Wife and mistress team up to take revenge

84 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Tue, 2009-08-04 12:03

josh

A married man who planned to rendezvous with one of his handful of lovers at an eastern Wisconsin motel instead found himself bound, blindfolded and assaulted by a group of women out for revenge, according to court documents.

Four women, including his wife, eventually showed up to humiliate the man, who ended up with his penis glued to his stomach in a bizarre plot to punish him for a lover's quadrangle gone bad, according to the documents filed in Calumet County.

. . . .

Criminal complaints filed Friday allege the man agreed to be bound with "sheer sheets" and blindfolded with a pillowcase for a "rub down" by Ziemann. She instead cut off his underwear with a scissors and summoned the others to the room with a text message.

Ziemann struck the man in the face, and used Krazy Glue to attach his penis to his stomach when the other women arrived, according to the complaints.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iNgiwUUydNF4ludSZhGSw8wIuf1AD99RUL5O1

Tue, 2009-08-04 12:15

Doug

Not undeserved, but not right either.

Tue, 2009-08-04 12:23

Michelle

I admit that I laughed at the story at first because of the outlandish revenge angle (I mean, it sounds like something you'd see in a "zany romantic comedy" type movie), but I agree with Doug: not okay at all. This is a sexual assault.

Tue, 2009-08-04 12:26

Michelle

P.S. The main perpetrator is also married - see this at the end of the article?

Quote:
Ziemann's husband answered the telephone at their home and declined comment. There was no telephone listing for Belliveau.

So what the heck is she complaining about? :D

Tue, 2009-08-04 12:28

josh

"Ziemann told investigators she met the man online through Craigslist, fell in love and paid for his use of a room at the motel for the past two months. She said she gave him about $3,000. Then last Wednesday, she learned from the man's wife that he was married, had other girlfriends and was "using them for money." She expected the money to be repaid, according to the documents."

Tue, 2009-08-04 12:32

ElizaQ

Ditto Michelle. I had the same initial reaction. It does sound like something from a dark comedy. I just watched Monty Python's 'Meaning of Life' last night and I could just imagine.... It is real life though and it is wrong.

Tue, 2009-08-04 12:33

martin dufresne

But but... isn't it a fact that many men dream of group sex in motel rooms? And how about always being able to "get it up"? If Krazy Glue does the trick, who are we to judge? If a man volunteers to be blindfolded, tied up and abused, isn't it his constitutional right?...

People are so quck to pass judgment...

Tue, 2009-08-04 12:40

Michelle

Well, that sucks about the $3,000, but she was married herself! I wonder if she told HIM that. :D

Tue, 2009-08-04 12:46

Tommy_Paine

Bit of a sticky wicket. So to speak.

Either way one wants to argue what should be done, that arguement could be turned around against one in other cases.

If we resolutely look at this as agravated sexual assault, forceable confinement, and sentence these women to the max because we'd like to see male perpetrators of such offences treated the same, then there are those who would point to how, in the past, men have gotten off more lightly, and use it to accuse the court of gender bias in the case.

And, if the court uses the victim's actions leading up to the assault as some kind of mitigating factor, it seems to give creedence to the old "she was asking for it" arguement that men have used as mitigation in rape trials.

I don't know what the judge will do.

As a babbler, however, I think I'll not have an opinion for a while, until I gauge everyone elses, then come in on the safe side.

Chickenshit, you say?

Well, ya.

Tue, 2009-08-04 12:51

#10

Michelle

Ha! Well, the first thing I thought, after the initial "bad comedy scene" cheap laugh I got out of it, was that if it was a husband and two male lovers teaming up on a woman in this way, there would be no "cheap laugh". And I get why - it's because women are oppressed and men are not.

But this was a violent sexual assault, and it's not okay for that to happen to anyone, male or female, no matter what the "provocation".

Tue, 2009-08-04 12:57

#11

rural - Francesca rural - Francesca's picture

We must not have a "justification" lens for justice.

When I first started reading the article I thought it was simply they showed up together and confronted him, yep = busted!

But they went further and they need to pay the price.

Tue, 2009-08-04 13:03

#12

Tommy_Paine

" But this was a violent sexual assault, and it's not okay for that to happen to anyone, male or female, no matter what the "provocation". "

No, seriously, it's not a laughing matter.

In fact, if I could be honest, I have little sympathy for anyone who forceably confines another person, and messes with them sexually or otherwise. I see a six year sentence as being rather light.

Tue, 2009-08-04 13:05

#13

Michelle

Why do we have to admire that?

Tue, 2009-08-04 13:09

#14

martin dufresne

One has to admire the fact that, for once, women financially exploited by a man managed not to get turned against each other and found common cause (I did not write "bonded").

Tue, 2009-08-04 13:09

#15

martin dufresne

Because part of men's strategy is to play women against each other.

Tue, 2009-08-04 13:16

#16

Michelle

I'm trying to figure out how, in this case, the sexual assault victim (that would be the man) is "strategizing" to play them off on each other. Who "strategized" anything in this case besides the female perpetrators of this violent sexual assault?

Tue, 2009-08-04 13:18

#17

Michelle

And what do you mean, "for once"? Are you implying that women ALWAYS turn on each other every other time they're involved in some sort of triangle with a man and other women?

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you here, but I just feel like you're making some assumptions that are pretty unwarranted in this case, not only about men, but women as well.

Tue, 2009-08-04 13:27

#18

Snert

Quote:
One has to admire the fact that, for once, women financially exploited by a man managed not to get turned against each other and found common cause

Yes, they found "common cause" in sexually assaulting him over $3000.

Any particular reason that's admirable, to you? I mean, here's a guy who gets sexually assaulted by a group of women, and you'd like to carve their statues because they united together to commit a crime against him??

Tue, 2009-08-04 13:31

#19

Michelle

BTW, only one woman was "financially exploited" by him. As far as you know. Which, you don't. A perpetrator of a violent sexual assault claims she was "financially exploited" by her victim (that she was apparently cheating on HER husband with). Who knows if she's telling the truth? People come up with all sorts of reasons to excuse the violence they commit. Or, maybe she gave the money to the guy as a gift, and then after she found out he was married, decided it wasn't a "gift" after all. Or, maybe she was paying for the hotel room so that they'd have a place to go where her husband wouldn't find out about them.

Who knows? You sure don't. Neither do I. All you and the rest of us know is that this married woman gave her married boyfriend $3,000 and now she wants it back. And was willing to sexually assault him for it.

You know, torturing someone who owes you money isn't exactly progressive, or feminist.

Tue, 2009-08-04 13:31

#20

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

I suppose one could argue that he brought it on himself with his promiscuous behaviour and write it off, saying he "asked for it"... But then how do we object the next time a woman is sexually assaulted and the same arguments are trotted out? If we honestly think it's wrong to excuse the sexual assault of a woman on these grounds, we must be consistent or forfeit credibility.

Sorry, nobody deserves to be sexually assaulted. Divorced, taken for every penny, shunned and all that, but this kind of revenge is just sick.

Tue, 2009-08-04 13:38

#21

Unionist

Michelle wrote:

Well, that sucks about the $3,000, but she was married herself! I wonder if she told HIM that. :D

Why does it "suck" about the $3,000? She obviously paid him for sex. If she wasn't satisfied, surely the Better Business Bureau should have been her first stop ahead of the hardware store.

Tue, 2009-08-04 13:43

#22

Tommy_Paine

Okay, leaving gender aside, are there ever mitigating circumstances for unlawfully confining someone and messing around with their genitalia in a non consentual situation?

Tue, 2009-08-04 14:24

#23

Snert

You mean besides the evidently admirable goal of getting women together in "common cause"? Isn't that enough reason to cheer?

Tue, 2009-08-04 14:36

#24

remind

Revenge is a dish left best unserved, it is not an admirable trait to encourage.

And sexual assault is never a go.

Tue, 2009-08-04 14:50

#25

marzo

martin dufresne wrote:

Because part of men's strategy is to play women against each other.

Are you bragging? Speak for yourself.

Tue, 2009-08-04 14:52

#26

martin dufresne

I have always felt that one of the great unsurfaced issues about gender relations is the money men manage to take women for, using romance.

It is easy to dismiss this as "her paying him for sex", as does our increasingly predictable Unionist, but it rarely is that clearcut. Men ask for "loans", use well-honed sob stories, dangle the hope of a long-term relationship; and they often play this con job on a number of women simultaneously as StickyDick seems to have done (yes, it was wrong, I agree, and these women will surely be horribly punished, more than any male assaulter, for their crime de lèse-majesté...) .

These men sometimes get the loot by involving women in criminal activity such as welfare fraud, forging cheques, shoplifting, pimping them, etc. but it's the going after their own money I am looking at. This systematic fraud pattern is an issue I would like to research more fully, if someone can suggest references.

Yes, I do know there are also "gold-diggers" out there, and of course men whine about paying for sex (in a patriarchal system where they defend prostitution tooth and nail), but the pattern of so many women being literally fleeced by manipulative male "lovers" is something else, a submerged element of patriarchy.

Tue, 2009-08-04 15:00

#27

Snert

Quote:
and they often play this con job on a number of women simultaneously as StickyDick seems to have done

1. Where does the story say that any of the other three gave the victim any money? You're just making that part up, aren't you?

2. "StickyDick"?? I'm genuinely surprised that you're permitted to make fun of a sex assault victim like this on a progressive board. Good to know where the limits are, though. Mods: will this be permitted on the feminism board as well?

Tue, 2009-08-04 15:08

#28

Unionist

This thread highlights another of the risks of polygamy.

Tue, 2009-08-04 15:10

#29

remind

OFFS, a man playing politics with the feminist forum is always such a pleasant experience snert!

How about you t ake exception to martin's words without involving the feminist forum, okay?!!

Tue, 2009-08-04 15:24

#30

Ghislaine

unionist - some would argue that this thread highlights one of the benefits of polygamy - no secrets. The four women would have known about each other.

Tue, 2009-08-04 15:24

#31

martin dufresne

Snert snorted: "Where does the story say that any of the other three gave the victim any money? You're just making that part up, aren't you?"

From the hyperklinked news story: "...last Wednesday, she (Sewell) learned from the man's wife that he was married, had other girlfriends and was "using them for money."

Tue, 2009-08-04 15:26

#32

josh

That doesn't necessarily mean he gave money to the other participants.

Tue, 2009-08-04 15:34

#33

remind

get up to speed josh, no one said he was giving them money, not even the article, he apparently was taking it, which is still no excuse for sexual assault.

Tue, 2009-08-04 15:34

#34

martin dufresne

Which is why I wrote "seems to have done".

It should be clear that I am discussing a pattern of males exploiting females, not this particular case, of which we know almost nothing at this stage.

Tue, 2009-08-04 15:44

#35

martin dufresne

Relevant Wisconsin legislation:

Fourth-degree Sexual Assault
Fourth-degree sexual assault is often called molestation; it is nonconsensual sexual contact with another person.
Under Wisconsin law, 4th Degree Sexual Assault is a Class A Misdemeanor.

Misdemeanor Charges
A misdemeanor is a criminal charge. Misdemeanor offenses are a lessor offense than a felony, but they are not without penalties, some of which can have very devastating effects on a person's life including the inability to obtain certain jobs, qualify for bonding, or receive governmental aid such as school loans.
Under Wisconsin law, misdemeanors are classified according to their severity. Each misdemeanor classification provides recommendations for jail sentences and forfeitures (fines). A person convicted of a misdemeanor can be incarcerated into a county or local jail, ordered to pay a fine, or both. If a person is a repeat offender, the punishment is more severe. Additional penalties may also apply.

MISDEMEANOR CLASSIFICATIONS
Wisconsin's misdemeanor classifications include: Class A misdemeanor, Class B misdemeanor, and Class C misdemeanor.

Class A Misdemeanor
The penalty for a Class A misdemeanor may include a fine up to $10,000, or imprisonment for up to 9 months, or both; however, for a repeat offender, the term of imprisonment may increase up to 2 years.

Source

Tue, 2009-08-04 16:02

#36

Snert

Quote:

From the hyperklinked news story: "...last Wednesday, she (Sewell) learned from the man's wife that he was married, had other girlfriends and was "using them for money."

So your source is a soon-to-be-convicted felon? :)

As I understand it, one of the women was not involved with this man either romantically or financially, but went along just for the fun of it. But you keep believing that the women were somehow the real victims, if that's important to you. It's kind of disgusting, but hey.

Tue, 2009-08-04 16:08

#37

remind

Well snert.. to be exact, they were victim's too, at least some of them. That they in turn victimized him, does not take away the reality that he was victimizing them, initially, it was just a different form.

And you calling other's actions disgusting in this thread hardly means a thing, take the mote out.

Tue, 2009-08-04 16:10

#38

martin dufresne

Hey, I just feel a bit of schadenfreude here and you don't.

I like your notion of "soon-to-be-convicted felon"; have you considered a career in law-and-order? (BTW, it's not a felony but a misdemeanour, but who's counting where penises are at stake?)

Tue, 2009-08-04 16:18

#39

Snert

Quote:
(BTW, it's not a felony but a misdemeanour, but who's counting where penises are at stake?)

Oh yes, of course. Authorities are sure to up the charge to a felony because there was a penis involved.

Or else maybe it will be because false imprisonment is a felony.

Again, though, feel free to believe whatever gets you through the night, Martin.

Quote:

Well snert.. to be exact, they were victim's too, at least some of them. That they in turn victimized him, does not take away the reality that he was victimizing them, initially, it was just a different form.

I heard that Rihanna provoked Chris Brown. Anyone want to discuss that? We could start a thread called "First Victim, Last Word" or something like that, though it seems a bit tacky to me. How this thread turned into a discussion of whether the victim did or did not do something to provoke this is beyond me. How is that appropriate?

Tue, 2009-08-04 16:30

#40

martin dufresne

Well, at least, I am glad to see so much empathy from some males here for victims of sexual humiliation and assault. Now how do we get you good folks onside for law and enforcement reform in the 95% of cases where the victims are female, threatened with revictimization in Court and the assaulters walk with nary a slap on the wrist? Or do only penises count?

Tue, 2009-08-04 16:32

#41

Snert

Are you really suggesting that if four men ganged up on a woman who owed them money, blindfolded her, beat her and glued her genitals together we would be unsympathetic?

Please don't be mealymouthed with your answer. Is that what you're suggesting?

Tue, 2009-08-04 16:47

#42

Unionist

How do people get so excited about an irrelevant sensational news story from this barbaric society south of the border? Mind you, I guess it's a handy platform from which to fulminate about one's preconceived notions - whether they fit the facts of the ridiculous "news" story or not.

Tue, 2009-08-04 16:50

#43

martin dufresne

I don't answer leading hypothetical questions based on irrealistic premises. (With all I am saying, you'd think it unnecessary to go at what you claim I'm suggesting...)

I am commenting on the reality of sexual assault where most men and male systems are more than unsympathetic - they even beat their meat to it in mainstream pornography.

Tue, 2009-08-04 17:01

#44

Snert

What part of "please don't be mealymouthed" didn't you get?

Never mind. That you seem to love to smear "men" in general is unfortunate. That you lack the courage to even own up to it is sad.

Quote:
[dishonest lie]I am commenting on the reality of sexual assault where most men and male systems are more than unsympathetic[/dishonest lie]

You're not talking about 'males and male systems'. You quite clearly directed your smear at "some males here/you good folks" and how you'd get us "onside".

Tue, 2009-08-04 17:34

#45

Timebandit Timebandit's picture

martin dufresne wrote:

I have always felt that one of the great unsurfaced issues about gender relations is the money men manage to take women for, using romance.

It is easy to dismiss this as "her paying him for sex", as does our increasingly predictable Unionist, but it rarely is that clearcut. Men ask for "loans", use well-honed sob stories, dangle the hope of a long-term relationship; and they often play this con job on a number of women simultaneously as StickyDick seems to have done (yes, it was wrong, I agree, and these women will surely be horribly punished, more than any male assaulter, for their crime de lèse-majesté...) .

These men sometimes get the loot by involving women in criminal activity such as welfare fraud, forging cheques, shoplifting, pimping them, etc. but it's the going after their own money I am looking at. This systematic fraud pattern is an issue I would like to research more fully, if someone can suggest references.

Yes, I do know there are also "gold-diggers" out there, and of course men whine about paying for sex (in a patriarchal system where they defend prostitution tooth and nail), but the pattern of so many women being literally fleeced by manipulative male "lovers" is something else, a submerged element of patriarchy.

Not that I accept the premise that men frequently use romance to swindle women of their money as all that wide-spread, but still, I don't think it excuses sexual assault. Take him to court, charge him with fraud - but his actions do not negate "no means no" any more than we'd excuse the sexual assault and illegal confinement of a "gold-digger".

If we want to have equality, we can't have double standards.

ETA: Now I've got that wretched Carrie Underwood song running through my head. Repulsive.

Tue, 2009-08-04 17:40

#46

Stargazer

Snert wrote:

Are you really suggesting that if four men ganged up on a woman who owed them money, blindfolded her, beat her and glued her genitals together we would be unsympathetic?

Please don't be mealymouthed with your answer. Is that what you're suggesting?

No snert just doesn't really give a rat's ass about rape and women. But when it comes to a man, he's calling for heads to roll.

Tue, 2009-08-04 17:58

#47

martin dufresne

I'll just wait for Letterman's "Ten Reasons Not To Mess With Women in Fond du Lac, Wisconsin."

Tue, 2009-08-04 18:07

#48

Rexdale_Punjabi Rexdale_Punjabi's picture

All Im gonna say about the discussion is Martin *nods head*

but should a person's group and their standing in society not be taken into account during sentencing?

Aint this one of the reeasons hate crime laws are supposed to be there?

As for sentencing no comment I got a huge problem with the prison shitstem and so ye Someone said 6 years do you know how long that is? Go close the door and stay alone in your room for 15-20 minutes. You probably cant. There's former BPP members who been in solitary for over 35 years.

That's all

Tue, 2009-08-04 18:34

#49

Snert

Quote:
But when it comes to a man, he's calling for heads to roll.

I am?

Where? I don't see anywhere where I even mention punishment, assuming there's even a conviction.

Was this jab just a reflex, maybe? Or else where are you seeing this?

Tue, 2009-08-04 19:13

#50

martin dufresne

The actual complaint lodged against the women and their own account. One can doubt whether the FALSE IMPRISONMENT - PTAC, AS A PARTY TO A CRIME count will stand, given that Davis agreed to be tied up and blindfolded.

Tue, 2009-08-04 21:55

#51

500_Apples

Martin,

BDSM games are usually played with safe words and such. Yes someone can agree to be blindfolded, but that doesn't mean they can be blindfolded indefinitely.

For whatever reason, this is a big joke to you.

Pages

Topic locked