Consenting Couple Charged Over Rough Love.

A Swedish couple who participated in BDSM have had the man charged with assault despite the act being performed by consenting adults.

www.thelocal.se...

Swedish Court Considers Sadomasochism Case
A Swedish court is to consider the issue of how much sexual violence is legally permitted between two consenting partners in a case involving a 32-year-old man who came into contact with his 16-year-old sex partner via a sex website.

The teenager, on the instructions of the 32-year-old man, penned a letter declaring that she wanted to be "used, abused and thoroughly humiliated". When the pair met the girl was, among other things, locked into a cage and had clamps attached to her breasts, according to a TV4 Malmö news programme.

Police became involved after a relative of the girl noticed the bruises all over her body.

The prosecutor, Ulrika Rogland, has ruled out rape as the parties are accepted to have consented to their sexual liaison. But the court is set to rule on the issue of where the legal limits lie with regards to violence inflicted on another human being, even if they agree to it.

"What I want to establish is that even if they say they are in agreement over this then you not allowed to seriously assault someone. It is on this issue that the district court has to issue a ruling, is this aggravated assault and was she able to agree to it?" Rogland said to the local Sydsvenskan daily.

The man's lawyer has expressed surprise over the charges and an expert on sadomasochism is set to testify at the trial.

The issue has never before been considered in a Swedish court, according to Lena Holmqvist, an expert in criminal law at Uppsala University.

"Now we will really get the issue tried - to what extent can consent preclude the need for violent sex," she said.

This is pathetic, it mightn't be everyones thing, but they were legal age & it was consensual. The law has no rights to be involved.

[edit on 7-6-2010 by acrux]

Another source.

[link removed]

A couple who decided to engage in kinky BDSM sex now face prosecution after police decided to file charges of aggravated assault against the man, despite both parties consenting.

The couple, a 32-year-old man and a 16-year-old girl (the age of consent in Sweden is 15), met on a Swedish sex website and struck up a steamy BDSM-based relationship.

The girl, apparently the masochist of the pair, wrote in a letter that she wanted to be “used, abused and thoroughly humiliated,” and her sadistic partner was only too happy to oblige, locking her into a cage and applying nipple clamps, amongst other acts.

However, a relative of the girl noticed bruises left over from their play, and police soon stuck their nose in with a view to arresting the man.

The public prosecutor is outraged at the consenting couple’s dungeon antics, conceding that whilst she cannot charge the man with rape due to the consenting nature of their sex, she can still charge him with aggravated assault whether both parties consented or not:

“What I want to establish is that even if they say they are in agreement over this then you not allowed to seriously assault someone.

It is on this issue that the district court has to issue a ruling, is this aggravated assault and was she able to agree to it?”
Sweden apparently allows consenting parties to beat each other’s brains out if they do so in the ring, as with boxing or similar, but it may very well not be permissible to engage in rough sex or BDSM play, consent or no.

The defendant is said to be calling an expert in sadomasochism to testify on his behalf, in a case which could soon be giving police in less radical nations ideas about how to finally get rid of their unwanted perverts without falling foul of tedious arguments over civil liberties – simply accuse them of violence against women.

Leftist gender politics appear to have come full circle – once intended to free women from traditional restrictions, advocates of such politics now use them to restrict and control others, imposing censorship and anti-sex laws in the name of protecting women and girls from male bestiality.

Indeed, feminism is now ironically proving far more effective than traditional religious concerns in imposing moralist laws on the public – few things are now considered more harmful than something potentially injurious to the rights of women.

[edit on 7-6-2010 by acrux]

Explanation: S&F!

Could you PLEASE EDIT your posts and put a warning about the link you linked as it contains GRAPHIC CARTOON depictions and may be found OFFENSIVE by some members! [not me ] THANKS

Personal Disclosure: :shk: Why is there still no FACEPALM'ing emoticon?

watever floats your boat if its consentual. who are other people to decide this is wrong or criminal both party's involved were willing, just another case of the system dictating how people should live there lives.

Maybe this will serve to set the precedent for this sort of thing to be allowed and no longer a grey area?

...or it could just be further proof of the Orwellian NWO...

...I hope it's not the latter. :p

reply to post by OmegaLogos
Sorry will put warning next time.

Cheers.



[edit on 7-6-2010 by acrux]

Ooh you can't do things like that,dear o dear.
Only for judges and politicians.

Well the misses and me better get some application forms then,to be a candidate for the next local elections.

Pack away the whips and handcuffs love.

If there is no victim, how can there be a crime?

I don't want anyone stepping in when I haven't complained, no matter how it would suit you to be in my position.

If they want it that way, that's part of the freedom of living. Government has no business meddling in this...

While I agree that this is a massive over reaction from a probably prudish court, it does raise some interesting questions.

How far should it be allowed to go? Amputations? Cannibalism (if death is not required)? Homemade surgical procedures?

I kind of agree that there should be a line somewhere but it's pretty tough to argue against consenting adults doing things in the privacy of their own homes.

Seems a slightly stupid thing to make a law about anyway, how would you enforce such a law? Laws are meant to prevent 'crime' but this is only something that is going to be discovered after the fact, as was the case with this story.

The public prosecutor is outraged at the consenting couple’s dungeon antics, conceding that whilst she cannot charge the man with rape due to the consenting nature of their sex, she can still charge him with aggravated assault whether both parties consented or not:

Obviously single & never been kissed.
Probably one of those "I'm not getting any, so no one else is allowed too."

reply to post by Frakkerface

How far should it be allowed to go? Amputations? Cannibalism (if death is not required)? Homemade surgical procedures?

You have no Idea do you.



Way off the mark trying to connect the things you have written.

I always thought Sweden was very accepting of sex.

On a search of Google using "Sweden & Sex"
18,600,000 results

On a search of Google using "Sweden & Porn"
1,790,000 results

On a search of Google using "Sweden & Beastiality
985,000 results

On a search of Google using "Sweden & BDSM"
About 586,000 results


Strange this change in attitude on behalf of Sweden considering "beastiality" was still legal in Sweden until at least November 12, 2008
www.timesonline.co.uk...

[edit on 7-6-2010 by acrux]

Originally posted by gallifreyan medic
reply to post by Frakkerface

 

How far should it be allowed to go? Amputations? Cannibalism (if death is not required)? Homemade surgical procedures?

You have no Idea do you.

Way off the mark trying to connect the things you have written.

It's not off the mark at all. We're discussing what should be allowed between two consenting adults. There are consenting adults that do these activities, if not for sexual reasons then for others.

So what exactly do I have no idea about?

reply to post by gallifreyan medic

Originally posted by gallifreyan medic
reply to post by Frakkerface

 

How far should it be allowed to go? Amputations? Cannibalism (if death is not required)? Homemade surgical procedures?

You have no Idea do you.

Way off the mark trying to connect the things you have written.

Are you speaking from personal experience?

Just kidding.



[edit on 7-6-2010 by acrux]

reply to post by Frakkerface


You're right,its not way off the mark.
Its futhest reaches of the universe off.

BDSM does not include any of what you mentioned in anyway at all.

Ergo,if you think it does,then yes you have no idea.

reply to post by acrux


Yes.But Shhh,don't tell anyone.
Just between you and me

[edit on 7/6/10 by gallifreyan medic]

reply to post by gallifreyan medic

Originally posted by gallifreyan medic
reply to post by acrux

 

Yes.But Shhh,don't tell anyone.
Just between you and me

Only if you are female & we take turns at being dominate.



[edit on 7-6-2010 by acrux]

Originally posted by gallifreyan medic
reply to post by Frakkerface

 

You're right,its not way off the mark.
Its futhest reaches of the universe off.

BDSM does not include any of what you mentioned in anyway at all.

Ergo,if you think it does,then yes you have no idea.

I'll leave it to your imagination what you think I know about BDSM.

But if you had actually read my post you would realise that I was not talking about BDSM specifically. I was discussing where limitations should be placed on consenting adults' activities, I don't see why the discussion should stop at BDSM, the question is whether consenting adults should be able to do anything to each other, regardless of whether it is done in a sexual context.

The issue isn't just about activities done for sexual gratification. If you cannot see the wider argument then you have a very narrow mind.

So in answer to your flawless logic, no, I do not think these activities are included in BDSM (i do know what it is) but the issue is civil liberties between consenting parties, ERGO these activities can be included in the discussion of civil liberties as a whole.

reply to post by acrux


Oops, thats Dominant not Dominate, you ol switcheroo you

Now write that down 50 times and please don't make that mistake again

reply to post by Frakkerface

But if you had actually read my post you would realise that I was not talking about BDSM specifically. I was discussing where limitations should be placed on consenting adults' activities, I don't see why the discussion should stop at BDSM, the question is whether consenting adults should be able to do anything to each other, regardless of whether it is done in a sexual context.

I can see the point you are making, but that might make the topic to far & reaching to be able to be discussed properly.

Yes things that could lead to death should definately be stopped, eg assisted suicide, mutilation etc, but general sexual encounters including BDSM handled safely & between consent adults have no place in anyones else's business except the consenting parties only.

PS If others feel they can cover the broader issues, then I guess who am I to stand in their way. Would only make me no better than that prosecutor in the news story. Have fun & knock yourselves out.



[edit on 7-6-2010 by acrux]