Consenting Couple Charged Over Rough Love.

Originally posted by sweetliberty
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

Another one joins the the party, oh well I'm game. I can see you have started in the dominant role. OK as you order mistress.

Dominant not Dominate, Dominant not Dominate, Dominant not Dominate, Dominant not Dominate, Dominant not Dominate,

Ok to many times & my post gets the chop, sorry mistress, grovel, grovel

PS YOU better be mistrss or I'm going to be very depressed.

[edit on 7-6-2010 by acrux]

Originally posted by acrux

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."

I think you may be right ... I personally can think of no other reason.

The whole ridiculous senario is unbelievable ... as someone else pointed out - 'if there is no victim how can there be a crime' ?

'aggravated assault' !!!

Give me a break ... erm just to be clear that was a statement ... not a request (in view of the subject matter)

Woody

I think you may be right ... I personally can think of no other reason.

The whole ridiculous senario is unbelievable ... as someone else pointed out - 'if there is no victim how can there be a crime' ?

'aggravated assault' !!!

Give me a break ... erm just to be clear that was a statement ... not a request (in view of the subject matter)

Woody

Or maybe an old prudish Vistorian era "has been" who never once even saw own her husband naked.

PS you say you don't want a break (join in), but then say you have a "woody". Now I'm very confused.

[edit on 7-6-2010 by acrux]

isn't this the sort of thing that judges and politicians are into anyway usually with barley legal rent boys.

reply to post by Frakkerface


just throwin out there..people already do amputations and scarification to each other on consentual terms. I cant see why adding sex should have any influence on the legality. this is a line the government has no right to cross.

as longs as there is an agreement, it is legal...this is in the same realm as euthanasia...

reply to post by acrux


You are a typical switch I see.

Nah, Im not the Dominant type unless you mess with my Oreo cookies.

I'm going to get serious for a moment but only for a moment

D/s and BDSM can be misunderstood. The lifestyle is totally different than just the kinky sex stuff.

Before one decides to dabble in it they should use caution and get to know the other person long before participating.
I say this just in case the younger crowd decides to try it.

There are many who take the time to ask questions and commit to open and honest communication and take care at keeping their partner safe, but there are also others who use D/s and BDSM for the sake of abusing which it is not or so I've heard, lol.

It involves trusting your partner and building on that trust as time goes by.

Lack of knowledge and experience is what gives it a bad name. It ranges from mild to wild and somewhere in between depending on what both partners agree to.

So I hope before anyone decides to jump in and experiment, they first take time to learn what it is all about.

The lifestyle should be approached with respect and an open mind.
kinky sex in the bedroom and other places, is only a small part of D/s and BDSM.

The best advice I could give is for everyone (esp. the younger crowd) is not to throw away your safety rules. To take the time to read about BDSM, also to talk to someone who is experienced in it before handing your trust over to another person.

It's not something to take lightly, know what you are getting into before jumping in, know your partner and take it slow.
It can be magical and the bond between you and your partner becomes deeper and beautiful. Or so I've heard....


It's saved dull relationships.... don't be afraid to experiment....

*****
acrux, you are a bad boy and I will have to deal with you soon

Hmmm, its a murky area alright! In my own mind, I think I know where the boundaries are. Still, I've played with subs that do want them pushed. Obviously, a well delivered spanking is going to leave marks & maybe a little bruising, but without having seen what this girl ended up with, I couldn't comment. Similarly, Shibari almost always leaves marks &, if it involves suspension, there'll be bruises. I think what some people dont understand is that, if a sub is getting the attention they crave, they're excited & thus have a higher pain threshold. As a dom, you have to bear that in mind & that the sub's needs in the moment can easily outstrip what they'll be comfortable with a few days later. Its also a fine line to walk in maintaining dominance, so that you dont overstep your own mark, effectively relinquishing control to the sub. I think many doms do concentrate on the physical aspects of BDSM & I suspect thats when things occasionally get out of hand (which they do). A bit of deftly applied psychology goes a long way & obviates any need for more severe physical techniques.
That said, there are some subs that genuinely do seem to want to get really hurt. I once had a girl ask me to carve my name into a seldom seen area of her skin with an ornate dagger. Now, that I wasn't prepared to do - I teased her with the blade for a while & then distracted her with other ideas... However, its such a specific fantasy that I expect she's probably found someone to do it by now. In the grand scheme of things, I'd say that was fairly innocuous compared to some of the rape-game/torture fantasies I've heard about, but as I said, I know where my boundaries are. I have to say that I'm less sure of some doms I've met & when it gets to extreme CBT & the like, I do wonder if perhaps some things should be illegal, regardless of consent. Having known a good many subs over the years, I'm also a bit concerned that some of them may not be in a fit mental state to give what I would call 'informed' consent.

About sex with animals and the idea that it was "legal." Just because something isn't specfically illegal, doesn't make it necessarily legal. This is a false dictomy and this misunderstanding is leading the way to regulations about everything.


16 is too young to consent to this sort of thing. You know it, I know it.

If it isn't specifically illegal to do this, because it is 'consented' to by a minor - then I also think that assault laws should be suspended on the behalf of her parents. In other words, by involving oneself in a relationship with a minor in this way, you obviously consent to her father beating the living crap out of you as well.

This is fair. She consents, so do you.

Problem solved. You're welcome.

[edit on 2010/6/7 by Aeons]

reply to post by acrux


Meh I dunno, I understand the question being posed: How rough can rough be before it's gone to far

If I want rough sex and a woman agrees she wants it too, and then I beat her to an inch of her life but she never said "stop" ... was I in the right to do that? She agreed you know. Or it could go the other way around, the woman beat the man severely. Sometimes people can get carried away and over zealous in the throws of passion, and take things a little to far. But as far as general "roughness" I don't believe thats the Governments business.. and if no serious injury occurred, there shouldn't be a case.

Originally posted by open_eyeballs
reply to post by Frakkerface

 

just throwin out there..people already do amputations and scarification to each other on consentual terms. I cant see why adding sex should have any influence on the legality. this is a line the government has no right to cross.

as longs as there is an agreement, it is legal...this is in the same realm as euthanasia...

I wasn't adding sex but the issue of the legality of 'rough sex' leads to the questions I raised. You can't just make a law about one thing and not think about the consequences and boundries that come with it. If you do not do this then grey areas arise where something totally not intended can be completely legal. Realising where a law leads to and what entails in quite a crucial part of any legal system.

As the above poster states, the question is how far is too far so naturally you have to consider extremes that may not normally be thought of in that line of thinking.

[edit on 7-6-2010 by Frakkerface]

What are the 'moral' distinctions we do or do not make when it comes to the ebs & flows of power between people?

That is a straight up question.

I don't think we want to become a raft of unending, monotonous clones. I think that would be dangerously unhealthy as a society. Probably very stagnant, but i could be wrong.

I don't think we want to fall completely into unchecked brutality either.

We allow young men & women to give their lives supposedly to their nation's interests, but deny them the freedom to do the same for another individual?
Doesn't that sort of deify the state as a substitute religion over the aspirations of individuals?
Certainly that would be anathema to American, individualistic sensibilities.

I guess it comes down to why, if one has to argue it out.
Although if actions take place covertly & are never exposed the sky is the limit.

Interestingly i think i am implying that if it is done to achieve some state of mental exaltation that leads to beneficial progress for society it is probably arguable.
But why is society 'more' important than one or any individual?
I don't think there is any answer to that.

I guess people will make their gut sensed choices.
I do worry that the supersterilized public righteousness will sanitize us all right out of existence & replace us with nice neat tidy machines.
Machines probably without motivations for progress, beauty & curiosity.

There is a well defined line between play and assualt in the BDSM community, and it's called "safe, sane, and consensual". Now, how each participant defines each part (except for the consensual part, which is highly defined (some people even have written contracts!). However, if your sub ends up in the ER afterwards, it was to far. However, bruises, nipple clamps and a short stay in a "cage" is just a fun Saturday night in my neck of the woods. I am more agast at her age, actually. The Doms I know would never consider playing with someone that age (although of course that is illegal here on it's own). But seriously, people who live this lifestyle do it in a very thoughtful and considered way. One has to or serious harm can result.

The community also does self policing very well. You do NOT want to be a Dom who is known to ignore safe words or cause actual harm (as opposed to hurt). Subs will not play with you, and other Dominants WILL have a word with you to explain why your actions are not at community standard. Hell, there are clubs across the country that run classes on how to do this right year round!

Not allowing adults to make full knowledge choices kind of disrespects people & their minds.

This is true of a lot of life[style] choice laws, including drug prohibitions.

It is like the state &/or society has ALREADY decided we should be prepared to be little electric clone robots that plug into corporate cubbyholes for the corporation's profits & benefit.

~shudder~

is that what people really want?

And the laws against suicide, even for terminally ill, miserable & in pain, made in full cognition.

Society has to resist the temptation to be collective Nannies,

most especially when they are such destructive, collectively suicidal nannies to boot.

[edit on 7-6-2010 by slank]

um he was 32 she was 16 what is he a ted nugent wanna be he's a perve hitting on a child

Newsflash!

Average life spans in Roman times was 30.

You had to get preggers at 15 to raise your kid to full 'adulthood'.

People need to back their freaking ratchets back on their uninformed, illiterate, self-righteousness.

The only thing that makes S&M play dangerous is a lack of information. Informed people never come away with anything worse than a bruise or 2 (or 100, whatever!).
I think this court case is ridiculous given that they were under swedish law consenting adults.
IF you thought S&M might marr this girl for life imagine what this whole court shenanigans might do to her and her partner.
I think the real reason this is happening is because some judge over there just wants to hear the blow by blow (no pun intended) OVER AND OVER again (you know how trials are)

[edit on 7-6-2010 by Asktheanimals]

Originally posted by acrux

I think you may be right ... I personally can think of no other reason.

The whole ridiculous senario is unbelievable ... as someone else pointed out - 'if there is no victim how can there be a crime' ?

'aggravated assault' !!!

Give me a break ... erm just to be clear that was a statement ... not a request (in view of the subject matter)

Woody

Or maybe an old prudish Vistorian era "has been" who never once even saw own her husband naked.

PS you say you don't want a break (join in), but then say you have a "woody". Now I'm very confused.

[edit on 7-6-2010 by acrux]

Ok ... maybe you should know that I'm a girl ... that might ease your confusion ... maybe we shouldn't even go there.

(to save more confusion) Woodwytch

reply to post by Aeons

16 is too young to consent to this sort of thing. You know it, I know it.

No I dont know it. At 16 I was able to give consent to any kind of sexual activity. I can say so confidently because I was able to decline taking part when I didnt like the look of the scene, even though I felt a huge fear of being labelled "uncool" by my generally older peer group. Still, I'd had an active sex life for 3yrs by then, so its not surprising.
Its an interesting point tho, because I maintain that, regardless of age, there are some people whose consent cannot really be considered informed. Here's an example that also demonstrates that you dont have to look to the extremes of BDSM to find problems:
I know a woman who, in her early 30s, consented to a type of restraint called "nipple endangerment", which involved devices that hold needles against the skin so that the sub must remain still or get hurt. As is often the case, she did receive some tiny wounds, some of which, most likely as a result of the bukkake that followed, became infected. This resulted in a shrinking of the milk ducts in her left breast, which painfully inverted the nipple. The resulting surgery was dangerous, painful to recover from & has left an unsightly scar which she absolutely hates.
Ok, so this is very unfortunate & hardly a typical outcome. However, it turned out that, whilst she really loves being the submissive centre of attention of a whole group of men, she has never enjoyed any type of restraint: she only consented to it because she thought it was expected of her. She later admitted that, even had she known that there are plenty of people on the alt scene that not only wouldn't judge her preference, but would be happy to play her way, she was so needy that she would have agreed to pretty much anything.
I dont know what the solution is, but there is a problem that needs looking at.

Solution - Age of Consent laws teamed with a Close in Age exception. Under 18, the other person must be within your age crowd. This eliminates some inherent problems with use of age as authority.

But the best solution I already gave.

If the person is under the age of majority, but above the age of consent, and the assault laws are relaxed due to "consent" then the assalt laws should be relaxed for both parties.

She 'consent" to being bruised. He consents that her guardians are allowed to beat the living snot out of him for it.

reply to post by DeathTribble

The community also does self policing very well.

I agree with much of your post, but I have met men on the scene that I've considered only a step away from being proper sociopathic rapists. Yes, people do tend to ostracise them eventually, but they still turn up at a club from time to time, with they're latest online date, who has little to no idea what she's letting herself in for & is totally dismissive of any attempt to inform her. Fine, this type of man may well get barred from a club, maybe a slap, but they're still out there somewhere...
Similarly, I've met (a very few) women whose main interest in domination springs from unresolved anger about a prior relationship. The type of sadism tends to get twisted - I dont believe it does anyone any good. Sadly, some of these women are very popular.
I honestly cant see a role for the law to poke its nose into this in a piecemeal fashion, by attempting to apply legislation that was not designed to deal with these issues, but I contend that there are issues that need looking at.