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.