Consent and those "little guys"

[Pure]

Hey lara, that's great; anything I can do to help increase your depravity, literary or otherwise.

There are some scenes of erotic hanging in there somewhere, but I don't have the book right now.

It is often very funny. Also I remember "Steely Dan from Yokahama" (a dildo).

 

[exiledmaster]

Good point, EM. It's a dictum of British law that you can't consent to serious bodily harm.

In a way this makes sense, in term of mutilation*; OTOH, I maintain a person has a right to suicide, which is pretty damn harmful.

For lara,
/Sounds like an unsatisfying fetish if it is of the imagination./

Don't knock it if you haven't tried it. Ever read Naked Lunch?


*Who indeed, being sane, would put their eyes out or have them removed (except to stem a fatal spread of cancer, of course.)

well not quite; as I remember it the law was still in a tangle over the difference between consenting to a wounding or GBH for sexual pleasure (e.g. the piercing and nailing examples in the Spanner case) which is definitely a no no, and, for instance, the Appeal Court case concerning Mrs W who was branded by her husband; his conviction was overturned by the Court of appeal after Spanner because she said the desire involved was artistic, not sexual (yeah,... right....) apologies for the lack of references but I'm a little out of touch, and it's a touch academic, but English law does go a little crazy whenever sex comes up...
It's the problem of motive isn't it... Or a question of motive and that subjective opinion about body enhancement as versus the diminution of bodily function. What I mean is, myself and others may agree that a woman's body is enhanced by nipple rings or other piercings, but there is unlikely to be much diminution of the body's ability to perform its normal functions. On the other hand a body with a limb removed because that will arouse or please someone is definitely less able to do what it formerly could...

It's a difficult one; my own view is that something along the lines of amputation or the like does cross the line where people ought to be questioning their motives,a nd where others ought to refuse to co-operate in the fulfillment of the wish. I've made the same decision in other things; one of my lovers at the height of the AIDS issue in the 80s had a strong fetish for unsafe sex with bisexual men, either while or immediately after they had unsafe sex with other men. It wasn't my job to tell her it was wrong, but I could and did refuse to go along with her wish fulfillment. That's probably why I believe it is more criminal to help someone fulfill a fetish or desire that brings permanent diminution of faculties than it is to have or to enact the desire upon onesself...

 

[Pure]

Hi EM

//It's the problem of motive isn't it... Or a question of motive and that subjective opinion about body enhancement as versus the diminution of bodily function. What I mean is, myself and others may agree that a woman's body is enhanced by nipple rings or other piercings, but there is unlikely to be much diminution of the body's ability to perform its normal functions. On the other hand a body with a limb removed because that will arouse or please someone is definitely less able to do what it formerly could...//

The criterion of diminution of function/faculties does sound attractive, but 'body enhancement' has been taken pretty far.
Enough nipple rings and large ones, piercings of the areola are going to affect function; putting in bags of silicone, i understand sometimes affects function. think too of the African tribe whose women stretch their necks over the years, with rings; severly weaking the neck's ability to support the head. indeed, on your criterion it might be wrong to sell a woman a pair of high heeled shoes.

Still, I generally see your point, and loss of function is going to be integrally related to 'serious bodily harm' a category the law worries about.

As to
//That's probably why I believe it is more criminal to help someone fulfill a fetish or desire that brings permanent diminution of faculties than it is to have or to enact the desire upon onesself...//

That's an interesting position. I suppose laws against assisting suicide are based on that intuition.

On the other hand, in our Canadian Rodriques case, involving MS, the problems of your type of approach are evident. She had a right to suicide, but could not, and the law proscribed assisting her. Depriving her of the exercize of the right.
(A doctor covertly broke the law to resolve the problem).

I don't think, in the end it's a coherent moral/legal system where I've every right to something, but it's wrong/illegal for anyone to get involved, facilitate, whatever (provided they are not instigating the thing). It expresses social disapproval, but makes no sense ultimately. It sort of like saying I have a right to drink, but society, disapproving, makes it wrong for anyone to bring me drink. So if I'm crippled, my right to drink cannot be exercized.

There are other issues around trying to diminish, change a sex drive, and how that relates to diminution of function, but that's for another posting. However I just note your criterion 'loss of function' applies to every surgical sex change; and there's no real replacement/substitution since the 'woman' made by this operation has no ovaries or womb and cannot bear a child.

 

[exiledmaster]

I can't disagree with every dot and comma of your contribution Pure, because my own moral / ethical code is a tangled mess in some regards, even though, like many men, I like to see myself as a chivalrous individual who serves a clear personal moral code.

However, one issue that rears its head is that of gender reassignment. Yes, it impairs function, but the whole point is that the individual in their pre transgendered state is dysfunctional anyway....

I think it is such a toughie that I do rely on intuition rather than a controlled scheme of thought...

 

[boredoldlurker]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Goldengoddess
*giggle* isnt that sick...not that I care what gets anyone off
but in his fridge to stay fresh
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



On one femdom site I post to, there was a rousing discussion (read argument) when one so called submissive posted a plea for information on where he could find a place to gild his balls cause he wanted to give his mistress a surprise by giving his mistress his gold covered balls in a case for their anniversary.

He wanted it to be a surprise.

Oh yeah, it would be a surprise alright!


__________________


miss ebonyfire may i please have a link to that site ?? ( an so not to be off topic ) any fetish, fantasy , day dream what ever that will leave permanent damage should just not be carried out .. but as far as the castreated thing goes if it is some thing you really want to try .... well why not wait untill after youre sexdrive goes to hell. but just could not do that i love my nuts way too much

 

[scarlet vixen]

hey bored,

as far as permanent damage goes, yep I guess that fits castration, probably also breast enlargement. and even after sex drive is down--are you speaking first hand, lurker?-- could mess up the balance in a guy's body, maybe affect his bones, or whatever.

I've never asked it and never would, but it seems to me that a single testicle, artfuly removed for the mistress' sake, has tremendous symbolic value. It would show utter devotion and NOT fuck up his hormones or even ability to have kids. A bit like the Yakuza guys in the movies at least, that chop off a little finger as part of their initiation and pledge of honor.