Comment on Sharon's LuckSubmitted by: AnonymousScott's fiction of Sept. 4, 01 puts us in the mind of Sharon, a 36 year old executive wrongly convicted of prostitution, and sentenced to public chastity and correction, going about her daily life locked in an assortment of very severe and humiliating restraints. In all, a very interesting fantasy and an effective work of art, in that elements of it linger in the reader's imagination. On reflection, how fantastic, how improbable is Sharon's Luck? Do we think it possible a person might be convicted of a crime she did not commit? Yes, but there probably would be an appeal on the grounds of entrapment. Yet, given Sharon's own recollection of the videotaped encounter with the undercover officer at the bar, her "kidding", her "little game" of acting like a prostitute may have been too convincing, and the conviction is plausible. Actually, I suspect the police, prosecutor, judge and a jury (if there were one) really would believe in their hearts that a successful executive like Sharon probably was having a sexual adventure, playing a game. But they would choose nevertheless to give a literal interpretation of her solicitation for prostitution. Because Sharon is guilty of a crime which is not on the statute books, but which is more offensive to community standards than commercial prostitution. She set out for an evening of adventure, confident that she could make a choice of any man she might encounter and that he would readily consent to be her sexual partner for the night. Almost everyone in the community would be glad to see a person such as Sharon branded as guilty of a shameful crime and subject to public humiliation. Women's rights organizations would, of course, object to the sexually titilating (pornographic) aspects of her "correction", but probably would reserve their big legal guns for a victim of miscarried justice with whom they would have more sympathy. So I think we have to consider Sharon's conviction for prostitution to be a plausible fiction. Experimental programs of alternative sentencing to avoid the public expense of incarceration are being tried out everywhere. Nevertheless, I don't think any of us really believe that a sentencing program like that which our fictional Sharon is subjected to would be enacted in any jurisdiction we know of. But read Scott's text with care. He makes it obvious that some of the unacceptable severity to which Sharon is subject is due to the misconduct of a single sadistic and vindictive Department of Corrections employee, for instance the specirfication that plugs for her vagina and rectum be sized extra large. And that the metal belt for her 27 inch waist be sized at 22 inches. But wait a moment. Community standards, not to speak of Constitutional prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment, would not in our society at this point endorse judicially imposed vaginal and rectal plugs, regardless of size. But back again to Scott's text. The judge specified only public chastity and correction (or restraint). The details seem to have been left to Department of Corrections officials. We enter Sharon's mind when her body has been two years in restraint. She is walking down the street, but because of knee hobbles and extreme high heels, with mincing steps. This causes her breasts, root cinched (Thank you, Scott, for that term and concept) to flop around in the grotesquely large plastic breast forms. And this in turn causes a jolly tinkling of small bells attached to the nipples, thus drawing the attention of anyone who already is not staring at the spectacle our Sharon presents. Sharing this episode with Sharon so moved me that I experienced my first and only spontaneous, waking emission of seminal fluid. But now fiction has gone beyond plausibility. Two years of daily enemas? What are the chances of toxic shock syndrome during two years of a plugged vagina? And it's unlikely Sharon would be able to walk at all after two years in those shoes.
[ Comments continue in part 2 ] Page last updated 02-Jun-04 by: Altairboy@aol.com |