A Different Take on 'Sex Slaves'
I've occasionally posted entries about sharia's rulings on the permissibility of sex slaves, but I don't recall any posts of mine about sadomasochistic sex slaves, so in the spirit of equal coverage, here's a report on the topic, "S and M Slaves Sue Over Slave Labour" (The Austrian Times, September 11, 2013):
[Angry sadomasochists] are suing a dominatrix who promised them the thrill of a kinky life as slaves on her farm -- and then put them to work harvesting her crops . . . . Instead of whips and chains, the slaves found themselves pulling carrots and chopping wood.But I don't quite understand. As dominatrix, she was the sadist, so the slaves must have been the masochists. Why, then, didn't they enjoy the abuse? Note that they didn't immediately rebel:
"After a day or two they realised they'd been had and walked out."I'm assuming that two days are meant. If they needed more than five minutes on this particular farm to figure out that "sex slaves" meant "slaves of the male sex," not "slaves for sex," then they must have derived some satisfaction in submitting to the dominatrix. But you just can't please folks these days:
"[O]ne of them filed a complaint of illegal prostitution."Can that hold up in court? I thought the men's real complaint was that there wasn't any prostitution going on.
Labels: Toilet Humor