BDSM illegal?

InnocentFacade · May 12, 2010

Easy does it guys. We wouldn't want Sebastian to get too big for his britches

Sado_Dom · May 12, 2010

Hahah did you imply a different meaning by 'too big'? I saw the wink lol

Precious · May 12, 2010

dunno it IS Sebastian lol

sillylittlepet · May 12, 2010

It would be funny if it worked like that

sebastian · May 12, 2010

Precious, I'm actually a really well-written conversation program.

Honestly, though, it's a bit of both. I actually learned about the Jovanovic case years ago for reasons that had nothing to do with BDSM. He was working on a project I was interested in that collapsed because of the trial. Most historians have pretty good memories for random facts, so they run across interesting facts and then just sort of file them away for use years later. I used to have a friend who delighted in yelling in frustration "how do you KNOW that?" when I would mention some odd fact like armadillos always reproduce in litters of identical quadruplets.

But when I post online I sometimes look for additional info, sometimes out of personal curiosity and sometimes because I think I need more info to improve my point. Amazing what you can find with Google once you've learned how to sort through bad info. And medievalists are by nature extremely thorough types.

And to answer the question that's hanging in the air, It's above average, but not amazingly so (6.5"), and it's nicely curved and has a large head. Evidently it's very well-shaped for anal sex. It gets a pretty good amount of compliments.

Precious · May 12, 2010

Hahah great imagine Sebastian that will forever be in my head.

Interesting actually, i knew about the armadillos but I tend to do the same thing, file information in my head that just blobs out later. At one time i wanted to be a history teacher...however that didn't pay enough for me. lol

sebastian · May 12, 2010

Teaching history doesn't pay enough for me either, but we don't get to choose our kinks.

Precious · May 12, 2010

very true, lucky for me i have another kink- film directing; my true passion

Sparrow69 · May 12, 2010

sebastian said:
Sparrow, I'm not sure that you can legally consent to being slapped (cropped, whipped, flogged, etc.) because if you could, abusers would legalize their crimes by intimidating their victims into consenting to the violence.

Ahh yes, but then the consenting isn't consensual, its coerced, and therefore is not arbitrarily binding. Its a nasty loop. I'm not saying that its ok to physically abuse your partner, however before I do ANYTHING with ANYONE they sign a legally binding contract that has been approved by a very prominent law firm whom i personally had view it. It's graphic, detailed, and covered just about ever basis, and spells out a legal agreement of consensus between both parties.

The major area of d/s play where consent _is_ legally significant is sex itself. While we may play out a rape scene, it is not legally rape. In contrast, a torture scene is, essentially, legally a form of assault. In England, whence our legal system substantially arose, there was a case in which 16 men were arrested for engaging in sm activities. The 15 tops were charged with assault, the 1 bottom (what a ratio!) was charged with aiding and abetting his own assault. They pleaded consent, but the court rejected this, saying that one cannot give consent to one's own assault.

Yes, i do so recall this case, however, the basis for the argument was that he had already engaged in the leud and lavicious act with several of the partners before, which set the due course for a coercion argument.

A useful parallel to illuminate things: If I hand you a gun and ask, tell, dare you to shoot me, if you actually shoot me, you are still committing murder or a related crime, despite my invitation.

true, however if the exchange is recorded, and their was prior evidence of your desire to be shot, then it could be argued to a misdameanor charge of inproper handling of a firearm, as you clearly displayed intent to be shot, and could have justifiably shot yourself.

One complication to all this: almost all violent crime is handled under state law rather than federal law, and states have, over the years, made different rulings about the exact nature of consent and how it operates in the question of consent to assault. In California, the law stipulates that the only legal situation in which one may consent to assault is in sports, whereas in Iowa, the exceptions include 'sports, social, and other activity'. Despite this, in 1985, an Iowa appeals court specifically ruled that this definition did not include sm, which are a form of assault. In Mass, the courts ruled that consensual sm was not a defense if the tool used was an actual weapon (presumably the dom used a knife for cutting); such a situation was automatically battery. Some states do seem to accept consent as a general defense but have historically been erratic in who can apply it or in what situations (for example, gays seem to have less success with it than straights do).

The infamous Oliver Jovanovic case of 1996 is perhaps the best illustration of the problems that doms face. Jovanovic, a doctoral student at Columbia, negotiated a weekend-long scene with a female student from Bernard, during which he tied her up, tortured her, and had sex with her. She subsequently claimed that she had not understood what he intended to do and that therefore she hadn't really consented to what happened. He was found guilty and sentenced to 16 years to life for kidnapping, assault, and sexual abuse. Eventually, after spending an enormous amount of money and 20 months in prison (during which he was seriously injured by an inmate), an appeals court ruled that the court had inappropriately disallowed evidence that the woman enjoyed sm. In 2001, just as the retrial was set to begin, the women decided not to testify and it was dismissed with prejudice. In 2004, he filed a civil suit against NYC and the prosecutor over the incident. IIRC, it also later came to light that she had done something similar to a previous dom, but charges had not resulted. Part of the reason that the Jovanovic lost the original case was NY's Rape Shield law was invoked. Rape Shield laws forbid the discussion of a rape victim's previous sexual history, and in this case (and in some others) the judge ruled that no discussion of pre-sex negotiations could be admitted into the courtroom. This meant that the defense could not actually present a claim of consent.

[/quote]

All very true and very sad. As a further case in point to add to the argument you pose, is that a "victim/partner" has 45 days under federal statute to decide if sexual contact was consensual or not... 45 days after the fact! What this means is, you meet a girl in a bar, take her home, have completely consensual normal vanilla sex... and in 30 days she finds out you have a girlfriend and develops a case of morals to the extent of "well, id never have slept with him if id known" and BINGO! Unlawful sexual contact int he second degree... class c felony and you are charged with a sex crime.
Furthermore, in 28 states in this country, if you are ACCUSED, not convicted, but ACCUSED of an unlawful sexual act, you grace the pages of the sex offenders registry for no less then 5 years, simply on an accusation. And yet people wonder why I'm so paranoid about the partners I choose.
The legal system in this country is a farce, always has been, always will be, until such time as a revolution occurs and the common man or woman has a voice again...

Sorry, folks, ill climb down off my soapbox now.

Precious · May 12, 2010

Sparrow69 said:
Furthermore, in 28 states in this country, if you are ACCUSED, not convicted, but ACCUSED of an unlawful sexual act, you grace the pages of the sex offenders registry for no less then 5 years, simply on an accusation.
Sorry, folks, ill climb down off my soapbox now.

This, is also why, I am very against some bills such as "Don't let sex offenders join facebook" or "Don't let sex offenders live in HOA neighborhoods". We need a better sex offender system. At one point they wanted to change sex offenders to different DEGREES, I don't remember why it didn't pass but i was bummed because, you can actually be a sex offender just for stripping. So an 18 year old who decides to strip, is now on a registry until he's 23 years old. Not a good way to start out adulthood if you ask me.

BDSM illegal?

InnocentFacade

Member

Sado_Dom

Member

Precious

Member

sillylittlepet

Active Member

sebastian

Active Member

Precious

Member

sebastian

Active Member

Precious

Member

Sparrow69

Moderator

Precious

Member

Similar threads