Legal Regulation of Sado Masochism (55)

Undoubtedly, dont bother suspecting its blatant. I have believed this all along. In some of my letters I sent I used such examples as religious practices aired on TV like the people who flog themselves with razor blade whips, lick razor blades (blood bath literally), lodge knives into their skulls and stick spikes into their face etc. Also the fact that if you do extreme sports you are giving your consent to potentially dying such as a bad skiing accident etc. Im my opinion good examples not because they are paralled to BDSM but infact a lot worse unless you want to argue that everytime you session your putting your actual life at risk or you are mutilating your tongue/back to the point your covered in so much blood like no-ones business!!

Its sexual, no 2 ways about it. Dont fool yourself into thinking its remotely rational or any other reason its pure and simple bigotry. Dont end up sitting in a jail cell cos you looked at a pic that 'appeared' life threatening even though it was just a pic of some feigned throttling sex, especially not when there would be free people out there who knowingly actually pyhsically part-take in real activities that are actually life threatening never mind merely *looking* at something that 'appears' to be (See, its totally stupid). As well as people mutilating themselves in the name of image like piercings or maybe even plastic surgery where you for instance might slice your nose off and get a new one. How many BDSMers do you know that sliced their nose off? Oh hang on people who want plastic surgery are doing it for sexual reasons because they want to look more attractive so give them 10 years in jail I say. My arse.

It is quite clear that these laws are amazingly inconsistent if they are supposed to be on the premise of violence/harm.

Like Tanos said earlier I hope the Lords see this impartially and realistically, I also suspect/hope lawyers will have this law die on its ass. Lets remember that MP's are often just partial vote grabbing power mongers, this law has things at stake for some MP's like a vested interest. Not for the Lords or Lawyers though thankfully. Then theres the ECHR too, its just this bloody stupid island of a country.

There isn't, actually - the camera pulls back and we never see 'Nice Guy' doing the cop's ear with the shiv.

Testimony to how well-filmed it was that people THINK they saw it happen, though!

I think those were cleared up in the '90s, when it was ruled rape can take place within marriage (re a wife being 'property') and the double-standard of things being illegal for a woman to do to a man but not vice-versa was ended as a side-issue to the legislation equalling gay & het ages of consent (or at least I think it was).

He's just a ball of attitude and opinion........

The certification thing is not a matter of the letter of the law; however, most martial arts bodies do require some form of supervision and/or qualification (in the form of the belts system or otherwise) before they will agree that a fight has been "properly conducted".

The Football Association "Laws of the Game" require that there be a referee.

I don't know how case law has interpreted "properly conducted", but my guess would be that the logical interpretation would be "conducted according to the recognised rules of the sport as determined by the sport's governing body". Those sports the rules of which I know reasonably well, seem to require that there is someone in a supervisory capacity at an event: a referee, umpire, adjudicator, judge or similar.

In what I consider to be proper intellectual rigour, I therefore presented the fact (though not legal requirement) of supervision and/or accreditation at properly conducted sporting events as being a possible point that would be raised by those who wanted to see BDSM involving ABH kept illegal. The point of raising this issue was not to argue the ins and outs of current legal interpretation, nor how the CPS chooses to prosecute or not. It was to point up that the specified "good reasons" in the Offences Against the Person Act are ones in which competence is recognised officially.

For BDSM to claim to be on a par with those other "good reasons", the question is not one of "does the Top have a certificate?" but rather, "How would a Top demonstrate to a court's satisfaction that he or she was competent to perform the activities?" If BDSM were to be made legal, I believe that that is a question that must be answered.

Ta,

SnowdropExplodes

How does that equate to a football kick around on the local rec or on the beach?

A football kick around the local rec or on the beach, is not "properly conducted" as according to the laws of association football. For one thing (on a health & safety front), it will probably not conform to the requirements concerning players' equipment. If my interpretation of the law is correct (and I accept that I have no reason other than my own logic to think that it is) then that makes a person who causes injury to a degree of ABH or GBH in a friendly kick around at the park or beach, technically liable to be prosecuted. He or she would have to rely on the CPS deciding that it was not in the public interest to pursue the matter in court.

As I said, I don't know if my interpretation of the law is the same as that currently determined by courts/police/the CPS, but it seems to me to be a sensible interpretation that enables a court to make an objective determination of whether a sport was "properly conducted". It may well be that the law uses a different test, or just allows magistrates or jurors to make up their own minds about what constitutes "properly conducted" sports.

The relevance of this point basically comes down to the legal definition in criminal law of "properly conducted sport", which may or may not be the same as the definitions determined by the individual governing bodies of recognised sports.

Another issue is one of which governing bodies are recognised by the courts - for example, would "extreme ironing" be classed as a "properly conducted sport", if it has an international governing body?

Ta,

SnowdropExplodes

Now it is currently illegal to engage in sado masochism, the brown (spanner) case sets that precident. Unless you are husband and wife as in the other case.

The police will not be interested in a prosecution unless there has been a very harmfull abh and of course they will in gbh. regardless if there was a complaint made.

Yes, if a persen has entered the deep realms of life and wants to kill themselves or destroy themselves by drugs, alcohol or self harming, then there is very little anyone can do to stop them. Yes those people should have help available to them who want it and or need it. But it hardly works unless the person is willing to try and help themselves.

Soon it will be illegal to possess or view pictures of sado masochism, whether they are simulated or not. That is in my opinion a violation of human rights as we view these types of actions and far worse, every day on our televisions and movie screens.

Now if i want my boyfriend to whip me in bed and tape it to watch later, that should not be illegial, but it is. I want to change that element of human rights, i'm not looking to open the floodgates of abuse, just looking for the public to accept that some people like being tied up etc and if its consenting adults, then there is nothing wrong etc.

not sure that this is true since 1961.

-M

Edit: note to self to check other responses

Edited 8 Jan 07, 10:41 PM by Attitude_Adjuster

lol. yes especially if its a cute dog that cocks its head and gets human characterisation, a lot of people are so inclined. Myself, I really wanted a mermaid, ever since seeing Splash

-M

Precident set by the spanner case was that you could not consent to your own assault

It is not currently illegal to engage in sado masochism, there has not been a precident set under that, not all SM activitys end in what can be classed as ABH or GBH. The brown case showed more of the public intrest in the time, where it was seen that what goes on between a marriage is the husbands and wifes responsibility, it was also at a time where domestic violence cases got swept under the carpet because of the same reason. Times have changed since then and the likelyhood of prosecution for ABH and GBH are getting more exual between same sex relationships, unmarried relationships and married relationships.

If there is a complaint made then the police have to show they are investigating it and if anything illigal has occured bring charges, with regards ABH the police normally wont puruse unless they have a complaint or it has been shown to be in the public intrest (ie brought to there attention by something/someone), GBH (where very harmful ABH would normally come under) would normally be prosecuted as this is seen as a more violent act in what the results are.

How many people are forcibly sectioned under the mental health act each year?

[quote}Soon it will be illegal to possess or view pictures of sado masochism, whether they are simulated or not. That is in my opinion a violation of human rights as we view these types of actions and far worse, every day on our televisions and movie screens. [/quote]

Please stop saying that it will be illigal to possess pictures of SM, it will be illigal to possess images of violent pornpgraphy, not all SM is classed as violent, not even in porn land.

If it is seen as violent on film then it would be illigal to tape and watch later, if the whipping left marks that were more than transient of trifling then it illigal now.

You can whip someone so it doesnt leave marks that class as illigal, you can also whip someone where it isnt portrayed as violent.

At the moment its a case of knowing what the law is and trying to work around it as well as looking at ways it can change without it being subjected to abuse.

My 2p worth x

As far as i know it is true.