case: (Default)
Case ([personal profile] case) wrote in [community profile] fandomsecrets2016-02-02 06:51 pm

[ SECRET POST #3317 ]


⌈ Secret Post #3317 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.
[D.Gray-man - Miranda Lotto]


__________________________________________________



06.
[The Thick of It]


__________________________________________________



07.
[Golden Kamui]


__________________________________________________



08.
(The Lost Boys)


__________________________________________________



09.
[Marble Hornets/troyhasacamera]


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.
[@midnight with Chris Hardwick]



















Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 037 secrets from Secret Submission Post #474.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Re: Well that was not ok.

(Anonymous) 2016-02-03 01:05 am (UTC)(link)
I would say that that invalidates your consent for whatever you did on cam. You were deceived into thinking it was a stranger, when it wasn't. t's like the 'bed-trick' in reverse

Re: Well that was not ok.

(Anonymous) 2016-02-03 01:09 am (UTC)(link)
WTF? Not knowing whose at the other end is a risk webcam and phone sex workers take. There's no fine print that says "I will end all transmission if I know the worker."

Re: Well that was not ok.

(Anonymous) 2016-02-03 01:11 am (UTC)(link)
DA

I'd say it invalidates the consent in the relationship, actually, unless they'd previously agreed on terms of semi-anonymous webcam sexytime.

Re: Well that was not ok.

(Anonymous) 2016-02-03 01:11 am (UTC)(link)
This doesn't sound like he just stumbled upon her. this sound like he sought her out for "Tugs and giggles".

Re: Well that was not ok.

(Anonymous) 2016-02-03 01:15 am (UTC)(link)
she didn't just accidentally talk her grand-dad off. her bf tracked her to her place of work, pretend to be someone else and took sexual gratification from her without disclosing his relationship to her.

Re: Well that was not ok.

(Anonymous) 2016-02-03 01:19 am (UTC)(link)
where I live that would be legally qualified as rape-by-deception

Re: Well that was not ok.

(Anonymous) 2016-02-03 01:23 am (UTC)(link)
[X] doubt

poast laws I have never heard that version of rape by deception anywhere

Re: Well that was not ok.

(Anonymous) 2016-02-03 01:23 am (UTC)(link)
No it fucking wouldn't. He didn't fuck her. He wasn't even in the same fucking building.

Re: Well that was not ok.

(Anonymous) 2016-02-03 01:24 am (UTC)(link)
Where you live, to clients have to swear they don't know the worker?

Re: Well that was not ok.

(Anonymous) 2016-02-03 01:33 am (UTC)(link)
Sweden, right?

Re: Well that was not ok.

(Anonymous) 2016-02-03 01:10 am (UTC)(link)
I was thinking this, but I didn't want to be one of those anons who pipe up with OMG YOU WERE RAPED! every time a guy does something wrong, but this is pretty grey area as far as consent goes