Pure
Fiel a Verdad
- Joined
- Dec 20, 2001
- Posts
- 15,135
PUZZLE, abuse, s/m the law
Prize for best answer: One 'Get out of jail' card.
You answer the door. There's a cop. Neighbors heard something.
Though you are clothed, he sees the marks of a whip on your shoulders. "Whip marks?" "Yes, a whip, but..." (you're about to say 'i wanted it, i consented'). Your spouse appears and says, "She's kinky, she likes a bit of whipping." The cop's got two choices:
[ADDED: OR, invent any scenario you like in which your, or your sub's injuries might come to the attention of the police, and they come calling. A common 'path' being through a doctor's report which s/he is obliged by law, to make.]
1. He should apply the law against spouse (usually wife) abuse, which makes her(your) statements about consent irrelevant. Your words or testimony as to 'consent', if given, would generally be assumed to be the result of intimidation. Your spouse's words are then taken as the typical 'cover up' of an abuser.
OR
2. He should use the commonsense idea that consensual adult sex play (without serious bodily harm), not on the books as illegal, IS legal. Your words and testimony as to 'consent' are listened to and not ignored as the product of intimidation. Your spouse's view of your joint activity is then relevant, also.
Puzzle Which approach should he apply and why? What should he make of your spouse's statement and why? What could you say or do, if anything, to influence the course of events? (See the website below ** for practical advice in this situation.)
============================
Long version:
In many places there's a law about abuse of spouses, especially women; a lot of us who care about women, like the law; it says something like this:
If a spouse receives bodily harm from the other spouse, the other spouse is liable to be charged with and convicted of assault, regardless of whether the harmed one says s/he consented. The injuries of the harmed one may be sufficient proof of an assault in the absence of any testimony from the harmed one. The proof is by objective test, the nature of the harm or wounds according to medical testimony.
Not relying on a 'commonsense' approach that consent makes kinky adult sexual activity legal, the BDSM lobby would like a law to be passed--call it the 'BDSM exception'--that goes like this:
A) If a sub receives non-serious** bodily harm from acts of his/her dom/me, then the dom/me is NOT liable to be charged with assault if the sub consented to the acts and 'play' was safe. In other words, no charges if the acts are within the sub's limits and carried out with attention to the sub's safety, specifically, use of 'caution' or 'safe' words.
(Two persons are considered to be 'sub' and 'dom/me' if both their statements, heard separately, and their past pattern of actions, indicate they are in a voluntarily agreed sadomasochistic arrangement specifying who is sub and dom/me, and which acts may occur, in the time period in question.)
To be more specific, B) Injuries which are not serious--for example welts, bruises--WON'T be proof of an assault unless it's shown they were inflicted without consent or in the context of unsafe practices. The 'subs' voluntary statements about such matters shall be highly relevant.
C) The sub has a right to be heard in the proceedings, and the sub's statements will NOT be presumed to be the result of threat, intimidation or coercion, in the absence of further and *other* proof to that effect (beyond the simple fact of injury). Proof is according to a subjective standard (whether the dom/me, for good reasons, believed
s/he was acting in an agreed, consented-to fashion.)
**NOTE: The sub's injuries when they are major and/or indicate a serious threat to the sub's health or life, will continue to be presumptive evidence of assault, even where 'consent' is asserted.
Now the puzzle:
Given a person who is injured in a non serious way, given that the person is both a spouse and a sub, both laws, it seems, would apply. There is an overlap and conflict. How might it be resolved? Is the best solution for a 'BDSM exception' NOT be passed into law (since it overly complicates things) ?
========
At a practical level, this website offers advice on how bdsm person might ease their contacts with the law and protect themselves.
[**]
http://www.bdsbbs.com/alleged_DM.htm
See also,
http://www.edmontonosociety.org/kinkysexlaw.htm
Prize for best answer: One 'Get out of jail' card.
You answer the door. There's a cop. Neighbors heard something.
Though you are clothed, he sees the marks of a whip on your shoulders. "Whip marks?" "Yes, a whip, but..." (you're about to say 'i wanted it, i consented'). Your spouse appears and says, "She's kinky, she likes a bit of whipping." The cop's got two choices:
[ADDED: OR, invent any scenario you like in which your, or your sub's injuries might come to the attention of the police, and they come calling. A common 'path' being through a doctor's report which s/he is obliged by law, to make.]
1. He should apply the law against spouse (usually wife) abuse, which makes her(your) statements about consent irrelevant. Your words or testimony as to 'consent', if given, would generally be assumed to be the result of intimidation. Your spouse's words are then taken as the typical 'cover up' of an abuser.
OR
2. He should use the commonsense idea that consensual adult sex play (without serious bodily harm), not on the books as illegal, IS legal. Your words and testimony as to 'consent' are listened to and not ignored as the product of intimidation. Your spouse's view of your joint activity is then relevant, also.
Puzzle Which approach should he apply and why? What should he make of your spouse's statement and why? What could you say or do, if anything, to influence the course of events? (See the website below ** for practical advice in this situation.)
============================
Long version:
In many places there's a law about abuse of spouses, especially women; a lot of us who care about women, like the law; it says something like this:
If a spouse receives bodily harm from the other spouse, the other spouse is liable to be charged with and convicted of assault, regardless of whether the harmed one says s/he consented. The injuries of the harmed one may be sufficient proof of an assault in the absence of any testimony from the harmed one. The proof is by objective test, the nature of the harm or wounds according to medical testimony.
Not relying on a 'commonsense' approach that consent makes kinky adult sexual activity legal, the BDSM lobby would like a law to be passed--call it the 'BDSM exception'--that goes like this:
A) If a sub receives non-serious** bodily harm from acts of his/her dom/me, then the dom/me is NOT liable to be charged with assault if the sub consented to the acts and 'play' was safe. In other words, no charges if the acts are within the sub's limits and carried out with attention to the sub's safety, specifically, use of 'caution' or 'safe' words.
(Two persons are considered to be 'sub' and 'dom/me' if both their statements, heard separately, and their past pattern of actions, indicate they are in a voluntarily agreed sadomasochistic arrangement specifying who is sub and dom/me, and which acts may occur, in the time period in question.)
To be more specific, B) Injuries which are not serious--for example welts, bruises--WON'T be proof of an assault unless it's shown they were inflicted without consent or in the context of unsafe practices. The 'subs' voluntary statements about such matters shall be highly relevant.
C) The sub has a right to be heard in the proceedings, and the sub's statements will NOT be presumed to be the result of threat, intimidation or coercion, in the absence of further and *other* proof to that effect (beyond the simple fact of injury). Proof is according to a subjective standard (whether the dom/me, for good reasons, believed
s/he was acting in an agreed, consented-to fashion.)
**NOTE: The sub's injuries when they are major and/or indicate a serious threat to the sub's health or life, will continue to be presumptive evidence of assault, even where 'consent' is asserted.
Now the puzzle:
Given a person who is injured in a non serious way, given that the person is both a spouse and a sub, both laws, it seems, would apply. There is an overlap and conflict. How might it be resolved? Is the best solution for a 'BDSM exception' NOT be passed into law (since it overly complicates things) ?
========
At a practical level, this website offers advice on how bdsm person might ease their contacts with the law and protect themselves.
[**]
http://www.bdsbbs.com/alleged_DM.htm
See also,
http://www.edmontonosociety.org/kinkysexlaw.htm
Last edited:
