Yeah, not much for me to add. Other than how feel about this are based on his own words.
MLB suspends Trevor Bauer for 2 years with no pay
- Thread starter ThePrideofShiner
- Start date
Fuck right off with this take. BDSM is a valid sexual experience. Some people get off on getting hurt, some people get off on hurting others. In reality it almost never has anything to do with hurting <insert gender> specifically. Just because you are a prude and squeamish about anything beyond missionary does not necessarily make Bauer “a sick bastard”.
Please. I know this is not a thread about kinks, but I'm tired of this "no kink-shaming" bullshit. What Bauer did, consensual or not, goes so far beyond "anything beyond missionary." And yes, Bauer is 100% a sick bastard based on the information we know. Let's say for the sake of the argument what he did to that woman was consensual, that is straight-up fucked up behavior, and anyone who wants to get hurt to that extreme (you read the details, right?) or hurt someone to that extreme needs serious help.
If it's truly consensual... truly 100% consensual, which we won't know for a while, and you object then you're a prude. Period.
Perhaps this part of the convo belongs in V&N mods.
Or the 2 consenting are extremely deviant. I object and you'd be the first person ever calling me a prude.
I will reply too all of you at once, I think there's too separate issues here at play and I want to clarify my position:
1. If two adults both have 100% consent to one or more extreme sexual act, then no judgement should be passed. Once again 100% consent... all things were agreed to, regardless of how "extreme" or "deviant" you might think they are.
2. Trevor Bauer may not have had 100% consent for what he did.
What I take objection to is edoug's statement which implies some sort of puritanical view of what should be allowed in the bedroom and it really set me off:
It's implying that BDSM, and the act of giving or receiving pain is morally reprehensible. That is a bullshit position and I am calling it out. Nothing more or nothing less.
Trevor Bauer may have broken the law, he may indeed be a fucked up person, but I refuse to just sit back and let someone like edoug claim giving or receiving pain somehow makes a person "a sick bastard".
That's a pretty big leap based off of what edoug said.
There's a lot of shit in this world that might be consensual, but not necessarily legal. I also suspect that you don't know anything about what other folks here may or may not be into. I'm guessing that even for some who are into BDSM, this was a bridge too far. Would they be prudes as well? Be better.
I honestly couldn't decide if that deserved a reply. It is a complete fallacy that if two adults consent to any action that it is somehow okay regardless of the extremity of the action. There are a lot of extremely unwell people out there and their ability to consent to actions that are depraved and indicative of severe mental disturbance makes no difference in determining if an action is acceptable or not. What Trevor Bauer engaged in here is not, in any way you look at it, BDSM and you seem to be confusing it as such just because there is the element of pain/punishment in BDSM.
Consensual or not, I find it repulsive that punching and choking women turns him on.
Just on this point, we have an affidavit filed in court that the encounters were not 100% - to anywhere close to it - consensual. We also have the woman saying that a primary reason she did this to make sure that Bauer didn't do the same things to someone else.
So why the hedging here?
Seems to me that no one is inditing BDSM generally when saying that the level of violence Bauer inflicted is wrong.
First, I want to be clear that I only mod in V&N, so I am posting as a member and not a mod.
This is an online baseball forum; members here have the absolute right to pass judgment on the off-the-field actions of ballplayers. You have the same right to disagree with them, but it sure reads as if what you want is the ability to express your opinions while forbidding others from doing the same. ("No judgement should be passed.")
I should also add that while the application for the restraining order is not dispositive, it is fairly strong evidence that whatever took place was not 100% consensual. So the justification for your outrage appears to be the thinnest of gruel.
My later reply wasn't meant for you. But I do thank you and obviously strongly agree with you on this.
And yet, people do so.
Of course, you've zeroed in on the problem, which is the inherent risk associated with incorporating violence into your sexual behavior. Because any miscommunication comes with extreme risk of (1) injury and/or (2) significant legal/professional consequences.
No. It's something that involves a lot of trust that needs to be build up over time, not on the 2nd meet up.
If you are into any type of BDSM, there should be crystal clear guidelines with what is ok and what isn't, what the safe word (or safe action if muted) is. You always, always, always get crystal clear consent.
And it's not about being "violent." Trevor looks like he was about being "violent."
The Dodgers come off looking really poorly here. Shame on Andrew Friedman, Farhan Zaidi and Josh Byrnes for hanging Roberts out to dry the way they did - the manager never should have been the one forced to address this matter with the media. The team should have taken a strong stand by putting Bauer on leave and dealt with the union fallout - instead, they come off as valuing wins and the bottom line over anything else.
This world is completely foreign to me. How does it work? You get consent beforehand for all kinds of violent stuff. Including sex while unconscious. But then...you have sex while the other person is unconscious, and by definition, a person who is unconscious can't consent to sex.
I mean, heck, a person could consent to sex before getting drunk - they could even say, "I want to get drunk and then have sex together" in advance - but once drunk, technically and legally they're not able to consent to the sex they actually consented to before getting drunk.
So how in the world is this supposed to work, legally?
I mean, heck, a person could consent to sex before getting drunk - they could even say, "I want to get drunk and then have sex together" in advance - but once drunk, technically and legally they're not able to consent to the sex they actually consented to before getting drunk.
So how in the world is this supposed to work, legally?
Any chance that a guy who videos his professional life and has tens of millions in the bank doesn’t also have a home system that recorded this?
Who knows. That's why you don't do it on a 2nd date and make sure you actually know and trust the person because if not... you could be in the same situation Trevor is in (whether he's guilty or not).
edit: I mean, you are probably safe if you are fucking your happily married, drunk, unconscious wife. That girl at the bar you just met? Good luck.
Well in no scenario is any of this my cup of tea, so I won't be coming within a thousand miles of it regardless. I just think it's bizarre legal ground given how we view what's truly consensual or not.
Don't ever do this again. He was obviously talking about what has been reported in the Bauer case specifically, not about the general practice of BDSM. It's pretty clear that what happened in that case may go way beyond the limits of that practice. What a load of bullshit. You are defending something that was not even under attack, and in a way that doesn't fly here, especially in a public forum. This is your only Mulligan.
Keep the conversation to the Bauer case here. If anyone wants to discuss the social aspects/morals/ethics of the BDSM lifestyle, do it in V&N and do it respectfully.
I’m not questioning the restraining order at all but I don’t understand something ok about them that perhaps a lawyer can flesh out for me. A restraining order, to my pedestrian understanding, means the individual who takes out the restraining order is under some sort of threat from the other individual. What I’m getting at is that does the existence of the order imply that in addition to whatever happened in the sexual encounter that there are additional factors out there? I guess in other words is there some predatory aspect of this that’s missing in these reports that is implied by the existence of a restraining order?
I think a person who is the victim of sexual assault/rape has a very good reason to fear for their safety from the guilty party.
In either the orig Athletic article or the USA Today one above she said she took the order out because she feared retribution once the investigation was eventually made public.
This is at least strike 2 for them, as they did an equally bad job handling that sexual assault that their minor leaguers were involved in.
Generally speaking in CA, if two people are married or were in a dating relationship, and assault or sexual assault has been alleged and is backed by some evidence, courts will extrapolate fear and grant the restraining order. https://www.courts.ca.gov/1278.htm
I wonder if he has. If so, I also wonder if there may be a connection to the statement of the investigation being bigger than it was first thought to be.
A temporary restraining order was granted in an ex parte proceeding, which means Bauer wasn’t there. We can infer that the judge believed the woman’s story and felt she reasonably feared for her safety. Nothing has been adjudicated yet; there’s apparently a hearing scheduled for July 23, and Bauer’s attorneys have indicated he will participate.
I think this article leans on The Athletic’s reporting for most of the key facts, and I believe it’s wrong about the July 23rd hearing being ex parte, but it’s not paywalled.
https://www.dodgersnation.com/dodgers-trevor-bauer-has-text-messages-released-legal-hearing-set-for-late-july-for-assault-allegations/2021/07/01/
Awesome thank. That makes perfect sense. I wasn’t sure how much more to read into that.
You are correct that the July 23rd hearing allows for Bauer to be present. https://www.si.com/mlb/2021/06/30/trevor-bauer-assault-domestic-violence-victim-restraining-order-details.
I will say that if I were his attorney, I'd think long and hard about what I advised Bauer to say at this hearing. The restraining order (MA = protective order) statute has different elements to prove than a criminal investigation and there is likely nothing Bauer could say that would convince a judge not to extend the restraining order given the pictures that are described. On the down side, as they say, anything Bauer does say can be used against him in criminal or other proceedings.
There also is little downside if Bauer simply allows the restraining order to continue. As I type this, again if I were the attorney, I'd probably show up and say that my client denies the allegations but does not object to the restraining order being extended at this time.
RE: your edit. To me I think that would still be considered rape regardless if you are married. Unless I'm misunderstanding your statement.
He's not saying it's legal, he's saying the happily married wife probably isn't going to seek to press charges.
Ahh thank you. i understand. I messaged a member earlier and these were my thoughts. I think there are some members lean towards that feel bauer should get the benifit of the doubt, but I think that is wrong. The woman in question should be believed and supported instead. This is a man who likely thinks his behavior was acceptable and there's nothing wrong with it. I would bet this isn't the first case. And if that it true more women could have been victims to this. If that's the case, not playing baseball ever again should be the least of his problems. BDSM is a non starter in this conversation. It is 100% assault, physical and sexual.
Most applic
I don’t think I’d have my 6’1 205 pound client show up for the hearing. I also don’t think there’s any way a restraining order doesn’t issue, minus another Brock Turner judge.
Dave Stewart is upset that the Dodgers didn’t immediately suspend Bauer and as a result is boycotting an upcoming celebration of the 40th anniversary of their 1981 championship.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/columnist/bob-nightengale/2021/07/05/former-dodger-dave-stewart-livid-handling-trevor-bauer-case/7865597002/
(Stewart was a reliever on the 1981 team and made two scoreless appearances in the World Series.)
https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/columnist/bob-nightengale/2021/07/05/former-dodger-dave-stewart-livid-handling-trevor-bauer-case/7865597002/
(Stewart was a reliever on the 1981 team and made two scoreless appearances in the World Series.)
LOVE Dave Stewart but this is a knee-jerk reaction by him. He expected the Dodgers to share the same knee-jerk reaction. The Dodgers have handled this accordingly to due process. The onus is on MLB and they are investigating and proceeding. As horrific as it may sound to most of us, it is playing out as it should.
I didn’t realize he’d retained Jon Fetterolf. I worked with that dude in DC. We were at a very genteel and polite firm, but I remember him constantly talking about women. Like during my interview, he bragged how he’d dated Brady’s girlfriend at Michigan before Tom. I’m sure he and Trevor are getting along just fine.
Good on Dave Stewart by the way.
Good on Dave Stewart by the way.
It’s not a due process issue. Bauer hasn’t received a hearing. There hasn’t been an investigation. MLB did what it felt it needed to do to protect its business. And that’s fine — the players agreed to this arrangement because they understand that giving the Commissioner authority to deal with people like Bauer is necessary to protect everyone’s paycheck.
They did not, however, agree to individual clubs acting unilaterally to police bad conduct by players. By following the rules and waiting for Manfred to act, the Dodgers made it more likely that the union will go along with extending Bauer’s paid suspension beyond 7 days. And if they don’t, that will be the time for the Dodgers to take swift, decisive action.
Stewart has seen MLB from all sides — as a player, as a coach, as a player-agent, and as a front-office executive. His opinion is worth more than most. But I disagree with him on this one. Manfred could’ve acted a day sooner, and the Dodgers definitely should’ve prepped Roberts before he faced the press, but there’s a difference between failing to handle the modern 24/7 media cycle perfectly and doing something that’s actually worthy of outrage.
This is what puzzled me with Stew's response. I completely understand his outrage over the allegations here, but IMO any outrage toward the organization over disciplinary action was short sighted as he should have expected this to go down just as it has. I totally agree with your last point. The easiest and smartest path was to get out in front of this. Acknowledge that allegations have been made, that an investigation was ongoing, state that they are taking this very seriously and that moving forward the organization will act in concert with MLB on all matters concerning the incident. Also, that statement should have been made prior to Dave Roberts' first press conference allowing him not to be the first to address this publicly.
Why is there a need to wait here? There is physical evidence, there are texts. There’s the survivor’s testimony. The push to wait and see whenever there’s an allegation of sexual violence seems vestigial to me. If the same amount of evidence existed surrounding a murder or theft or robbery, would there be a delay before suspension?
Is the desire for patience in no way related to the type of crime being alleged and old fashioned beliefs that men shouldn’t have their reputations and livelihoods ruined based on a woman’s accusation when false accusations on this topic are supposedly so common and easy to make by women scorned or passed over?
Is the desire for patience in no way related to the type of crime being alleged and old fashioned beliefs that men shouldn’t have their reputations and livelihoods ruined based on a woman’s accusation when false accusations on this topic are supposedly so common and easy to make by women scorned or passed over?
I think it's just innocent until proven guilty spilling over into a baseball decision.
I mean, I'm guessing some people probably think the latter.
Who is waiting? He's on the suspended list (administrative leave, whatever). The only seeming objectionable thing so far is the time it took for MLB to put him on the list, which from what I can put together, was roughly 48 hours after the allegations went public. He didn't play in a game in the meantime, so I'm not sure what acting any sooner would have accomplished other than saving Dave Roberts from being in the awkward position of having to act like everything was normal.
I'm not sure if you're asking this of the police, MLB or both. I won't pretend to know more about this from a legal standpoint than you or as someone has been an vocal advocate here for women who have been abused, but would the fact that Bauer hadn't been charged yet be the reason MLB waited a couple of days? With Bauer not scheduled to pitch for a few days they likely wanted to cover their ass with the union's CBA.
Didn't see these posted, but consider them....data.
View: https://twitter.com/LBSports/status/1410440740547690501?s=20
View: https://twitter.com/LBSports/status/1410440740547690501?s=20
Have a hard time reading the texts. Can you point me to the one where she says to TB, "Can you almost fracture my skull while I'm unconscious?"
