10 Jun 09, 3:08 PM
Lady_Anna_Bradford
UK(BD), 5 yrs
  |
Tanos wrote:
Lady_Anna_Bradford wrote:
There is no comparison to rape. You can't use rape to support your argument that victims shouldn't be protected by law (to assist them in freeing themselves and their children from abusive situations) so that everyone else can consensually and legally beat each other up.
|
There clearly is a comparison: SM is the equivalent of consensual sex and domestic violence is the equivalent of rape.
You're saying the law should be one way (consent isn't a defence) to protect victims of domestic violence, but not offer the same protection (consent isn't a defence) to victims of rape.
Regards,
Tanos
|
Actually, I'm not. I'm saying I understand why we have this law and the reason is to protect victims of domestic violence. Obviously I don't agree with the fact that it is then used as a catch-all for *informed* consensual violence. Jeez, why would I?
"If no sexual offence is being committed it seems very odd indeed that there should be an offence for having an image of something which was not an offence," Lord Wallace of Tankerness
http://www.ladyanna.co.uk/ http://www.clips4sale.com/store/26308
|
10 Jun 09, 3:14 PM
Lady_Anna_Bradford
UK(BD), 5 yrs
|
stormywaters wrote:
Lady_Anna_Bradford wrote:
stormywaters wrote:
Lady_Anna_Bradford wrote:
stormywaters wrote:
Lady_Anna_Bradford wrote:
stormywaters wrote:
Lady_Anna_Bradford wrote:
Balancing up my need to bang nails through nipples and scrotums and the need of children to grow up in non-abusive households I'd give up the nails.
|
You are 'setting up a paper Tiger' here; constructing a narrow dichotomy for the purpose of making a wider point.
The issue is very much larger and obscured by your particular instance.
|
My point is that this law needs to change, not be completely abolished.
|
Yes fine. So how are we going to change it?
It is perhaps not so different to the position with rape without witnesses. If you legislate for the 'victim' to be believed despite the defendant's denial you simply hand the power to women (or male 'victims') to be judge and jury. If you require evidence to the standard of other criminal offences then in the nature of rape, ie no witnesses, you are making it very hard indeed to get prosecutions.
It would be the same with consent with BDSM. Are we going to legislate to give 'victims' the power of judge and jury, to legislate that if they tell the court there was no consent this must be accepted?
This issue is of course subsidiary to the principle that where the 'victim' says he or she consented no offence has been committed.
|
I don't understand why we are taking about rape. Rape is non-consensual. A rape victim and a rapist will have differing statements. How is this going to happen in a consensual S&M session? Aren't the statements going to back each other up?
S&M is consensual. Domestic violence isn't consensual. Isn't the debate supposed to be about S&M?
|
I was using rape to illustrate the problem you raised over the conflict between the interests of those wishing to be free to practice BDSM and those who might need the assistance of a law that could convict on assault chrges without evidence from the victim.
|
But the victim of domestic violence does supply evidence. She (because it is usually a she) will have provided photos of her injuries, not only that there will be hospital records if it is particularly violent and recurring. This law means it doesn't matter if she withdraws her complaint, the police can still take over, rather than having to close the case and let the abuser continue.
There is no comparison to rape. You can't use rape to support your argument that victims shouldn't be protected by law (to assist them in freeing themselves and their children from abusive situations) so that everyone else can consensually and legally beat each other up.
|
Ok I will have one last go at this then I am going to leave it.
You said that it was a good thing evidence of injury (photos, hospital records etc) could be used to found guilt in assault cases even when the victim declined to give testimony to the court, for example because she was too frightened. Fine I understand that.
But there is a problem with this for BDSMers. The problem is that this law can be used to convict people of sexual assault irrespective of the 'victim's' evidence that it was consensual; because the court will think, ho hum, the victim is just saying that because she is scared of her assailant, well we the court know better.
This was actually a point you raised, not me.
|
Yes. I know. I agree. What I don't agree with is your assertion that the law should be abolished and victims of domestic violence should sort themselves out. As I said before, the law needs to be changed so that S&Mers don't get caught up in it and it shouldn't be applicable to us, BUT, as I said before, how, I do not know. How does anyone know the difference between consent and 'consent'? "If no sexual offence is being committed it seems very odd indeed that there should be an offence for having an image of something which was not an offence," Lord Wallace of Tankerness
http://www.ladyanna.co.uk/ http://www.clips4sale.com/store/26308
|
10 Jun 09, 3:15 PM
Lady_Anna_Bradford
UK(BD), 5 yrs
|
Degenerate wrote:
spirifer wrote:
That would be more persuasive if Spanner didn't say that the claimants may be able to remain anonymous.
I still don't understand how a claim like this doesn't stand or fall on its own merits. The court is hardly likely to suddenly say that the case is incompatible because it has a statement in front of it purportedly from a straight woman, rather than one from a gay man, is it?
|
I have just been talking to a senior criminal barrister on the phone about this and he thinks it would work just as well with less risk if the volunteers were not engaging in SM because of the assault law and claiming they should have the right to under the HRA.
De
|
So we should say that we want to, rather than that we do already? "If no sexual offence is being committed it seems very odd indeed that there should be an offence for having an image of something which was not an offence," Lord Wallace of Tankerness
http://www.ladyanna.co.uk/ http://www.clips4sale.com/store/26308
|
10 Jun 09, 3:16 PM
Tanos
UK(M), 14 yrs
  |
Lady_Anna_Bradford wrote:
Actually, I'm not. I'm saying I understand why we have this law and the reason is to protect victims of domestic violence. Obviously I don't agree with the fact that it is then used as a catch-all for *informed* consensual violence. Jeez, why would I?
|
Do you remember this exchange from a few pages back:
a few pages back you two wrote:
stormywaters wrote:
To remove my right to be and live sexually as I am is a fundamental denial of my right to be.
|
Lady_Anna_Bradford wrote:
As much as I agree with your last statement I would be willing to forgo that right if it meant violent fuckers could be banged up.
Balancing up my need to bang nails through nipples and scrotums and the need of children to grow up in non-abusive households I'd give up the nails.
|
|
Sooooo, the line of what people should allowed to consent to should be drawn somewhere between nailing nipples (not ok) and spanking (ok), right?
I think freely given informed consent itself should be the test.
Regards,
Tanos
www.tanos.org.uk
www.bridgewood.org.uk
www.twitter.com/ukTanos
|
10 Jun 09, 3:29 PM
Lady_Anna_Bradford
UK(BD), 5 yrs
|
Tanos wrote:
Lady_Anna_Bradford wrote:
Actually, I'm not. I'm saying I understand why we have this law and the reason is to protect victims of domestic violence. Obviously I don't agree with the fact that it is then used as a catch-all for *informed* consensual violence. Jeez, why would I?
|
Do you remember this exchange from a few pages back:
a few pages back you two wrote:
stormywaters wrote:
To remove my right to be and live sexually as I am is a fundamental denial of my right to be.
|
Lady_Anna_Bradford wrote:
As much as I agree with your last statement I would be willing to forgo that right if it meant violent fuckers could be banged up.
Balancing up my need to bang nails through nipples and scrotums and the need of children to grow up in non-abusive households I'd give up the nails.
|
|
Sooooo, the line of what people should allowed to consent to should be drawn somewhere between nailing nipples (not ok) and spanking (ok), right?
I think freely given informed consent itself should be the test.
Regards,
Tanos
|
But how do you know when consent has been given?
The law needs to see the difference between non-consensual abuse and consensual S&M. Therein lies the problem. How?
Sorry but don't understand your question Tanos. "If no sexual offence is being committed it seems very odd indeed that there should be an offence for having an image of something which was not an offence," Lord Wallace of Tankerness
http://www.ladyanna.co.uk/ http://www.clips4sale.com/store/26308
|
10 Jun 09, 4:00 PM
Tanos
UK(M), 14 yrs
|
(A bit of reordering of the quotes for clarity.)
Lady_Anna_Bradford wrote:
Tanos wrote:
Lady_Anna_Bradford wrote:
As much as I agree with your last statement I would be willing to forgo that right if it meant violent fuckers could be banged up.
Balancing up my need to bang nails through nipples and scrotums and the need of children to grow up in non-abusive households I'd give up the nails.
|
Sooooo, the line of what people should allowed to consent to should be drawn somewhere between nailing nipples (not ok) and spanking (ok), right?
|
Sorry but don't understand your question Tanos.
|
You're saying that it's ok for nailing nipples (for example) to be illegal and presumably driven underground if it helps victims of genuine abuse. I'm asking where you'd draw the line. (I don't agree with that framework at all.)
Tanos wrote:
I think freely given informed consent itself should be the test.
|
But how do you know when consent has been given?
The law needs to see the difference between non-consensual abuse and consensual S&M. Therein lies the problem. How?
|
The same way it tests whether common assault has happened. Consent is a defence to a charge of common assault, so when Mr Policeman sees Alice spanking Bob and arrests Alice, if Bob is prepared to testify in court that the "common assault" was consensual, for example, then Alice gets off.
Regards,
Tanos
www.tanos.org.uk
www.bridgewood.org.uk
www.twitter.com/ukTanos
|
10 Jun 09, 4:58 PM
proccie
UK(HP), 5 yrs
  |
Whoa there!
Can we agree that the spanner ruling was a bad thing?
Can we? Zen S&M: The sound of one hand smacking.
'()_/)
(>'.'<)
(")_(") < MINE!
|
10 Jun 09, 5:12 PM
Educated_Savage
UK, 2 yrs
|
proccie wrote:
Whoa there!
Can we agree that the spanner ruling was a bad thing?
Can we?
|
Agree? - never, never, never |
10 Jun 09, 5:19 PM
Lady_Anna_Bradford
UK(BD), 5 yrs
|
Tanos wrote:
(A bit of reordering of the quotes for clarity.)
Lady_Anna_Bradford wrote:
Tanos wrote:
Lady_Anna_Bradford wrote:
As much as I agree with your last statement I would be willing to forgo that right if it meant violent fuckers could be banged up.
Balancing up my need to bang nails through nipples and scrotums and the need of children to grow up in non-abusive households I'd give up the nails.
|
Sooooo, the line of what people should allowed to consent to should be drawn somewhere between nailing nipples (not ok) and spanking (ok), right?
|
Sorry but don't understand your question Tanos.
|
You're saying that it's ok for nailing nipples (for example) to be illegal and presumably driven underground if it helps victims of genuine abuse. I'm asking where you'd draw the line. (I don't agree with that framework at all.)
Tanos wrote:
I think freely given informed consent itself should be the test.
|
But how do you know when consent has been given?
The law needs to see the difference between non-consensual abuse and consensual S&M. Therein lies the problem. How?
|
The same way it tests whether common assault has happened. Consent is a defence to a charge of common assault, so when Mr Policeman sees Alice spanking Bob and arrests Alice, if Bob is prepared to testify in court that the "common assault" was consensual, for example, then Alice gets off.
Regards,
Tanos
|
I'm saying that given the current situation I'd be happier (but not happy) that S&M practices stay illegal under the current law if it means the same law is used, *as I believe* it was originally intended to, convict domestic abusers (am I wrong?). I only said this because stormywaters suggested that the victims of domestic violence should sort themselves out rather than society have the need for this law.
What I do have a problem with is that this law is also used to prosecute us and people like us, people who only practise S&M within consenting situations.
Re Bob and Alice. You know as well as I do that if Alice hammered nails into Bob's scrotum then she probably (I say probably because Alice isn't a gay man) wouldn't get off because the law doesn't believe that anybody can consent to torture. Torture was the word used to describe the Spanner activities.
There is a big difference between common assault and GBH. "If no sexual offence is being committed it seems very odd indeed that there should be an offence for having an image of something which was not an offence," Lord Wallace of Tankerness
http://www.ladyanna.co.uk/ http://www.clips4sale.com/store/26308
|
10 Jun 09, 5:23 PM
stormywaters
PT, 4 yrs |
proccie wrote:
Whoa there!
Can we agree that the spanner ruling was a bad thing?
Can we?
|
Yes, we can. My object all sublime...
|
