In conversation with the princess (the lesbian sub), which btw i like her, having got a more clearer picture through talking to her, anyway...
Something she said, about worrying about not having control, or not being able to say "no" to what is happening concerns her, and i assured her that would not be an issue, its about consent, and should it all go ahead, she can most certainly say "no" at any time, use a safeword and that will stop everything, with no hard feelings from anyone.
Anyway, which brings me to the whole consent issue, in the UK consent is no defence in regards to s/m practises, a case went to court years ago, a group of gay men engaging in s/m, photos, videos were taken and ended up in the hands of the police, the circumstances of how...unknown!
Anyway the men who inflicted the s/m, the dominants, 16 of them, were sentenced to some years in prison, i believe, without going to check the facts, between 3-5 years each. The submissives and the dominants solicitors argued that there was consent, all parties stated the same, but the court ruled otherwise, and they were all (the dominants) convicted of assault causing actual bodily harm.
Lord Templeton a high court judge declared
"In principle there is a difference between violence which is incidental and violence which is inflicted for the indulgence of cruelty. The violence of sadomasochistic encounters involves the indulgence of cruelty by sadists and the degradation of victims. Such violence is injurious to the participants and unpredictably dangerous. I am not prepared to invent a defence of consent for sadomasochistic encounters which breed and glorify cruelty. Society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence. Pleasure derived from the infliction of pain is an evil thing, cruelty is uncivilised"
As the law still stands today, consent is no defence.
Wow, if i had a safeword, i think it would be.....lawsuit!
But what acts are considered illegal? its quite vague the legal definition, and open i think to interpretation, basically anything that causes marks that are more than 'trifling'. Judge Rant, another judge, when it went to the court of appeal (and lost) declared that any injury, pain or mark that was more than trifling and momentary should be considered illegal! this includes bruises, cuts and the occurrence of blood!
So this 'trifling' what does that mean....insignificant or petty..doesnt really say much at all.
Basically Master is a criminal, and my consent means nothing, but we are both adults fully aware of what we are doing.....but yet we can stick 2 men in a boxing ring, they can beat the shit out of each other, get paid to do it, people pay to watch it......bloody hell at least i get orgasms out of my beatings!
and that concludes todays soap box rant.
I didn't realize that. I completely understand your rant. In the U.S., if you don't press charges, the prosecutors can charge him without you, but if you take the stand on his behalf, he would never get convicted. It's still crazy though. Maybe they could focus on real crimes.
ReplyDeleteGlad the princess is working out.
Yes, its a potential worrying thing, especially for dominants more so, trust is so important, its often overlooked that the dominant needs to trust the sub as well, that they are not going to go running to the police if they decide after the fact that they didnt like it....its happened.
Deletex
Hard to believe Masters can go to jail for BDSM. I guess it shows there is still a taboo about this lifestyle.
ReplyDeleteFD
It is, i agree, especially in this day and age, just shows there is still a long way to go in acceptability and understanding.
Deletex
Was that the nail in the penis case? That's the one I remember. Also more recently a woman who took a man to court for flogging her - she got a little carried away after reading FSOG and then decided she'd been assaulted. That case was thrown out if I remember correctly as she had been deemed to have consented. So it's not clear where the line is drawn. I'm pretty sure outwardly the judiciary put on this facade of righteousness with regard to BDSM, but behind the scenes, so to speak.... I do wonder what they're all up to ;-)
ReplyDeleteNo, i havent come across the penis case, but i do recall reading about the flogging, i think that perhaps this is one of the downsides of the success of FSOG.
DeleteAnon's comment below, is the case i was referring to, i couldnt remember it as i was writing the case...The Spanner case, an interesting read..type it in google and it will come up.
x
There is no consent in law re this as a person cannot "consent" to ABH, due to S&M not being acknowledged. The Spanner case (1987) and others after it, show exactly how the law feels re what we "do". Who in there "right mind" wants ABH, hence you cannot consent to such. No contract binding by law. The laws re photography here in the UK are now extensive and well worth looking up. Tori I cannot believe you are in the UK so am I! (nice anon)
ReplyDeleteYes! thats it the Spanner case, thats the one i was thinking of, would have hoped the law might have moved on since then, but evidently not. I think there is still a long way to go before there is acceptance of this lifestyle and s/m in particular.
DeleteYour in the UK..wow, wouldnt it be funny if your actually not far away at all?
x
Similar here for us Canucks, I would be interested to see the the source DF referenced.
ReplyDeleteI know, it hardly makes good sense that we can have violence and call it sport but consenting adults can't do what they please...but what are the alternatives? In the kink community there are tons of cases where consent has been violated and that's from parties who know--or are supposed-what we mean by consent.
Recently, there was a high-profile media case where it was tried to use the consensual activities of BDSM as a defense for being accused of assault...that backfired.
Im not sure of the source DF made, but im going to do some googling later, i find it interesting, to read cases that involve M/s or s/m.
DeleteWhat i find a worry, is how many cases perhaps go unreported, where a sub has had consent violated but feels there is no where to go, ie. police because of the lack of understanding about s/m.
Im all for outing those where there is undisputable proof that they are 'abusing' a subs trust.
x
Hi Tori, this post and comments are interesting. I assume the law is the same here in NZ. It does show there is still a taboo around BDSM.
ReplyDeleteHugs
Roz
hi Roz
Deleteyes i think bdsm still has a long way to go in being accepted
x
It can be the same in the good ol USA too.
ReplyDeleteIt goes i think to prove that s/m and ttwd in certain forms are a long way from being seen as acceptable.
Deletex