The worst thing is that this will give some men *ideas*.
COUNCIL BLUFFS, Iowa -- An Iowa man is accused
of kidnapping his wife, and prosecutors allege he devised a marriage
contract to establish what his wife was to do, and when she was to do
it. Travis Frey, 33, is accused, among other things, of giving his wife chances to win "good behavior days."
Frey
is already charged with first-degree kidnapping, which is a crime
punishable by life in prison without parole. Frey also faces a charge
of domestic assault causing bodily injury on his wife. "The allegations are that he confined and subjected his wife to sexual abuse," said Pottawattamie County Attorney Matt Wilber.
According
to court records, Frey's wife told police her husband tied her to their
bed with a rope and sexually assaulted her at least three times. Frey's
wife also provided police with an alleged "marriage contract," which
was entitled "Contract of Wifely Expectations."
In it, Frey allegedly
gave his wife chances to earn "good behavior days" -- or GBDs -- by
complying with certain demands, such as hygiene and self-care. "You
will shave every third day," the contract states. "You will be naked
within 20 minutes of the kids being in bed." The document spells out how many points can be earned by performing certain sex acts. Frey's wife said she never signed the contract."
I
don't know how they can tie this to my client making any demands on his
wife. I mean, I could have put these together. I mean, there's no
names. There's names on them and everything, but anyone could have put
these documents together," McGinn said.Frey was in court Friday
after he turned himself in to Pottawattamie County authorities on
separate charges of downloading child pornography onto his home
computer. A judge told the Council Bluffs man that the charges stem
from March 2005. Frey's attorney, Bill McGinn, said the Pottawattamie County Attorney's Office must prove their case." They
have to show, first of all, what the images are. Second, they have to
show he was the one that actually did the downloading," McGinn said.Frey's attorney said he intends to plead not guilty on all counts, and is expected to bond out of jail this week.
Oh my God. How could someone receive a document like that and *not* run
for the hills? That's the creepiest, sickest thing I've ever seen! Because running for the hills WITH your children, prior to gaining full
custody (good luck with that) gets you jailed and leaves your kids in
the care of the nutter.
Yeah, sure, some women like being dominated and ordered around, or
humiliated, or even rough-housed (and we've all dated some of them).
But that contract just ain't sexy. There's no fun in it. It's tedious
and the guy comes across as a pussy, not a dominant guy.
"Good Behavior Days"? It sounds
like a bureaucrat or an accountant fantasizing about being a prison
warden. It's just not sexy. It's sick, but it's not sexy. Whether she signed it or not, such a contract is basically one of
slavery, or at best servitude, isn't it? Which is to say, not legally
binding, right? I mean, even if you signed such a document, which she
says she didn't, it's not like he can use it as an affirmative defense
in court?
Does it get any better if I tell you that a lot of men out there who
would happily sign such a contract and live by it. I mean heterosexual,
employed, church-going men. And if you adapt the dressing rules then
you get an even larger number of men...
During My Time you -
WILL:
1) Be subservient, submissive, and totally obedient.
2) To do what you are asked, when you are asked, exactly how you are asked.
3) Be cheerful and adoring towards me.
The whole thing's disturbing, but it's that third point that shows his
disconnect with reality. It's not enough for him to control her every
action, his real need is to control her internal emotional state. If
she's someone who wants to participate in this contract, that point is
superfluous. And if she's not, it's pointless.
If A Gun Appears Onstage, It Has To Ultimately Go Off PRES. DWIGHT D. EISENHOWER:My fellow Americans, this evening I
come to you with a message of leave-taking and farewell and to share a
few final thoughts with you, my countrymen. We have been compelled to
create a permanent armament industry of vast proportions.
Three-and-a-half million men and women are directly engaged in the
defense establishment. The total influence, economic, political, even
spiritual, is felt in every city, every state house, every office of
the federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this
development, yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of
unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the
military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of
misplaced power exists and will persist.
"Why We Fight," argues that the
United States is permanently on the edge of war because it ignored
Eisenhower's warnings of a "vast military-industrial complex."
"Why We Fight" was a question Frank Capra posed in a series of World
War II propaganda flicks. His conclusion: Because it's the right thing
to do.
Both the question and the answer seemed simpler then. Six decades
later, Eugene Jarecki, director of a documentary of the same name,
decided to pose the same question, this time framing the question
across a political arc that stretches from World War II to President
Dwight Eisenhower's 1961 warning about the "military-industrial
complex" to Vietnam to the war in Iraq.
Jarecki's conclusion, after nearly three years of filming: We fight
because it's lucrative, thanks to collusion among the defense industry,
Congress, the Pentagon, think tanks and the media. "Why We Fight,"
which won the best documentary prize at Sundance, is now in theaters.
To bolster his argument, Jarecki ("The Trials of Henry Kissinger")
prowled the corridors of the Pentagon, haunted weapons trade shows,
filmed Iraq before and during the war and visited a bomb factory where
a worker confesses that she'd rather be "making toys like Santa Claus."
He points his camera at some unlikely subjects to highlight doubts
about the war: a retired New York police officer who lost his son in
the World Trade Center attacks and requested that his name be printed
on a bomb headed for Iraq but later regretted his decision. A retired
lieutenant colonel who was working in the Pentagon on Sept. 11, 2001,
and now declares that she forbids her sons to serve in the military
because "you are pursuing an imperialistic agenda." A Vietnam War
refugee who describes, with some misgivings, the bomb she engineered
for her adopted country: "Our mission was to quickly weaponize a
penetrator" bomb in Iraq. The cash-strapped youth who enlists after his
mother dies. "Because of you," he tells the Army recruiter, "I'm going
to retire real nice."
Jarecki picked military insiders, he said during a recent visit to Washington, because "the insider has far more mileage."
"Life is ambiguous," said the Princeton-educated director, whose
brother Andrew directed the Oscar-nominated 2003 documentary "Capturing
the Friedmans." "It isn't black or white. They're not evil geniuses
sitting in dark rooms."
Q. Why did you make "Why We Fight"?
AThe simple answer:
Eisenhower. He caught me off-guard. He seemed to have so much to say
about our contemporary society and our general tilt towards militarism.
... The voices in Washington and the media have become so shrill. ...
It seemed important to bring a little gray hair into the mix.
Q. How would you classify your politics? You've been accused of being a lefty.
A I'm a radical centrist. ... If Dwight Eisenhower is a lefty, I am, too. Then I'll walk with Ike.
Q. In "Why We Fight" you talk about the rise of fascism. Are we becoming less of a democracy? Is our democracy in peril?
AI think our democracy is
very much in peril. And the forces that are imperiling it are the
forces Eisenhower warned us about. It begins with his concern about the
military-industrial complex and extends to other forces of corporatism
in our society. Which is what he meant when he said, "The power of
money is ever-present and is gravely to be regarded."
They're not only trying to build a product; they're trying to keep
it from being shut down. ... And so we find the B-2 bomber has a piece
of it made in every single U.S. state. Why? So when the B-2 bomber
comes under review ... the halls of Congress fall eerily silent.
Because everybody is getting a piece of the action.
Q. You know that you're going to get the inevitable comparison to "Fahrenheit 9/11." Does that bother you?
A There's a reason for that. There aren't that many political documentaries being made.
Q. What did you think of "Fahrenheit 9/11"?
A Boy, that's a tough
question. Whatever one thinks of Michael Moore's content or his
approach, the most important thing one can note ... is that Michael
Moore inspires young people to be engaged in the politics of our time.
And that is a tremendously valuable contribution.
Q. With "Fahrenheit 9/11," I felt like I was being manipulated in
places. But with your film, there's not that sense. You're not in it,
your voice isn't in it. It's very measured.
AI hope it's measured.
And at the same time, no one should lie to anyone and pretend their
films are objective. My film is a subjective film like all films. What
I hope is clear about my film, though, is that I am rigorous in
challenging my own inclinations.
Q. What were your thoughts on March 19, 2003, "Shock and Awe" day?
AI thought March 19,
2003, was an extremely sad day for democracy in America and for the
global tradition of democracy. It marked a tragic outcome to an
administration's subversion of American democracy. ...
The pressures driving the administration to battle were so great.
... We know now from the Downing Street memo the intelligence was being
fixed. ... So we know of the manipulation now, so that suggests intent,
not accident. ... So when the bombs began to fall, that process of
degradation was, in a sense, partially complete. That's how I felt.
One had the feeling when one saw the pre-deployments that the
toothpaste was already being squeezed out of the tube. ... Bertolt
Brecht always said that if a gun appears onstage, it has to ultimately
go off.
"Why We Fight" is a somber polemic that presents a convincing case against
using war as an economic booster -- although, Jarecki argues, that is
precisely what the United States has been doing under every president since
Truman. The military-industrial complex has become the American way. Somewhere
Ike, that pinko peacenik, is surely rolling over in his grave.