If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Lexington Herald Leader)   Kentucky couple fill out "sex-slave" contract. Notarize and file it with county clerk   (kentucky.com) divider line 49
    More: Stupid  
•       •       •

10517 clicks; posted to Main » on 20 Feb 2002 at 10:07 AM (12 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



49 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread
 
2002-02-20 10:10:18 AM  
hmmm...sex slave...interesting...
 
2002-02-20 10:10:45 AM  
lool more ppl have clicked on this than the "cyanide attack on US embassy in italy foiled' article
 
2002-02-20 10:13:18 AM  
This is about the funniest, most retarded thing I have ever read. Only in Kentucky...
 
fb-
2002-02-20 10:15:54 AM  
Mr. And Mrs. Drew Curtis?
 
2002-02-20 10:16:03 AM  
It was accidentally notarized and filed in circuit court along with another legal document on Dec. 19, they said.

Whoops! OK, so what's up with this notary? I'd have to agree with Holmes, here:
"I'm married," he said. "Amanda's my friend. She thinks it's stupid. My wife thinks it's stupid. It's all a bunch of nothing."

Stupid, nothing, and I'll add "Asinine" myself. But you can't back out of a (notarized) contract saying, "We didn't mean it!" The police are absolutely right to prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law. Slavery might be something that you joke about, but I'd be d@mn careful about completely filling out paperwork, notarizing it, and sending it in with other paperwork. Sheesh!
 
2002-02-20 10:18:10 AM  
"The alleged contract appears to make Pinion a sexual slave to England for 25 years."

What Pinion did not know was that England likes to have sex with farm animals, hot pokers, and crazy glue
 
2002-02-20 10:18:54 AM  
"Webster's defines a contract as an agreement which is unbreakable before the law...unbreakable!"

Lionel Hutz R.I.P.
 
2002-02-20 10:19:04 AM  
That is too funny!
Sex Slave, eh? Kinky!
 
2002-02-20 10:23:51 AM  
Stevarooni: All contracts including illegal acts are automatically unenforceable and void before the law.
 
2002-02-20 10:28:37 AM  
My opinion of the human race isn't getting any better.
 
2002-02-20 10:28:51 AM  
I think the only fitting solution to this conundrum is to make them live by the contract. It's only fair.
 
2002-02-20 10:30:24 AM  
If the contract had been the only suspicious thing, I might have been swayed. But the classified ad, a psychic hotline, and a sex church? A ponderous preponderance of evidence.
 
2002-02-20 10:31:08 AM  
Stevarooni: Unless the court can prove that she actually was a slave they have no case. Just filling out a "fake" contract is not illigal, especially when both parties, of their own free will, filled it out. The only way they have a case is if she claims that he forced her to sign it, or if she actually was a "slave". Fat chance.
 
2002-02-20 10:37:10 AM  
There's some weeeeeeeeird things goin' on in Kentucky . . .
 
2002-02-20 10:38:40 AM  
Karpage - depends on whether there was a severability clause. And there usually is, although I doubt these clowns remembered to add one.
 
2002-02-20 10:40:54 AM  
...where can I get me one of these...or hey, maybe I should update my resume...
 
2002-02-20 10:42:58 AM  
Fenester: Very Solomon-like. Bravo!
 
2002-02-20 10:50:53 AM  
Slavery? After the Civil War? Ahhh... this is different... it's for a Liberal cause: kinky sex. So this time it's okay.
 
2002-02-20 10:56:27 AM  
But if Drew Curtis cannot fill out sex slave contracts, then the terrorists have already won...

./M
 
2002-02-20 11:09:31 AM  
Shuh, since when has kinky sex been a "liberal cause"?

As for people wanting contracts for themselves:

http://www.bdsm-online.com/articles/slave_contract.htm

http://www.sexuality.org/l/bdsm/slavecon.html

3Horn
 
2002-02-20 11:13:02 AM  
Any surprise that the guy's name is Ike?

"Ike loves you, Tina."
 
2002-02-20 11:15:40 AM  
3horn, Liberal causes are anything that don't generate taxes, husband-wife children, or moral instruction connected with a diety.
 
2002-02-20 11:18:48 AM  
this is just another example of a man cheating on his wife with a younger woman. i'm rather sure most people don't fill out sex slave contracts with there business partners. the article doesn't say they were doing it, but i bet they were. i can hear him now," oh honey she means nothing. that contract would never hold up in court."
 
2002-02-20 11:21:20 AM  
just thinking aloud here...but I wonder if you could work in a sex slave clause into a prenumptial agreement.

Now wouldn't that just be grand..."Dear, it says right here, 'you are my slave'"...or heck, it might say I am her slave. I really have no qualms either way.

Ok, maybe not the foundation for a great relationship...but it might still be worth a try...
 
2002-02-20 11:28:18 AM  
Gee Shuh, I think you might want to revise your requirements, you just made raising taxes a prime cause for the conservatives.

As for the other two, I don't exactly see liberals running out to create non-traditional families, and is there a particular deity that you have in mind for providing "moral instruction", or can any religion play this game?

3Horn
 
2002-02-20 11:39:09 AM  
What if it was "Volunteer Sex Servant" instead of "Sex Slave?"
 
2002-02-20 11:39:37 AM  

3horn:

In my view "generating taxes" = "making the money that goes to pay the tax revenue." In your view "generating taxes" = "making new tax laws and increasing tax percentages." Classic Liberal view on your part.Liberals are falling all over themselves to subsidize, normalize and "celebrate" the non-traditional family. Which goes back to #1 -- one parent (& other type) families usu. do not generate tax revenue... or if they do, don't generate much.Does it matter which diety? Liberals don't seem to discriminate about which religion, so why should my assertation?
 
2002-02-20 11:45:12 AM  
Thisisnotmike: yeah, or sex helper.
"Come right in....and I'd like to introduce you to Mabel, my sex helper."
 
2002-02-20 12:09:43 PM  
rofl Mme.Mersault
 
2002-02-20 12:09:57 PM  
Fb-,
Gotta love that risk taking statement, heh heh.

Mme Mersault,
I was wondering who would say that. heh heh again.

Personally,
I think this contract thing is good. No lawsuits from hot chocolate enemas can result now. Just imagine the fun ice cream creations you can create without worrying about legal recourse.
One banana split cumming right up...
 
2002-02-20 12:10:43 PM  
Holy farking shiat-balls that's where I live!!!!!
 
2002-02-20 12:17:50 PM  
I would like a contract to recieve mandatory hummers please...
 
2002-02-20 12:23:26 PM  
HAR HAR HAR The police have already investigated him and her...several times. I can just see it.

Policeman knocks on door
Women opens door
Women: Hello
Policeman: Are you a slave??
Women: No
Policeman: Are you being held against your will?
Women: No, that whole thing was just a joke
Policeman: I don't believe you, Im going to handcuff you and throw you in jail

Anyone see the irony in that???
 
2002-02-20 12:24:35 PM  
"a mini-business agreement for a psychic call-in line".

Bet they didn't see this coming.
 
2002-02-20 12:26:14 PM  
Well, the reason these dehumanizing sex-slave contracts have come into the news instead of healthy consentual sex is because of the ridiculous, wrong-headed morality of the Christian right! I mean, really, don't do this, don't do that, what business is it of yours, anyway. It is just a scheme for manipulating people, anyway. After all, everybody knows there is no God, they have scientifically proven that, you know. What a bunch of idiots!

Sorry, I haven't seen a single religious flame war today, and I was getting lonely.
 
2002-02-20 01:00:45 PM  
Diogenes
"If the contract had been the only suspicious thing, I might have been swayed. But the classified ad, a psychic hotline, and a sex church? A ponderous preponderance of evidence."

The correct quote on the church is "to allow people of all races and sexual orientation to practice their spiritual belief in any manner," It mentions nothing about sex being involved, sort of like Constantine giving permission for the cult of Christians the right to practice their wacked out religion with out being fed to lions.
 
2002-02-20 01:22:21 PM  
A quick correction, Kwix; Constantine did, in fact, make Christianity into the official religion of the Roman empire (I even think I remember reading somewhere that he required all citizens to be baptized by force, although I am not sure), so the comparison does not bear up as well. Your point was valid in that the statement seems to suggest that people were allowed to practice this spirituality without discrimination for having alternative sexual practices, rather than the spirituality requiring sexual practices. The same, unfortunately, could not be said of Constantine's Roman Empire and Christianity.
 
2002-02-20 01:39:27 PM  
Shuh,
3horn: In my view "generating taxes" = "making the money that goes to pay the tax revenue." ... one parent (& other type) families usu. do not generate tax revenue... or if they do, don't generate much.

That's absolute bullshiat. Look at the homosexual community as a perfect example -- do you really think that the religious right would be so afraid of The Gay Agenda (tm) if gay people didn't have a fair amount of cash? If you look at the highest paid people in the country, who thanks to the graduated income tax bear the brunt of gov't expenses, you'll find a much lower percentage of people with "traditional" (ie traditional christian) families than you do in blue collar demographics.

Does it matter which diety? Liberals don't seem to discriminate about which religion, so why should my assertation?
Because plenty of moral instruction supposedly from some diety is exactly a "liberal cause"; think buddhism my man. 7 years in tibet anyone? Also because the conservatives aren't interested in moral instruction that just tells you not to hurt other people; they want to make sure you don't do drugs, look at pr0n or have too much sex (especially if you're gay. Then you shouldn't have any at all.)

3horn 0wnz j00 on this one, sorry.
 
2002-02-20 01:42:26 PM  
Texcoco: What are you talking about? Roman orgies to the gods were widespread before Christianity became ascendant in the Empire. They even had Temples that had "Holy Prostitutes" and such. Are you saying this is what Christianity espoused?
 
2002-02-20 01:47:34 PM  
Took: Learn to read dewd, you are like making a discussion of a discussion of a discussion that had nothing to do with what you are talking about. Also, Buddhism has a diety? Lay that one on me, dewd. Who's their god?
 
2002-02-20 01:50:16 PM  
You are entirely missing my point.

Kwix tried to draw a parallel. He mentioned that this church they were trying to establish ACCEPTED all sexual practices without REQUIRING such sexual practices. He then said that Constantine paralleled this in the Roman Empire by ACCEPTING Christianity without REQUIRING it. This is not the case. Constantine, in fact, when he converted, both legally ACCEPTED and REQUIRED Christianity from all his citizens.

Kwix was trying to say that this church tolerated alternative sexual practices, and that Constantine tolerated Christianity. However, Constantine did not tolerate Christianity, but rather required it.

Make sense?
 
2002-02-20 01:57:03 PM  
Texacoco: "Well, the reason these dehumanizing sex-slave contracts have come into the news instead of healthy consentual sex is because of the ridiculous, wrong-headed morality of the Christian right!"
Pat Robertson authored this contract? Maybe it was Jesus?
 
2002-02-20 02:37:19 PM  
Shuh,

Please note the last comment. I was merely lamenting the lack of a good, juicy religious flamewar today, and giving my impression of some of the regulars here who blame Christianity for all of the world's evils. Everything was strictly tongue in cheek.

I do not know if you recall me from other comments lists, but I am usually (when I come here) one of the chief defenders/apologists for Christianity.
 
2002-02-20 02:42:34 PM  
Freaky idiots think they're soooo clever. Hey, Honey, I'm on disability so let's start a sex religion and a psychic hotline. We'll rake in the cash, taxfree! Hey, Honey, that hot coed next door who's being stalked by a classmate was over here today and we filled out a contract making her my sex slave. Funny, huh? We signed it with our real names to make it even creepier before we drove downtown and placed a classified ad for more hot coeds. Cool, huh? Hey, Honey, what's wrong? Are you crying?
 
2002-02-20 02:51:34 PM  
So the prosecutor is pushing this...why? Because they really believe that she was a slave under the legal definition? Hardly. More likely "Whoo hoo, we found a way to bust some perverts!"
 
2002-02-20 03:50:11 PM  
Texcoco: Regards... you forgot your </sarcasm> tags. A lot of what you said passes for state-of-the-art, left-wing thinking. Hard to keep track of who's scammin' whom around here sometimes...
 
2002-02-20 04:58:02 PM  

Man you all take a messed up story and turn this place into the McGlaughlin Hour (or whatever !) I think it's time to bring out the Gimp...

 
2002-02-20 09:56:26 PM  
How long befoer this finds it's way into a EULA? You could soon be quite literaly be Microsoft's biatch!
 
2002-02-20 10:01:47 PM  
100 years ago a 35 year old man would have married a 14 year old girl and had approximatly 10 to 15 children, this is a good example of a sex slave. The women of taday have it easy. All the men want are 3 children or less, if any at all! In the early days a woman had 8 children before the age of 24. So I suggest to all of you, (SIGN NO CONTRACTS AND YOU WILL NEVER BE A TOY OF THE NIGHT)! HAVE FUN YAW`LL!
 
Displayed 49 of 49 comments



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report