is BDSM illeagal?

[Stella_Omega]

Most of the time it's one of those "we know it when we see it" things


But the laws come in handy when someone needs to shut someone up, and legitimate thereapists have been arrested on prostitution charges when the politics are expedient.

 

[Lizzie_Borden]

Simply put; They Aren't allowed to opperate.

The following comments will likely be mistaken for moral judgement. The truth is that I've had just enough difficulty with various aspects of laws laid out by ignorant people, and the legal system in general; I find that it almost as grating that the laws exist as they are, as I do that so many people continue in ignorance of the peril others have put them in.

The legal definition of prostitution is any touch as a form of trade.

Technically; if you give me penny to shake your hand, it's prostitution.

I've had to explain this time and again in my days as a massage therapist.

I think the main reason Pro-Dommes get away with their trade as easily as they do is that their clientelle are men. Doctors aren't taught to look out for the tell-tale signs of abuse on men, family members are a lot less likely to be sensitive about it, "I walked into a door," is a far more plausible excuse from a man (for some reason) and a lot less likely to set off alarm bells.

Furthermore, because beating someone for money constitutes prostitution, you can bet that Pro-Dommes aren't paying income tax. If they aren't paying taxes, they aren't "being allowed," to opperate, they're just getting away with it.

Is it wrong?
Don't know, don't care.
More succintly; I prefer to live and let live, and wish feverently that laws supported/ reflected this approach, rather than creating a groundwork for everyone to be all up in everyone else's buisness.

I feel strongly that the laws are wrong, but no one's going to fix them by pretending that they're more reasonable than they really are.

I'm guessing the laws are differrent here, cos the proper pro operators DO pay taxes.



Anyone know the laws for Aus?

 

[teknight]

Simply put; They Aren't allowed to opperate.

The following comments will likely be mistaken for moral judgement. The truth is that I've had just enough difficulty with various aspects of laws laid out by ignorant people, and the legal system in general; I find that it almost as grating that the laws exist as they are, as I do that so many people continue in ignorance of the peril others have put them in.

The legal definition of prostitution is any touch as a form of trade.

Technically; if you give me penny to shake your hand, it's prostitution.

I've had to explain this time and again in my days as a massage therapist.

I think the main reason Pro-Dommes get away with their trade as easily as they do is that their clientelle are men. Doctors aren't taught to look out for the tell-tale signs of abuse on men, family members are a lot less likely to be sensitive about it, "I walked into a door," is a far more plausible excuse from a man (for some reason) and a lot less likely to set off alarm bells.

Furthermore, because beating someone for money constitutes prostitution, you can bet that Pro-Dommes aren't paying income tax. If they aren't paying taxes, they aren't "being allowed," to opperate, they're just getting away with it.

Is it wrong?
Don't know, don't care.
More succintly; I prefer to live and let live, and wish feverently that laws supported/ reflected this approach, rather than creating a groundwork for everyone to be all up in everyone else's buisness.

I feel strongly that the laws are wrong, but no one's going to fix them by pretending that they're more reasonable than they really are.

The legal definition of prostitution, as found here.

The act of offering one's self for hire to engage in sexual relations.

It's not just...any touch, it's a sexual touch.
Or, here:

The term "prostitution" generally means the commission by a person of any natural or unnatural sexual act, deviate sexual intercourse, or sexual contact for monetary consideration or other thing of value.

Or state specific definitions here.

The giving or receiving of the body for sexual activity for hire but excludes sexual activity between spouses. (Fla. Statutes '94)

Performing for hire, or offering or agreeing to perform for hire where there is an exchange of value, any of the following acts: Sexual intercourse; sodomy, or; manual or other bodily contact stimulation of the genitals of any person with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desires of the offender or another.(Kansas Statutes '95)

The common lewdness of a woman for gain.

In all well regulated communities this has been considered a heinous offence, for which the woman may be punished, and the keeper of a house of prostitution may be indicted for keeping a common nuisance.

So much does the law abhor this offence, that a landlord cannot recover for the use and occupation of a house let for the purpose of prostitution.

In a figurative sense, it signifies the bad use which a corrupt judge makes of the law, by making it subservient to his interest; as, the prostitution of the law, the prostitution of justice.

 

[teknight]

For those of you who love the refrain "if you don't like someone, stick them on your ignore list," here is a perfect example of that practice failing.

I only log in when I post, therefore I still get to skim across anything posted by anyone who might have earned a place on my admittedly short ignore list.

Such as teknight.

That aside; my massage instructors made no small point of this; that unlicensed massage therapy is prostitution. Searching online however did not backup my previous statements, so I did something you might not have considered; I called my lawyer (huzzah for the equality of pre-paid legal).

As it turns out, laws change on a regular basis (which is why we need lawyers to keep these things straight), and those laws in particular have changed in the last ten years since my education.

Now days, at least in the state of Washington; massage therapy without a license is simply 'massage therapy without a license'.

Hooray for progress!

The saloon girl laws I mentioned "may still be on the books in some cities where massage therapy is less goverened," but they're "fading into the cracks, as forgotten or unenforced sex laws, and will probably be corrected if/ as they come up"

For a change, teknight, you've made my day.

Thank you.

Uhh...sure. Anytime.

 

[a75]

I recently learned that a woman in the US filed a case against a man for unlawful imprisonment and assault.
What if a woman is a slave and cheats her master ? so are the masters in danger of charges being filed against them? Is BDSM legal?

I think one should distinguish between the terms illegal and punishable. Hitting, cutting, torturing someone physically or mentally, is always illegal. But it isn't punishable, if it is part of a sexual practice agreed by both partners.

When such cases come to court, it's very difficult for the defendant to plead consent, because people don't sign contracts before starting BDSM relationships, and the suitor usually has a pack of evidence from coroners. But even when there are proofs of consent, there is a second weapon in the suitor's arsenal: the abuse of power. The Sub can say that there was agreement to do some things, but the Dom misused it and caused excessive physical or psychological damage (= non consent again).

 

[teknight]

I think one should distinguish between the terms illegal and punishable. Hitting, cutting, torturing someone physically or mentally, is always illegal. But it isn't punishable, if it is part of a sexual practice agreed by both partners.

When such cases come to court, it's very difficult for the defendant to plead consent, because people don't sign contracts before starting BDSM relationships, and the suitor usually has a pack of evidence from coroners. But even when there are proofs of consent, there is a second weapon in the suitor's arsenal: the abuse of power. The Sub can say that there was agreement to do some things, but the Dom misused it and caused excessive physical or psychological damage (= non consent again).

Would such a contract (whereby one party agrees to be "abused") be enforceable by a court of law?

And I thought illegal things were punishable ... by law?

 

[HottieMama]

Would such a contract (whereby one party agrees to be "abused") be enforceable by a court of law?

And I thought illegal things were punishable ... by law?

"Slave" contracts or any type of BDSM contracts are not enforceable in a court of law.

 

[teknight]

"Slave" contracts or any type of BDSM contracts are not enforceable in a court of law.

That was my point, but thank you for being explicit.

 

[NiggerSayWhat]

Brotha lawyers cause more problems then solved or fixed.

Damn judges who are lawyer too lack just as much common sense

fuck lawyers, fuck da judges

For those of you who love the refrain "if you don't like someone, stick them on your ignore list," here is a perfect example of that practice failing.

I only log in when I post, therefore I still get to skim across anything posted by anyone who might have earned a place on my admittedly short ignore list.

Such as teknight.

That aside; my massage instructors made no small point of this; that unlicensed massage therapy is prostitution. Searching online however did not backup my previous statements, so I did something you might not have considered; I called my lawyer (huzzah for the equality of pre-paid legal).

As it turns out, laws change on a regular basis (which is why we need lawyers to keep these things straight), and those laws in particular have changed in the last ten years since my education.

Now days, at least in the state of Washington; massage therapy without a license is simply 'massage therapy without a license'.

Hooray for progress!

The saloon girl laws I mentioned "may still be on the books in some cities where massage therapy is less goverened," but they're "fading into the cracks, as forgotten or unenforced sex laws, and will probably be corrected if/ as they come up"

For a change, teknight, you've made my day.

Thank you.

 

[a75]

Would such a contract (whereby one party agrees to be "abused") be enforceable by a court of law?

And I thought illegal things were punishable ... by law?

The contract was just a metaphor.

About your second question, I copy/paste from wikipedia: Volenti non fit injuria (...) is a common law doctrine which means that if someone willingly places themselves in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they cannot then sue if harm actually results.

 

[a75]

Would such a contract (whereby one party agrees to be "abused") be enforceable by a court of law?

And I thought illegal things were punishable ... by law?

The contract was just a metaphor.

About your second question, I copy/paste from wikipedia: Volenti non fit injuria (...) is a common law doctrine which means that if someone willingly places themselves in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they cannot then sue if harm actually results.

Of course the above mentioned doctrine is not used in all cases, but it is a characteristic example why illegal things aren't always punishable.

 

[bhndblueyes88]

The contract was just a metaphor.

About your second question, I copy/paste from wikipedia: Volenti non fit injuria (...) is a common law doctrine which means that if someone willingly places themselves in a position where harm might result, knowing that some degree of harm might result, they cannot then sue if harm actually results.

Of course the above mentioned doctrine is not used in all cases, but it is a characteristic example why illegal things aren't always punishable.

they are punishable, just not in a suit. You can still be charged with a crime and be sentenced an appropriate punishment.

 

[teknight]

Of course the above mentioned doctrine is not used in all cases, but it is a characteristic example why illegal things aren't always punishable.

OK.
It could be the case that something is declared illegal, with no punishment being assigned to go with it, or it could be that the particular law is not enforced...
N'est ce pas?

 

[DocDom]

Simply put; They Aren't allowed to opperate.

The following comments will likely be mistaken for moral judgement. The truth is that I've had just enough difficulty with various aspects of laws laid out by ignorant people, and the legal system in general; I find that it almost as grating that the laws exist as they are, as I do that so many people continue in ignorance of the peril others have put them in.

The legal definition of prostitution is any touch as a form of trade.

Technically; if you give me penny to shake your hand, it's prostitution.

I've had to explain this time and again in my days as a massage therapist.

I think the main reason Pro-Dommes get away with their trade as easily as they do is that their clientelle are men. Doctors aren't taught to look out for the tell-tale signs of abuse on men, family members are a lot less likely to be sensitive about it, "I walked into a door," is a far more plausible excuse from a man (for some reason) and a lot less likely to set off alarm bells.

Furthermore, because beating someone for money constitutes prostitution, you can bet that Pro-Dommes aren't paying income tax. If they aren't paying taxes, they aren't "being allowed," to opperate, they're just getting away with it.

Is it wrong?
Don't know, don't care.
More succintly; I prefer to live and let live, and wish feverently that laws supported/ reflected this approach, rather than creating a groundwork for everyone to be all up in everyone else's buisness.

I feel strongly that the laws are wrong, but no one's going to fix them by pretending that they're more reasonable than they really are.

With respect, Stag, you should check your facts. These comments are simply wrong. Prostitution is trade of money for a sexual act. (Shaking hands is not a sexual act). Also, by your definition porn stars would all be arrested for prostitution. There's a reason that American porn is produced in California. In most states producing pornography is considered prostitution. California exempts pornography from prostitution laws.

So, is BDSM illegal? The answer is it depends. Some states do have sodomy laws on the books, however, recent Supreme Court decisions indicate that those laws are probably unconstitutional and are seldom enforced. Typically these laws come into play during divorces or when one party tries to extort money out of the other. I'm unfamiliar with the OK case being discussed. Is this a civil case or criminal case?

In BDSM the word "abuse" is really just a term of art like "rape". One cannot legally consent to be raped because the legal definition of "rape" is sexual intercourse upon a person without their consent. Similarly one can't consent to "abuse" because legally "abuse" is "assault" or "battery" both of which are defined as physical contact without consent.

In practical terms: (1) In jurisdictions where sodomy laws are on the books you could potentially be arrested for BDSM. In this scenario consent is moot. If convicted the sentence might be overturned on appeal.
(2) In any jurisdiction there is a risk that a sub sues you for battery or files criminal charges of battery, rape, etc. The burden of proof is on the accuser. Bear in mind that rape cases are very difficult to prosecute, especially if the accuser waits. (i.e couple splits and then the sub claims she (or he) was raped/abused. As I said, this is more likely to become an issue in divorce proceedings when money and/or custody issues are involved.
(3) A third party (ie. family member, neighbor, friend) is free to call the police, but if the "victim" denies being abused that will generally be the end of it, unless of course there are sodomy laws on the books.

Final point: the actual legality could be immaterial if you are concerned about reputation or have a low threshold for embarrassment.

Apologies on the length of the post, but I saw a lot of misinformation posted (not just by you Stag) and thought I'd jump in.

Last point: To those that suggested that a lot of information about these cases isn't reported, you are correct. You'll hear about the charges, but seldom hear the details.
Be safe.

 

[DocDom]

Follow up: BDSM "contracts" are unenforceable because there's nothing to enforce. They simply state what each party is willing to do. However, they can be used to show that the relationship was consensual, and can bear on the accuser's credibility. Be advised however that past consent is not a defense in rape. The issue is whether the accuser consented at the time of the incident complained of.

 

[vixjohn]

I read a story in a UK magazine where a Womans Ex had placed an ad in/on Craiglist saying she wanted to be part of a rape fantasy.

Unfortunatly, the poor woman didnt, consesual or otherwise and when a guy turned up to do it, she was raped, he didnt listen to her safeword, because she didnt have one, so her screaming out 'No' fell on deaf ears as he thought it was all part and parcel, I mean, No doesnt always mean No, especially when we have a safeword set up!!

He was arrested and she was taken to hospital, when her current partner went home there was another man sat on their settee with a video camera and when asked who he was he simply replied "I'm here for a rape fantasy!"

The man who commited the rape was a married father of 2 and was jailed for 60 years as was the ex who posted the ad.

I am probably way off the mark, and I'm not sure if people will agree with me, but my question is, should he have gotten 60 years? it wasnt consesual, so he definitely shouldnt get off scott free, but 60 years seems....excessive.

I mean, what if she was in the lifestyle and had been asked? It wouldnt have had the same result would it?

I'm in no way down playing what the poor woman went through, I hope she finds peace in her life as I do with other rape victims, but it's a genuine fantasy for some...how can people judge whether its consensual or not?

I hope I'm making sense, sorry if I'm not...It was just a subject that ran over and over in my mind.


Vix x

 

[Munachi]

hm, i once saw a tv show with a similar case - maybe it was based on the case you read about? it made me wonder a lot how much blame you could put on the guy there. of course it seems not very wise to do that kind of thing with someone you never met in person (even if the possibility of someone else setting her up might not cross your mind, the person could be setting you up)... but 60 years does indeed seem a lot. but then, around here i think maximum sentences are something like 15 to 20 years so i guess that's why such a long sentence seems extreme to me.

 

[teknight]

I am probably way off the mark, and I'm not sure if people will agree with me, but my question is, should he have gotten 60 years? it wasnt consesual, so he definitely shouldnt get off scott free, but 60 years seems....excessive.

I mean, what if she was in the lifestyle and had been asked? It wouldnt have had the same result would it?

Vix x

If someone rapes you, regardless of the story behind it, how many years in prison is that worth?

If she'd been in the lifestyle, or, if she'd asked, then it wouldn't have been rape, now would it?

@Munachi: Salut. Ce te aduce in forumul BDSM?

 

[Munachi]

sunt curioasa... adica ma gandesc ca intotdeauna se poate invata mai mult despre sexul, si acuma vreau sa invat despre bdsm...

i am not really sure what to think in such a case... thing is of course, the guy who raped her thought she had asked. on the other hand, i think it is really quite stupid to do something like that as a blind date, and i suppose one has to wonder a bit if it never occured to the guy that something isn't quite right...

 

[Etoile]

You know what's good?

Citations.

 

[bhndblueyes88]

You know what's good?

Citations.

Well if you insist...

It appears you were double-parked, ma'am. Here is your parking violation *hands ticket*

 

[teknight]

sunt curioasa... adica ma gandesc ca intotdeauna se poate invata mai mult despre sex, si acuma vreau sa invat despre bdsm...

i am not really sure what to think in such a case... thing is of course, the guy who raped her thought she had asked. on the other hand, i think it is really quite stupid to do something like that as a blind date, and i suppose one has to wonder a bit if it never occured to the guy that something isn't quite right...

Tzi-am corectat a o mica eroare acolo- tu ai zis echivalentul a "want to learn more about the sex" vs. "want to learn more about sex," care e varianta mea. Ca veni vorba despre invatat despre bdsm- cunosti site-ul fetlife.com? E facebook, da' kinky!

(I wonder what the non-Romanian speakers are gonna make of that message )


It doesn't matter what he thought...or what excuse he's using. The thing with play-rape or consensual nonconsent is that you give the consent first and give a safe word as a bare minimum before shit goes down (so to speak).

I mean he's basically using the age old line of: "it wasn't rape 'cause she wanted it" ('cause of how she was dressed, how she was acting, or, most obviously of all, 'cause she had a vagina*).

You know what's good?

Citations.

OK. What style do you prefer? MLA? Chicago style? APA?

*Vagina- the most clear sign that you want sex, regardless of what you actually want.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I read a story in a UK magazine where a Womans Ex had placed an ad in/on Craiglist saying she wanted to be part of a rape fantasy.

Unfortunatly, the poor woman didnt, consesual or otherwise and when a guy turned up to do it, she was raped, he didnt listen to her safeword, because she didnt have one, so her screaming out 'No' fell on deaf ears as he thought it was all part and parcel, I mean, No doesnt always mean No, especially when we have a safeword set up!!

He was arrested and she was taken to hospital, when her current partner went home there was another man sat on their settee with a video camera and when asked who he was he simply replied "I'm here for a rape fantasy!"

The man who commited the rape was a married father of 2 and was jailed for 60 years as was the ex who posted the ad.

I am probably way off the mark, and I'm not sure if people will agree with me, but my question is, should he have gotten 60 years? it wasnt consesual, so he definitely shouldnt get off scott free, but 60 years seems....excessive.

I mean, what if she was in the lifestyle and had been asked? It wouldnt have had the same result would it?

I'm in no way down playing what the poor woman went through, I hope she finds peace in her life as I do with other rape victims, but it's a genuine fantasy for some...how can people judge whether its consensual or not?

I hope I'm making sense, sorry if I'm not...It was just a subject that ran over and over in my mind.


Vix x

The lesson we learn from this is that we never, ever stupidly assume that an ad in craigslist is on the up-and-up, and that no matter what the ad says, you make contact, do your due diligence, conduct your negotiations, and then proceed.

And the fact that these guys actually thought they could rely on what a craigslist ad said, should be jailtime worthy in itself.

*Vagina- the most clear sign that you want sex, regardless of what you actually want.

May I just state: you are becoming one of the smartest men in the universe.

 

[Mz_Cunningham]

*Vagina- the most clear sign that you want sex, regardless of what you actually want.

We have sex organs, therefore we are

 

[Munachi]

(teknight - i think we should move the conversation to private messages or the romanian thread though, i suppose it is not so nice for those people who don't understand romanian otherwise)...

Hm, I just read that in Germany any pornography depicting rape is illegal. Wonder if that then is true for non-consent stories on lit, too...