a disservice. If it's taken out of context and they have a real, no-holds-barred safety, then so be it.

I believe consent means every act, every time without duress or fear of retaliation. Therefore, you cannot sign away your consent. In several places, this document attempts to do just that.

In long-term relationships, consent is often implied. But it stops the nanosecond the other person says no.
posted by Skwirl at 1:28 PM on February 18, 2006

But how many domestic rapists and spousal abusers are you aware of that draw up sets of rules like this? I'm not aware of any.

This is my favorite fallacy. "Well I can't imagine it, so it certainly can't be possible!"
posted by odinsdream at 1:51 PM on February 18, 2006

shmegegge: But how many domestic rapists and spousal abusers are you aware of that draw up sets of rules like this? I'm not aware of any.

There was a notorious case in California back in the 1980s where this guy and his wife kidnapped a hitchhiker and held her as a sex slave for many years. They kept her locked up in a compartment underneath their waterbed. They had a "contract" a lot like this one and made the poor girl sign it. Needless to say, the jury was not impressed by the contract.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 1:52 PM on February 18, 2006

Peeping_thomist: yep, that was the Colleen Stan case (incidentally, I don't know why the Crime Library article doesn't use her real name when she's been public for years about it).
posted by scody at 2:02 PM on February 18, 2006

shmegegge writes "But it specifically says in the document that it's not a contract, but a set of rules. The fact that she didn't sign it doesn't say anything. She wasn't meant to. Like I said, we don't actually know what we agreed to."


shmegegge, when you read the document, did you miss the four places set aside (yet still empty) for her initials?


Or were you too distracted, coming up with excuses to give aid and comfort to as rapist?

Or were you just too busy furiously masturbating?
posted by orthogonality at 2:03 PM on February 18, 2006

I think there are a few female BSDM fans out there who would sign something like this. I remember reading a website by a couple who lived sort of like this. The woman was very fat and ugly I remember. No idea what to google to find it.

The fucked-upness of the document alone is dependant on a lot of things, IMO, including the disposition of the wife. I don't know.

The other charges are a lot more important.
posted by delmoi at 2:06 PM on February 18, 2006

Or were you just too busy furiously masturbating?

Ortho, we really don't know what these people agreed too, the fact that that particular version of the contract isn't initialed, doesn't mean she didn't agree some other way, of course it doesn't mean that she did either.

I kind of find it hard to believe that some guy would just write up a document like that unless he had a pretty good idea that his wife wouldn't freak out, but maybe this guy is a special case.
posted by delmoi at 2:10 PM on February 18, 2006

But the lack of consent is nowhere to be seen in this document. Nor is the consent, for that matter.

I don't see a signature anywhere. Nor do I see initials in the sections marked "Initials_____".
posted by exlotuseater at 2:12 PM on February 18, 2006

oops. ortho got to it first.
posted by exlotuseater at 2:13 PM on February 18, 2006

All skirts no lower then (sic) two inches below the knee (unless it's for Church)

See - rapists aren't so bad.
posted by matkline at 2:15 PM on February 18, 2006

Any defense of this document (such as this person) is a defense of spousal abuse, both physical and psychological---and to excuse this guy is sickening. If saying this makes me naive and puritan, so be it.
posted by jayder at 2:15 PM on February 18, 2006

orthogonality : "shmegegge, when you read the document, did you miss the four places set aside (yet still empty) for her initials?
""

Oh ortho, she signed on the screen, but for some reason it didn't merged into the document. Gimme a freaking break - where have you read shmegegge "coming up with excuses to give aid and comfort to as rapist"? Have you met the guy and the wife? Are you a prosecutor in the case, speaking from undisclosed evidence? Or have you just read what everybody else read and already tried and sentenced the guy because he is a freak anyway? For all you know, the bloody contract could well be some joke he found in the Internet and downloaded, couldn't it?
posted by nkyad at 2:18 PM on February 18, 2006

jayder : "Any defense of this document (such as this person) is a defense of spousal abuse, both physical and psychological---and to excuse this guy is sickening. If saying this makes me naive and puritan, so be it."

Naive, no. Puritan, maybe. You are speaking on the assumption all the wife said is true. In this case the guy is a rapist who should go to jail. What I and some others tried to convey is that there are people who do this kind of thing consensually, nothing else. I was not defendiding the guy or the wife, just pointing that the existence of this contract may mean a lot or nothing.
posted by nkyad at 2:23 PM on February 18, 2006

nkyad writes "For all you know, the bloody contract could well be some joke he found in the Internet and downloaded, couldn't it?"

What a coincidence that "some joke he downloaded" just happened to have his name and his wife's name on it, and referred to their kids.
posted by orthogonality at 2:24 PM on February 18, 2006

For all you know, the bloody contract could well be some joke he found in the Internet and downloaded, couldn't it?

I think we can all agree that that font is no joke.
posted by scody at 2:25 PM on February 18, 2006

There was a notorious case in California back in the 1980s where this guy and his wife kidnapped a hitchhiker and held her as a sex slave for many years. They kept her locked up in a compartment underneath their waterbed. They had a "contract" a lot like this one and made the poor girl sign it. Needless to say, the jury was not impressed by the contract.

Which shows just how fucked up a husband and wife's relationship can be, I mean agreeing to kidnap and rape a woman together is pretty messed up, right? And that happens every once in a while.

So it certainly isn't outside the realm of possible that a woman would sign something like this.

The way I would suspect a contract like this (the one on the TSG) would arise would be a man and a woman find they have an affinity for this sort of thing, and a contract is drawn up, but doesn't include stuff about safe words because they don't know about them, or something. They're just joking around and neither one seriously expects to live by it.

Then, one of two things happen: 1) the husband gets to into it, takes it too far, and the result is the woman flees and the guy gets charged with rape, kidnapping, etc. or 2) The wife just gets pissed off at the guy, decided to leave and uses the contract to prove some outlandish story.

Which one happened? I don't know.
posted by delmoi at 2:26 PM on February 18, 2006

Or, 3) the guy's a sick fuck who figures his wife will be afraid to leave him and he can force her into this.
posted by orthogonality at 2:30 PM on February 18, 2006

I mean agreeing to kidnap and rape a woman together is pretty messed up, right?

sidenote: considering the wife was apparently/allegedly trying to avoid the amount of time she was being beaten/raped/tortured by her husband, I'm not so sure it's just a matter of two people having equal say in "agreeing." "Sure, honey, you want me to stop applying electrodes to your vulva while whipping you? Fine. All you have to do is help me find someone else to do it to."
posted by scody at 2:33 PM on February 18, 2006

jayder wrote: Any defense of this document (such as this person) is a defense of spousal abuse.

Care to defend this statement?

I mean, you've just said that I'm defending spousal abuse (something I loathe more than cockroaches). I think you should back up this accusation with some sort of evidence or argument.
posted by Clay201 at 2:38 PM on February 18, 2006

scody: I'm reading more about that case now, I hadn't know much about it earlier. I figured it was similar to that case in canada, the one with the Laura Preppon movie about it.
posted by delmoi at 2:41 PM on February 18, 2006

scody, yes, it was the Colleen Stan case. I read the book written by the prosecutor in her case, _Perfect Victim_. It was amazing stuff. It's easy to speculate about this stuff in the abstract, but when you read the full details, the picture becomes much, much clearer. And your point about the wife agreeing to the kidnap under duress was on target: she had been seriously abused. The culprit in the Stans case was a seriously messed-up individual.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 2:42 PM on February 18, 2006

this movie aobut Karla Homolka
posted by delmoi at 2:42 PM on February 18, 2006

But does he have a Powerpoint presentation?
posted by iamck at 3:01 PM on February 18, 2006

if i were someone with the last name "Frey," i'd be looking over my shoulder for the smoking gun.
posted by Hat Maui at 3:14 PM on February 18, 2006

Good lord, how could someone turn this creep's case into some sort of instructional point about BDSM culture? Did you miss the parts about alleged sexual abuse and kidnapping? What do you think, she was consenting and happy all along and then one day decided she was bored and called the cops?
posted by Nelson at 3:31 PM on February 18, 2006

Yeah, every dom/sub contract should come with a powerpoint presentation.
posted by bonehead at 3:42 PM on February 18, 2006

Yeah, every dom/sub contract should come with a powerpoint presentation.

what do you think employee orientation is?
posted by pyramid termite at 3:47 PM on February 18, 2006

So what does that make HR?
posted by bonehead at 3:47 PM on February 18, 2006

The kiddy porn, at least, probably ensures that he won't get custody.
posted by dhartung at 11:57 AM PST on February 18 [!]

Nope!
"In Georgia, you can kill your child's mother and still be a worthy parent."
posted by onegreeneye at 3:48 PM on February 18, 2006

At least he's up front about being a psycho jerk. Most of the time they don't tell you.
posted by fungible at 4:11 PM on February 18, 2006

You know, onegreeneye, Georgia is pretty fucked up, but that article is from 1989.
posted by Medieval Maven at 4:26 PM on February 18, 2006

Medieval Maven: If the attitude of the bench has changed in GA since the, great. I doubt it has, however. It's no different in WA or, I'd imagine, many other states.
posted by onegreeneye at 4:32 PM on February 18, 2006

So what does that make HR?
posted by bonehead at 6:47 PM EST on February 18 [!]

the gimp?
posted by Busithoth at 4:34 PM on February 18, 2006

I think the idea of dragging this document into the affair is stupid. It's a BDSM contract which appears to have been mutually agreed to. It's not that different from many others I have seen and I am aware of, and I think it's important to realize that these contracts do not just reflect the wishes of the dom, but of the sub in question, too. The essence of such contracts is willing consent.

I think for her to drag this non-binding, essentially meaningless contract into court as proof of her abuse at the hands of her husband is stupid. I suspect the contract was created with her knowledge and general approval, and that it's likely that she did approve it, or at least approve of his efforts to create it, even if she disapproved of some of the details.

That said... there are a lot of really fucked up doms out there, and this one appears to have been a real asshole who would not respect her wishes and who took things too far.

The trial should stick to the substance of the charges and ignore this dreck.

In short, she may be a victim of kidnapping and non-consentual abuse, but she's also being dishonest, disingenuous, and is acting like the ultimate bratty sub. She deserves -- and would probably appreciate -- a good spanking, but I venture to guess that nobody in the scene would want to give one to her anymore.
posted by insomnia_lj at 4:44 PM on February 18, 2006

Can't wait to see Frey's face when he's presented with a 'Contract of Cellmately Expectations.'
posted by Football Bat at 4:48 PM on February 18, 2006

Orthogonality writes:

"The truth is usually somewhere in the middle.

My gut feeling is [...] that the stories she's telling are exaggerations (and falsehoods) in order to get a measure of perceived justice."

Tell you what: I don't think the truth is somewhere in the middle in this case. I think the guy's completely innocent of the charges against him (except for the child porn charges). No middle. Complete innocence. After all, that's how the law works: he is innocent until proven guilty.

In the other thread, I said that my gut tells me that the truth is somewhere in the middle. I realize now that this was completely unfair to the cops who are under investigation. They are innocent. Shame on me for giving that mother of three the benefit of the doubt.
posted by solid-one-love at 4:55 PM on February 18, 2006

It's a BDSM contract which appears to have been mutually agreed to.

What, exactly, are you basing that on? As has been pointed out many times, the contract has neither been signed anywhere nor initialed in any of the spaces provided. I find no evidence anywhere of any sort of mutual agreement.

I agree with shemgegge and Clay201 about the nature of the contract, and that we know absolutely nothing about the circumstances leading to these charges. It may not float everyone's boat, but such relationships are not "sick" if both adults are willing participants in such agreements. Some people like that stuff and the contract, in and of itself, doesn't make the guy a freak or a rapist if his wife was just as eager to be his sex slave as he was to have her, even if he comes across as a little bratty, juvenile, and asshattish.

If this contract was unexpected, unappreciated, and unwelcome, that's an entirely different story. She says that is the case, and why you think she's lying and the contract appears to be "mutually agreed to" is beyond me.
posted by Meredith at 4:57 PM on February 18, 2006

Meredith: such relationships are not "sick" if both adults are willing participants in such agreements

And you know this how?

There's a consensus that such consensual relationships are no business of the state, but why should anyone agree with you that such relationships are not sick? Are you assuming that nothing consensual can be sick? Haven't you ever seen two fucked up people consensually fuck each other up worse? Happens all the time... Of course, on your assumptions, that UNPOSSIBLE!
posted by peeping_Thomist at 5:38 PM on February 18, 2006

If a guy I was dating presented me with a contract like this, I'd be running far far away.
posted by SisterHavana at 5:40 PM on February 18, 2006

I'm Puritan and naive, I'll admit that right up front. This shit freaks me out. But that said, lemme ask a question to those with more than a passing familiarity with the BDSM culture:

What's the difference between a legitimate assault and one that takes place within the desired confines of a relationship?

If I'm a submissive and a dom slugs me, and I like it or feel I deserve it or I broke the "rules" or whatever, is it not then assault? And here I'm not referring to the specifics of this case or whatever, but: Is it possible that law enforcement might categorize something as abuse or an assault that I or you might not because, well, I broke the rules, so nevermind the anal bleeding or the black eye or whatever?
posted by kgasmart at 5:55 PM on February 18, 2006

"As has been pointed out many times, the contract has neither been signed anywhere nor initialed in any of the spaces provided. I find no evidence anywhere of any sort of mutual agreement."

I also said that the contract was "non-binding" and "essentially meaningless", and that "I suspect the contract was created with her knowledge and general approval, and that it's likely that she did approve it, or at least approve of his efforts to create it, even if she disapproved of some of the details."

Why did I say that? Because, BDSM contracts are always meticulously negotiated between partners. If it ain't carefully negotiated and consentual, it ain't BDSM... it's just abuse.

Does this mean that this wasn't abuse? No. It could be. But if it was, then it had absolutely nothing to do with this piece of paper.

Here is a couple who had been together for nine years, and had obviously had sex before. Are you suggesting that it took this long for her to suddenly notice that he was kinky, and he all the sudden pushed that upon her? Possible, admittedly, but hardly likely.

So, want my theory of what was the most likely to have happened?

1> They had a somewhat kinky relationship for years, with clear signs of dominant behavior from the husband, in which the wife was submissive, either because of her own interest, or simply because that is what her husband wanted her to do.

2> He downloaded pornography and BDSM information from the internet, and was an active internet user. This explains why he had pornography on the computer, some of which was arguably underage, as police claim. That said, there is no clear evidence yet that he was guilty of anything here other than being a highly sexed pervert with a wide interest in sexual deviance.

3> Their BDSM relationship was evolving towards the creation of a submissive BDSM contract -- one that they probably both knew about and tenatively approved of, at least in the creation process, even if it was not signed.

4> This article indicates that "Ruth Frey told Council Bluffs police her husband was angry with her for taking their two daughters to church." In other words, somewhere along the line she found religion, and started to view BDSM and her lifestyle with her husband as being sinful. She wanted to get away from it, but also felt trapped. Sexual and BDSM acts that he previously expected from her, and that she willingly gave him before started becoming obligatory, and from there, unwanted. To make matters worse, if the two did have some kind of general BDSM arrangement -- written or not -- it is entirely possible that he saw this behavior as meriting punishment or harsher treatment.

Really, unless they have a lot more hard evidence rather than he-said-she-said, I can't see the sense in this guy facing the potential for life imprisonment.
posted by insomnia_lj at 6:08 PM on February 18, 2006

In other words, somewhere along the line she found religion, and started to view BDSM and her lifestyle with her husband as being sinful.

And if she did, and she told her husband to please stop, and he "saw this behavior as meriting punishment or harsher treatment," and he meted out that treatment... I mean, it's the whole "no means no" thing, even though "no" previously meant "yes." Yes?
posted by kgasmart at 6:15 PM on February 18, 2006

That contract reads like Google Adsense's Terms and Conditions.
posted by Peter H at 6:19 PM on February 18, 2006

"What's the difference between a legitimate assault and one that takes place within the desired confines of a relationship?"

Consent, of course. That said, when you get a situation where a couple practicing BDSM is in the process of separation, and has a messy divorce, there is a very real risk that previous consentual behavior will be repackaged by one partner as sexual assault and abuse.

What the lawyers in the case are going to have to fight over here will ultimately be a matter of reputation. Both parties will probably be thoroughly trashed by the time this is over, but my concern is that the release of this unsigned contract could be horribly prejudicial, and that the resulting public outcry will lead the state prosecutors to railroad the husband. This could easily happen, as it *IS* Iowa, after all, near Omaha. Judges don't understand and won't take kindly to the contract in question.

"If I'm a submissive and a dom slugs me, and I like it or feel I deserve it or I broke the "rules" or whatever, is it not then assault?"

Not if it is consentual and you don't press charges, no. Even if you do press charges later, if it can be shown that the punch was consentual, then there was no crime comitted. That's not always easy to do, however.
posted by insomnia_lj at 6:23 PM on February 18, 2006

MetaFilter: Navel-to-anus.
posted by scarabic at 6:27 PM on February 18, 2006

Well, I dunno, I think the worst part of how the entire sex-positive movement turned out is that you can talk about sex all you want, you just can't talk critically about sex. The taboo against saying, "your kink is not ok" has managed to squish a lot of critical discussion. I certainly could say that I've been there, done that, and come out with the conclusion that I don't buy "Safe, Sane and Consensual" as sufficient for defining good sexual behavior.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 6:31 PM on February 18, 2006

I honestly don't see anything that indicates that this was a consenual thing for the wife. As to her not leaving sooner, psychological intimidation is extremely common in cases of spousal abuse, and it can be very hard for the wife to get up the courage to leave. I have no way of knowing whether this was ever merely a kinky consenual thing, but I just don't see any sign that it was, or that he even thought it was, given the tone of the "agreement". What disturbs me the most is that he seemed to not like her to go anywhere. He really seemed to want her ioslated from her surroundings, which rings a lot of warning bells. I could see the sexual and obedience stuff as being some kind of kinky game, but the isolating nature of some of these rules looks a lot like abuse.
posted by unreason at 6:37 PM on February 18, 2006

orthogonality:

everything you've convinced yourself about this guy is entirely possible. That being said, that doesn't mean it's fact and incontrovertible. He could very well have done everything his wife has accused him of, and if so then I hope he will be justly punished, as I have said multiple times already. That being said, not one thing you've said in this entire thread has shown even the slightest evidence of reason or logic. Further, nothing you've said has disproven my point or added any weight or clarity to your own.

You're being an utter douchebag... again. Stop being such an asshole.

to the guy who claimed I was employing a logical fallacy:

it would be a fallacy if I claimed that it proved the guy didn't do what he was accused of. I did not claim that. I claimed that there was reason to question the accusation because it's exceedingly rare to find documents such as this involved in rape and domestic abuse cases. My ignorance of such documents was not meant to imply that they don't exist, but just to say that it's rare enough that I, for one, haven't heard of them. The existance of such a document at all SHOULD inspire investigators to wonder at the nature of their relationship. For every one of these things that exists in a rape or domestic abuse situation, I would guess that there are somewhere between dozens and hundreds that exist in consensual bdsm relationships. I'm speculating, yes, but I'm only arguing that there's more to the case than an open and shut "sicko rape" situation. There's no fallacy in that logic, because it allows for error and only asks for more open mindedness in peoples' reactions.
posted by shmegegge at 6:40 PM on February 18, 2006

Where are you getting all that from insomnia_lj?

Want my theory of what happened?

1> He coerced her into having BDSM sex against her will

2> He downloaded repulsively hardcore child porn from the internet.

3> He foisted this contract on her with threats of violence.

4> Given that he mentions church in the contract, it seems likely that both were church-goers from the off, but that Sunday he wanted to do the missus up the bum instead of praying.

That's not actually my theory of what happened, but it's just as plausible when all we have to go on is a couple of brief articles and the unsigned contract. (Though it would appear from the article you linked that the police do have hard evidence of the child porn, and that he hasn't entered a not guilty plea to those charges.)
posted by jack_mo at 6:41 PM on February 18, 2006

kgasmart: that's why bdsm relationships SHOULD use safewords and have a clearly outlined avenue for the sub to refuse any activity without question. if this document is real, then it shows that either a) the guy is fucked in the head and wanted to justify rape, subjugation and abuse OR b) he's an amateur or newcomer at the bdsm game, as was his wife, and they made a very unfortunate and costly error.

there might be other explanations, obviously, but those are the 2 most likely that come to my mind.
posted by shmegegge at 6:45 PM on February 18, 2006

So is this the thread where we all proclaim someone innocent or guilty despite having almost no concrete information?
posted by bugbread at 6:52 PM on February 18, 2006

I certainly could say that I've been there, done that, and come out with the conclusion that I don't buy "Safe, Sane and Consensual" as sufficient for defining good sexual behavior.

How do you define "good" sexual behavior then? The attitude of people like you has made people "want to be bad", its entirely self-defeating.

As for these two, I have no idea what happened between them, and I think the best thing to do would be not to speculate. *shrugs*
posted by delmoi at 7:00 PM on February 18, 2006

"And if she did, and she told her husband to please stop, and he "saw this behavior as meriting punishment or harsher treatment," and he meted out that treatment... I mean, it's the whole "no means no" thing, even though "no" previously meant "yes." Yes?"

Agreed. It's a very unclear situation. There very well could've been assault that took place, but the question of consent for that assault could be quite unclear. If the defence can show that she did have a BDSM relationship with the defendant, then there's also the risk of her being seen as "asking for it" by the jury. If he's allowed to mount a strong defense, it could be a pretty ugly trial that results in "justifiable" sexual assault. If he has a bad lawyer, he could wind up being railroaded for having a BDSM lifestyle.

One thing that I found disturbing about the BDSM "contract" is that it doesn't mention a safeword. That said, a safeword may already have been a part of their relationship, if they had an existing BDSM arrangement, and may not need to be part of such an agreement. There are also some people into BDSM who don't use safewords, though many within the scene argue that it's a pretty stupid thing to do.

I believe this one is an original and unique BDSM "contract"... which is perhaps a good argument that both partners knew of and invested a bit of thought into the making of it, even if both partners may not have approved of it.

It should be pointed out that the terms of this contract are actually not that unusual for BDSM contracts. Compare it to these exerpts from other such contracts, and it seems kinda liberal.

"The slave shall keep her body available for the use of her Master at all times. In addition, the slave agrees that her Master possesses the right to determine whether others can use her body and what use they may put it to. . . The slave agrees that severe punishment may be assessed for any infraction of the letter or spirit of their contract, and will accept the correction gratefully."

"The slave agrees to submit completely to the master in all ways. There are no boundaries of place, time, or situation in which the slave may willfully refuse to obey the directive of the master without risking punishment..."

In many cases, these contracts aren't merely embellished with fonts, such as in the example we've seen in the FPP, but are actually done in a very ornate and ritualistic manner. I've heard of such contracts being bound in special leather books, for instance, and drawn up on handmade paper, signed in blood, etc. Lots of people in the BDSM world take these contracts very seriously, and live very sexually fulfilled lives based on their terms.

(FYI - while I'm hardly sexually vanilla, I don't have any such arrangement with either of my partners. I do know several people who do have master/slave contracts, however, and I know a lot of very knowledgeable, well-known people in the BDSM scene, esp. in San Francisco and Portland.)

Welcome, squares, to the exciting and terrifying world of master/slave contracts!
posted by insomnia_lj at 7:02 PM on February 18, 2006

bugbread: The child porn puts the noose around this bastard's neck, as far as I'm concerned.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:03 PM on February 18, 2006

Welcome, squares, to the exciting and terrifying world of master/slave contracts!

Welcome, insomnia_smug, to the surprisingly complex world where many of us without master/slave contracts are still fully aware of their existence and are more than happy to be respectful of other people's consensual sex lives!
posted by scody at 7:12 PM on February 18, 2006

Linking to an actual contract shows how amateurish and insipid Frey's is in comparison, insomnia. He's just an asshole who tried to co-opt the superficial trappings of the BDSM lifestyle to justify/excuse his abuse.

Contracts are fine, swell, great - to paraphrase Homer Simpson and the chore hat, no one's questioning the contract - but rather Frey's motivation for introducing and enforcing its very one-sided terms.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:12 PM on February 18, 2006

Alvy: Yeah, I probably should have said "innocent or guilty of all counts", sorry.
posted by bugbread at 7:14 PM on February 18, 2006

scody writes "Welcome, insomnia_smug, to the surprisingly complex world where many of us without master/slave contracts are still fully aware of their existence and are more than happy to be respectful of other people's consensual sex lives!"

Scody, I think being one of those people fully aware of their existence means that you are not a square, hence the comment wasn't addressed at you. (I may be reading too much into it, though).
posted by bugbread at 7:15 PM on February 18, 2006

insomnia Ij: Welcome, squares, to the exciting and terrifying world of master/slave contracts!

If you want an exciting and terrifying contract, try Catholic marriage, where there's no such thing as a safeword. Safewords are for pussies.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 7:17 PM on February 18, 2006

Too true, peeping_Thomist: "BDSM relationships are all alike; every Catholic marriage is terrifying in its own way."

Not to be picking on the leather people; it just seems like every Dom/sub enthusiast I encounter winds up reminding me of that guy you met who doesn't own a television, and boy, does he want you to know about it!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:22 PM on February 18, 2006

Welcome, squares, to the exciting and terrifying world of master/slave contracts!

Well, whatever floats your boat. I don't personally subscribe to the notion that the utter fulfillment of one's sexual fantasties is a necessity for a happy life, because there's ultimately a tremendous amount of selfishness involved - fine if you've got a "consenting" thing going, but then I think this case illustrates how those lines can be blurred, and how one person's pursuit of sexual fulfillment may infringe upon another person's well-being.

I don't begrudge anyone their carefully considered lifestyle, but I do tend to wonder if there aren't those who go along with the things we've read about here because it's expected of them or they feel they have no choice, and whether such a thing might ever dawn upon a dominant partner who may ultimately be so fixated upon his or her own satisfaction that they might not ever wonder about any potential misgivings on the part of their partner.
posted by kgasmart at 7:24 PM on February 18, 2006

try Catholic marriage, where there's no such thing as a safeword.

yeah, and when you get out of that contract, you get damned to hell!
posted by scody at 7:27 PM on February 18, 2006

This just in : Everyone with the last name Frey will get into trouble for things they've written.
posted by grex at 7:37 PM on February 18, 2006

grex: getting into trouble might not be so unpleasant if you get to make several million dollars first.
posted by peeping_Thomist at 7:40 PM on February 18, 2006

Not to be picking on the leather people; it just seems like every Dom/sub enthusiast I encounter winds up reminding me of that guy you met who doesn't own a television, and boy, does he want you to know about it!

That makes perfect sense, as the people who aren't concerned with your knowledge of their viewing habits or sex lives aren't likely to tell you.
posted by cytherea at 7:41 PM on February 18, 2006

Those with their panties in a bunch about this poor soul facing felony time for the rape of his wife will be happy to know that it's for the kidnapping and kiddie porn that he's facing felony time. The domestic battery offense date is on a different and earlier date than the attempted kidnapping, and the domestic battery charge appears to be filed as a misdemeanor per the court's website public info.
posted by onegreeneye at 7:43 PM on February 18, 2006

Ah, Metafilter, where people speculate both ways on negligible information in order to confirm their biases!

"I like BDSM, so obviously, she's a lying bitch!"

"I think this is fucked up, so he should go to prison forever!"

"You're a square douchebag!"

"You're countancing abuse!"
posted by klangklangston at 7:51 PM on February 18, 2006

peeping_Thomist: I thought I made it pretty clear by the couple of sentences following : such relationships are not "sick" if both adults are willing participants in such agreements, that two people who are able to fulfill their sexual fantasies with each other in a mutually respectful and consentual way doesn't make them "freaks" or "sickos." I said:

Some people like that stuff and the contract, in and of itself, doesn't make the guy a freak or a rapist if his wife was just as eager to be his sex slave as he was to have her, even if he comes across as a little bratty, juvenile, and asshattish.

Are you arguing with me for the sake of arguing? Of course I have known fucked up people who make each other worse by being together, but I thought it was obvious that is not what I meant. Not everyone likes it vanilla, and I believe those people who are willing to fulfill each others sexual desires while catering to their own, is a pretty healthy way to get off as long as respect and consideration are key. What's fucked up about that?
posted by Meredith at 7:55 PM on February 18, 2006

Interesting: The court file also shows (online) that his bond for allegedly raping his wife on one date and attempting to kidnap her on another, is $10K. But the bond for 12 counts of sexual exploitation of a minor is $6,500. And, he's gone back to live with his parents. I hope they have parental controls on their computer.
posted by onegreeneye at 7:56 PM on February 18, 2006

"I honestly don't see anything that indicates that this was a consenual thing for the wife. . . I have no way of knowing whether this was ever merely a kinky consenual thing, but I just don't see any sign that it was, or that he even thought it was, given the tone of the "agreement".

You don't have any familiarity with the master / slave BDSM mindset, so I'm surprised that you can arbitarily judge that the contract was non-consentual.

Do you honestly think that a sane husband goes up to a wife of nine years who has never expressed a strong interest in submission and kink, surprising her with a master/slave contract for Valentine's Day, or perhaps as an anniversary present?

Sure, it's entirely possible, but is it likely? No. He would probably be too ashamed to openly admit to such a desire if he felt that his churchgoing wife would be repelled by it.

There are several clues in the contract that indicate to me that it wasn't formed in some kind of one-sided void, as suggested by you.

1> The contract talks about "special events" that she is to "dress up for" to his approval. This, to me, seems to indicate a high likelihood that the two have attended BDSM parties, fetish events, taken part in public sceneing, or possible sex parties in the past. This is perhaps further indicated by his odd statement about how she should be naked at bedtime if they go somewhere to stay with others, or have other guests over as company.

2> The contract specifically mentions special purchase of sex toys and sexy attire on birthdays and anniversaries. That, to me, indicates a likelihood of an established non-vanilla relationship.

3> The whole section on taking nude photos reminds me of many things I have seen before in the BDSM scene. There are many journals on LJ (and elsewhere...) which are created by submissives on order from their masters, where they anonymously share news about their sex lives, often share pictures, and act out on their exhibitionist tendencies. Likewise, there are many non-private BDSM diaries which are kept which contain such things. These diaries are often seen as a way for the submissive to process their feelings. Keep in mind that the sexually submissive mindset is often very fragile, based in many cases on a background of sexual abuse. They often have a lot of issues to work out, and diaries are one way they can do this, and deal with their dark desires.

Really, I know submissives who would love to have a relationship such as this with a loving master. It's wrong to look at one of these contracts and see only horrible abuse, rather than two people getting what they want and need to feel good.

The contracts that I cited in my prior comment clearly indicate that the desire is there amongst both dominants and submissives for these arrangements. To look at one such contract without any real knowledge of the powerful, consentual, and ideally loving exchange of power going on here and call it a likely sign of abuse is simply a sign of not knowing much about the subject in question.

In any event, I don't think this "contract" should mean a damn thing in court. It's not evidence of abuse. On first glance amongst those who know nothing of such things, the contract appears to be horribly prejudicial, but if it is handled by a skilled defense team capable of communicating to the jury that this is, infact, pretty normal behavior in some BDSM relationships, then it could even indicate to the jury that the two were engaged in a pretty kinky relationship whether the contract was signed or not, and it could be used to justify any sexual misconduct on his part, whether he was guilty or not.

So, really, it can cut both ways. I think it would be best for it to not be entered into evidence, frankly.
posted by insomnia_lj at 7:57 PM on February 18, 2006

The contract talks about "special events" that she is to "dress up for" to his approval. This, to me, seems to indicate a high likelihood that the two have attended BDSM parties, fetish events, taken part in public sceneing, or possible sex parties in the past.

Whoa, that's a biiiig stretch. Domestic violence victims often describe rules their abusers set out defining
who they're allowed to talk to, when they can use the phone, how they're to speak in public and specifically how they are to dress, especially when this could reflect upon the abuser, i.e., going out to parties, work get togethers, family gatherings, etc. These rules often go so far as to dictate how to wear makeup, whether to wear nail polish, approval of hairdo, whether or not to smoke, etc. Isolation followed by increasingly controlling behavior are fairly typical of most domestic violence situations, and don't necessarily by any means indicate participation in "BDSM parties and fetish events."
posted by onegreeneye at 8:15 PM on February 18, 2006

Which, once again, leads to "this contract could mean really normal BDSM thing A, or really normal domestic abuse thing B, so there isn't enough evidence to call it one way or the other".
posted by bugbread at 8:23 PM on February 18, 2006

Delia Day had a contract. She also shot her husband in the chest with a shotgun.
posted by klangklangston at 8:27 PM on February 18, 2006

"Linking to an actual contract shows how amateurish and insipid Frey's is in comparison, insomnia."

The contracts I linked to *weren't* actual contracts, though. They were the BDSM equivalent of "form letters" -- examples of what they feel that an ideal contract should look like. It's like comparing a picture perfect "sample resume" against a real one. A real resume might be much more informative in some ways, but it is also likely to be less professional and to have more errors.

In any event, the guy isn't being charged with being a kinky, misogynist pig the last I looked. He either abused his wife or he did not. I would feel much better about the charges if they were backed up with DNA evidence from a rape kit.

As for the half dozen child porn charges, it sounds to me like he probably had a large porn collection on his computer -- many kinksters do -- and had his computer seized by the police, who found a half dozen pics of minors on it, amongst everything else. That's not much really, and could be entirely accidental. Last I heard, "hot teens" was a pretty popular search online, but there's no guarantee that you're going to get pictures of someone over 18 or not.

It seems odd and inane to get charged for molestering an innocent yoot whose picture could be stuck in your browser caches, especially when they are probably an adult by now.

My wife and I have a few porn vids, but I can't say that either of us asked how old the stars were at the time we bought the movies.

"I don't personally subscribe to the notion that the utter fulfillment of one's sexual fantasties is a necessity for a happy life..."

It may seem odd for me to say this, given that I live with my wife and my girlfriend, but I completely agree with you. A lot of those I know who are kinky or who are interested in multiple relationships have problems with the mainstream poly and BDSM scenes, as those who are well known and most active are... well... "well known" and "most active".

It's hard for them to identify with a scene that is often profligate and flighty, without a lot of emphasis on loving relationships, when what they really want is a reliable, dependable source of love... albeit in a slightly different flavor than others might prefer. I think it's the same, really, whether you're talking about the gay community, the lesbian community, the bisexual community, or just about any other sex-oriented scene you could define.

So, no... for me and a whole buncha people who live "deviant lifestyles", it's much more about the love than the sex.
posted by insomnia_lj at 8:34 PM on February 18, 2006

Delia Day had a contract. She also shot her husband in the chest with a shotgun.
posted by klangklangston at 8:27 PM PST on February 18 [!]

Oh! Bratty! Wait...does that earn good or bad time in the BDSM world?
posted by onegreeneye at 8:37 PM on February 18, 2006

Not being allowed to laugh at this is like not being allowed to laugh at Mormon underwear.
posted by johngoren at 8:40 PM on February 18, 2006

Domestic violence victims often describe rules their abusers set out defining
who they're allowed to talk to... Isolation followed by increasingly controlling behavior are fairly typical of most domestic violence situations...
posted by onegreeneye at 8:15 PM PST on February 18 [!]
Woah, thats a BROAD Generalaization. My wife is controlling and likes to tell me who I can call on the phone, and tries to tell me how to dress when we go out. I ignore her and aside from her childish attitude, whining and acting like I dont care about her because I dont give into her childish demands, I dont necessarily find her to be abusive and violent.

Its the abuse and the violence that make me find her abusive and violent.

Point being, just because someone is a little childish and controlling, doesnt make them violent. This guy seems like he never grew up, and his wife seemed ok with it for a while. She got tired of his crap or he went to far, and now she is bringing up all of his weirdness to further her case.
posted by subaruwrx at 8:43 PM on February 18, 2006

"The contract talks about "special events" that she is to "dress up for" to his approval. This, to me, seems to indicate a high likelihood that the two have attended BDSM parties, fetish events. . .

Whoa, that's a biiiig stretch."

Not if they're kinky, it ain't! It's de rigeur that she dress sexily.

I only get involved in dressing my wife up to go out somewhere occasionally. Those times, however, have mostly been for fetish-related events.

If you're marginally kinky and go out with someone to such events, it's usually a matter of going in fetishware, leather, or lacing them into a corset. It's fun and sexy.

If you're in a master/slave relationship, however, you may want to bring them on a leash and collar.
posted by insomnia_lj at 8:59 PM on February 18, 2006

Want to know a big stretch? Proposing a serious BDSM contract to someone who has no interest at all in a submissive, kinky relationship and whose only extracurricular interest is taking their kids to church on Sunday... with or without panties.

It's almost like uptight hetrosexuals thinking that just because someone is gay, they want to salivate all over your body and bugger your bum.

Odds are, the evil perverts in question would rather find other evil perverts to get jiggy with.
posted by insomnia_lj at 9:14 PM on February 18, 2006

Yeah, I'm going to break the 'thou shalt not criticize someone else's fetish' commandment of the sex-positive religion and say that if you get off on dominating another human being then yes, you are fucked up.*

* That being a value judgment made by me. That said, I wouldn't want to befriend you.
posted by Space Coyote at 9:47 PM on February 18, 2006

MetaFilter: Maybe the bitch was asking for it.
posted by Space Coyote at 9:48 PM on February 18, 2006

subaruwrx: The point was to illustrate that his controlling behavior, penned in his contract, mirrors that which occurs in domestic violence relationships (and thus the battery, kidnapping and rape allegations eventually) vs. it instead being "Ah ha!" perfect evidence that the wife was involved in the BDSM community, the latter seeming to me a stretch. Your equating the allegations of rape and kidnapping on different occassions with the accused being immature and the victim being conniving ...well I cant even begin to address that.
posted by