The National Post writes about a young woman, who claims a car accident changed her personality after which she started working as a dominatrix. In order to win compensation her lawyers paint an inaccurate and misleading picture of pro-dommes.
|
| Mistress Sasha Mizaree |
I think the story originated from Canada, but I fail to see the logic. Medical science has a hard time understanding how the brain works even at it most basic level, yet a woman with a brain injury - or her lawyers - can perfectly argue how she is damaged goods and and has a limited ability to work and is unable to finish a degree.
Then there is a judge without sufficient medical training who has to render a verdict. Meanwhile everybody thinks it is perfectly OK to suggest that if all else fails a woman can always work as a pro domme, like it is only for those at the bottom of the food chain. I hate it. And it is very subtle, look at the before and after:
"Before the car accident, her teacher described her as a very bright student, in the top two per cent of her media-arts high school class..."
"After the accident, Alissa Afonina was a very different girl and eventually ended up working as a dominatrix."
Here is how you link cause and effect. First you smear those who dare to be sexually explicit, then you subtly connect kink to certain less desirable personality traits.
"She showed no impulse control, could not carry through on tasks, became isolated and began to have outbursts and make inappropriate sexual comments..."
Next you take out the big knives. Working as a dominatrix shows lack of "correct thinking" and the job requires "unnecessary risk taking":
"Lawyers for Afonina argued that her decision to begin working as a dominatrix at some point prior to her trial last year showed a lack of “correct thinking” and was proof she’d taken an unnecessary risk due to a loss of cognitive function from a moderate traumatic brain injury."
And it works. The judge agrees with the view of the defence.
"...Alissa’s work as a dominatrix supports the finding of some facts which support their ultimate view of the manifestations of the brain injuries..."
So there you have it: society's verdict on pro-dommes: a lesser class of people, stamped with the judge's seal of approval.
Personally I feel bad for the lady, who because of her accident, cannot pursue her original goals, but if her personality really changed and working as a pro-domme is what the new her likes, enjoy. One of the greatest privileges in life is making your own choices, without fear of being judged. The publicity that her court case has generated certainly won't make life any easier for her.
What if the accident had left her with working in a call center as only option? How much money would she have been awarded? Is this hypocrisy 2.0 or did the plaintiff's lawyers just invent Findom 2.0? Fifty Shades of Law does not make One Shade of Justice.
No comments :
Post a Comment