"What's In A Name?" (or BDSM by any other name)? (19)

This may well be true in the case of the police, solicitors, or even barristers. However, I have real doubts that a jury (and it is, after all, they who must decide the verdict, is it not?) - esp the female members of a jury in a case where it is a woman complaining of assault by a man - would set very much store by the way in which the injuries appear to have been made - how random or how systematic or on which part of the body. And again: I'm inclined to the view that most women jurors, or even women solcitors or barristers for that matter, will far more readily believe that it was simply uninvited cruelty, however systematic. However, where the genders are the other way about - i.e the man complains of assault by the woman - here the women esp (and probably many of the men, too) are likely, I would have thought, to be very sceptical. Only if there is clear evidence that physical restraint was used, it seems to me, would most juries (of mixed genders, as they usually are, esp in such a case) look more favourably on the man's complaint. Even then, I suspect, many would simply wonder why 'he allowed her to tie him up/restrain him in the first place'. Agreed?

- bluemagic

"When the bottom falls out of your world - Take 'Andrew's' (liver salts) and, instead ... Let the world fall out of your bottom. "

Edited 19 Jan 12, 1:33 AM by bluemagic

I wasn't going to bore people ...but ah, what the hell...

When I was at law school, the first case I came across was that of R v Brown. This was and still is, on virtually every law school syllabus - it gets students talking- I wonder why???

Anyway, it makes very interesting reading and represents the law as it now stands regarding the issues you discuss in your post...

If you can't be bothered to read the whole judgment (which also involves discussion of other BDSM-type encounters like the caning of a prostitute etc... then there is a very brief summary of the case here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Brown

However, I would read here; http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKHL/1992/7.html

Perhaps the best quote - and there are many - comes from Lord Templeman: 'society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence … Pleasure derived from pain is an evil thing. Cruelty is uncivilised.'

Happy reading...

My desires are nothing so pedestrian...

1) I only said may be more easily persuaded, not will be persuaded. However I think a basic knowledge of the existence of kink and tolerance of it (at least in private in relationships) is actually far more widespread than the Daily Mail would have you believe.

2) I suspect you may be misjudging people's characters. In some circumstances men tend to gallantry and will be more critical of any man who has hit a woman, whereas women can be very critical of another woman's behaviour and suggest they got what they deserved. Not all women, and not all circumstances, but it certainly doesn't follow automatically that women will side with women and men with men.

3) Male victims of domestic violence certainly have a huge problem with getting people to take them seriously. A part of that is the failure to understand that abuse is more about a mindset than physical strength - they get injured not because they are too physically weak to protect themselves or fight back, but because they won't do it for whatever reason. A bad thing for victims of domestic violence, but useful for any dommes who are falsely accused of abuse by a disgruntled sub.

Interesting points. Whilst not in total agreement with you, I take these comments on board to my argument. Thank you.

- bluemagic

"When the bottom falls out of your world - Take 'Andrew's' (liver salts) and, instead ... Let the world fall out of your bottom. "

Thanks for these links. I will research these and get back with my further thoughts on this thread in due course.

- bluemagic

"When the bottom falls out of your world - Take 'Andrew's' (liver salts) and, instead ... Let the world fall out of your bottom. "

Technically, consent doesn't have anything to do with BDSM. Anything done that causes physical harm MAY be considered to be Assault, GBH or ABH, depending on the severity of it. Remember that those all of those convicted as part of the Spanner case fully consented but were still prosecuted despite that.

"Ouch" is NOT a safeword!

It isn't quite as bad as that - consent is still a defence to common assault, even if the assault is for sexual purposes. This has to be true otherwise all sex would be assault, unless it was done purely for the purpose of producing babies or for artistic reasons and not for sexual pleasure. Spanner only says that consent for sexual pleasure is invalid for ABH or GBH level assaults.

The legal definition of ABH is an injury that is "more than transient or trifling", so it could include an awful lot of BDSM. However in reality these days ABH only tends to be used for more serious injuries, minor bruising, scratching, cuts and marks are dealt with as common assault.

There are plenty of interesting legal arguments waiting to happen around all these issues, not least a challenge to the Spanner ruling in the light of changing social attitudes on similar lines to the challenge which changed the law on rape in marriage, but they are waiting for suitable test cases. Which in many ways is good news, because it shows that actually very few people, if any, are actually being prosecuted for consensual BDSM.

Given how many people are fairly open and even exhibitionist about their play this does give the lie to the idea that "the authorities" are actively trying to clamp down on deviancy and put us all in prison. For the most part police, prosecutors and courts really don't care about what adults do in private with consent. And I suspect 90% of the population probably take a similar line - it is just that the ones who oppose it are so vocal and cling on to their claims to the moral high ground so strongly that the majority feel a bit ashamed to speak up for something that doesn't really affect them and they don't feel that strongly about, and change in the law becomes politically impossible.

Change in the law will probably have to come through the courts, but we may just have to settle for de facto change - that is that whatever the law says police and CPS will not feel it in the public interest to prosecute consenting adult sexual practices in private.

As said above cases like Brown say how hard you can hit etc before it's illegal. You can't consent to certain sexual violence.

Secondly although previously under the law there was no rape by a man in marrigae as you gave continuous consent that was abolished. A man can rape his wife and if she says no it means no. People fall out and fight over assets, property, children and bring all kinds of stuff up so tread carefully and be careful whom you choose as a spouse.