Sponsored Links
Top Lists and Directories
‘Revealing or bizarre costume’
Munchkins, I’m now recovered enough to return to blogging, and thanks for all the “get well” messages.
Here’s a little excerpt from an advice column that deals with the legality of going to a pro-domme:
[In Arisona] the law defines paying for “flagellation or torture by or on a person who is nude or clad in undergarments or in revealing or bizarre costume or the condition of being fettered, bound or otherwise physically restrained on the part of one so clothed” as illegal…
I suggest that if you live in Arizona, you go to pro-dommes dressed in a business suite, and request that they wear a twin-set and pearls. Or would that also be bizarre?
Comments
16 Responses to “‘Revealing or bizarre costume’”
Leave a Reply
I’d simply go to either California or Nevada. They’re close enough! ;)
That last pic of yours, from Spanking and Shame… Is it Borat?
“I suggest that if you live in Arizona, you go to pro-dommes dressed in a business suite, and request that they wear a twin-set and pearls. Or would that also be bizarre?”
Maybe that would be weird for a pro-Domme but for a Pro-Disciplinarian it is a very appropriate dress code :-)
Glad to hear that you are feeling better.
prefectdt
Smallhanded - Yes, a road trip would seem like the best option. Mind you, I don’t know what the laws are in the states next door…
S.K. - Yes, you guessed it!
Prefectdt - It all falls apart when it’s against the law to take your pants off, but I know a few people who can give a hell of a caning over trousers. So that would be OK.
Would like to see the court arguments over the definition of “bizarre.”
There is actually a conrtolling U.S. Supreme Court case on flagellation. Ward v. Illinois, 431 U.S. 967 (1973).
In October 1971, Ward was charged in the State of Illinois with having sold two obscene publications in violation of an Illinois statute: “Bizare World” and “Case Studies in Sado-Masochism.” He was fined $200 and sentenced to one day in prison. Ward claimed that his publications did not involve overt sexual acts; nor did theyinvolve nudity; and, therefore, did not constitute obscenity. He appealed through the Illinois state courts, and then to the United States Supreme Court.
The U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the Illinois Supreme Court, in part, because Ward’s materials fulfilled the prurient interest standard without having any redeeming social value. This kept the Illinois statuts from being overbroad.
So, if I’m going to be busted anyway, I think I’m better off just wearing my nickel-silver collar and, maybe, also a discipline mask.
N.B.:
In my state, we have a statute that states that, on beaches in state parks, genitals, substantially one-third of female breasts including nipples, and one-half of the buttocks of either sex be covered.
I’m not going to look up the citation, but to paraphrase Mr. Justice William O. Douglas in his dissent in “Miller”, “This may be so, but neither do most television programs, newspapers, or anything else that is published today have any ‘redeeming social value.’ “
In “Florida v. Aiuppa,” the Florida Supreme Court ruled against relatively clothed, non-overtly sexual BDSM upholding a Florida Statute which stated that,”Material, not otherwise obscene, may be deemed obscene under this section if the distribution thereof, or the offer to do so, or the possession with the intent to do so is a commercial exploitation of erotica solely for the sake of their prurient appeal.”
So, Adele, neither dress pants over plain cotton briefs (required by my prep school), nor gym shorts over a jock-strap (also required), will save me.
Exchange between Justice William O. Douglas and Washington Post publisher Kate Graham:
“Bill, I couldn’t beleive your dissent in “Miller.”
“Katie, personally, and not as a judge, I’m all in favor of enforcing reasonable community standards, and I don’t particularly like prurient materials with no redeeming social value. Then, again, Katie, personally, and not as a judge, I like to read “The Washington Post” with my morning coffee.”
That advice column has gone straight to my bookmarks.
Odd, in a way. Arizona, Florida and Texas are three of the states that still allow, and have the highest rate, of high-school paddlings. Pity that guilt prevents the state legislators from visiting a Dominatrix.
Arizona Cod3 15-843,
“Procedures for disciplining pupils, including the use of corporal punishment, are decided and allowed by governing board; use of corporal punishment is to be consistent with state board of education guidelines.”
Arizona Codw 15-843 (2008),
“Procedures for disciplining pupils, including the use of corporal punishment, are decided and allowed by governing board; use of corporal punishment is to be consistent with state board of education guidelines.”
Arizona Code 15-843 (2008),
“Procedures for disciplining pupils, including the use of corporal punishment, are decided and allowed by governing board; use of corporal punishment is to be consistent with state board of education guidelines.”
Poem by Trip
Tribute to A.E. Housman (most probably m/F):
With rue my heatd is laden,
for striped cheeks I had
For many a hard=eyed Mistress,
and many a kneeling lad.
That lad that knelt was I,
and though my knees did bled.
My soul I’d gladly give again,
If her Shrine I could again have fed.”
And Mistresses