Swedish court considers sadomasochism case

[DVS]

 

[EbonyGoddess1987]

OK, I guess. That's treating sex as an altered state. If that's the case you should not be able to drive or work while lust-filled - or wearing a buttplug because your Master told you to, for that matter.

What if he was her 18 yo bf? That's the part that's tweaking me a bit, I think. Not the idea of a 16 yo getting some rough sex marks - just not from someone my age, egad.

amazing. and wrong.

 

[Netzach]

amazing. and wrong.

How so?

A lot of US states have Romeo and Juliet statutes - this acknowledges that teens DO fuck, while discouraging Mark Foley from picking up 15 year old dudes online. If I were the parent of a 15 year old, you can be sure as shit that I'm fine if he has puppy love with another soccer player and I don't want my senators sniffing around his shorts.

I'm not crazy about limiting those who have maturity to make decisions based on those who don't, but it's not outside the legal realm to have things like this on the books.

 

[JMohegan]

I've browsed the Swedish newspaper about the issue and the question they're really talking about now is not the age, but what are things a person can consent to. It's about violence, and if only looked from that point of view I can't see any clear difference between boxing and BDSM. Both are risky. The Swedish Association for Sexuality Education is quite strongly against prosecuting the man. I watched a news clip about the case and the prosecutor said that when practicing BDSM one "shouldn't hit very hard and not very long".

As someone who's spent a heck of a lot of time in both contact sports and pain play, I see two enormous differences between the two.

The first is that physically engaging with a roughly well-matched opponent is a whole hell of a lot different than dealing with a person who's tied to the bed.

The second is that there are clearly defined and enforced rules in contact sports. Rules designed specifically to reduce the risk of injury to the participants.

It sounds to me as if the prosecutor is trying to establish safety rules to apply to sex as well. A rule against hitting hard and long sounds goofy to me. Not just because it would restrict legitimate pain play, but also because the vagueness of the rule renders it tough to follow, not to mention enforce.

On the other hand, if Mistress wants to cut her boy's balls off and feed them to the crows, consent or not I think we could at least have a legitimate debate as to whether it would be appropriate to legalize that.

In other words, I don't think that yes/no to consensual violence in the bedroom is the question here. It's a matter of where you place the line between consensual violence that should be legal, or violence that should be illegal, whether consensual or not.

 

[Netzach]

As someone who's spent a heck of a lot of time in both contact sports and pain play, I see two enormous differences between the two.

The first is that physically engaging with a roughly well-matched opponent is a whole hell of a lot different than dealing with a person who's tied to the bed.

The second is that there are clearly defined and enforced rules in contact sports. Rules designed specifically to reduce the risk of injury to the participants.

It sounds to me as if the prosecutor is trying to establish safety rules to apply to sex as well. A rule against hitting hard and long sounds goofy to me. Not just because it would restrict legitimate pain play, but also because the vagueness of the rule renders it tough to follow, not to mention enforce.

On the other hand, if Mistress wants to cut her boy's balls off and feed them to the crows, consent or not I think we could at least have a legitimate debate as to whether it would be appropriate to legalize that.

In other words, I don't think that yes/no to consensual violence in the bedroom is the question here. It's a matter of where you place the line between consensual violence that should be legal, or violence that should be illegal, whether consensual or not.

People can and have died playing contact sports. High schoolers have died doing this and been maimed for life - you and I both know this isn't the norm, but a possible and demonstrated worst-case- to me the "extent of damage being risked" is kind of aribtrary.

The bottom line is that BDSM is put in a legal limbo area because people are uncomfortable as fuck with it.

 

[JMohegan]

I think the concern is that throwing sexual gratification into the mix can impair judgement in a way that I doubt you'd see on a hockey pitch. There's also more risk of people getting carried away in the heat of the moment and doing something seriously dangerous or regrettable.

The adrenaline engaged in contact sports can be every bit as powerful as sexual energy. It feels different, but it has the potential to mess with your head just as strongly as intense arousal.

The differences are: A) that the other hockey player pushes back when you slam him into the boards, and B) that if your judgment slips and you break the rules, the ref hauls your ass out of the game - temporarily or permanently, depending on what you do.

 

[intothewoods]

People can and have died playing contact sports. High schoolers have died doing this and been maimed for life - you and I both know this isn't the norm, but a possible and demonstrated worst-case- to me the "extent of damage being risked" is kind of aribtrary.

The bottom line is that BDSM is put in a legal limbo area because people are uncomfortable as fuck with it.

Well, there is an additional layer of safety from having coaches, refs and other hopefully level-headed adult supervisors.

I would agree with you that I'm much more comfortable with a 16 and 18 year old and less with a 16 and 35 year old.

Of course, if they were really in love, I'm sure that would mitigate the risk entirely.

 

[JMohegan]

People can and have died playing contact sports. High schoolers have died doing this and been maimed for life - you and I both know this isn't the norm, but a possible and demonstrated worst-case- to me the "extent of damage being risked" is kind of aribtrary.

The bottom line is that BDSM is put in a legal limbo area because people are uncomfortable as fuck with it.

Right. But you can't hit below the belt in boxing, for obvious reasons, and you can't face mask a guy in football because of the risk of neck injury. Contact sports are filled with rules specifically designed to mitigate the "extent of damage being risked."

So if you're arguing in favor of legal consensual kink, in my opinion sports analogies are not the way to go. Following that analogy through to its logical conclusion invites exactly the type of rules we seek to avoid.

 

[satindesire]

No matter how much it squicks me out, the age difference, she consented to it and got what she wanted. She was probably pretty happy. I know she's young but I don't think we should punish them for going after what they want sexually, even if the age difference makes us really uncomfortable.

 

[JMohegan]

Well, there is an additional layer of safety from having coaches, refs and other hopefully level-headed adult supervisors.

I would agree with you that I'm much more comfortable with a 16 and 18 year old and less with a 16 and 35 year old.

Of course, if they were really in love, I'm sure that would mitigate the risk entirely.

I'm with you, except for that last bit.

There's always risk - even for the experienced and well-informed. Additionally, there's nothing about being in love that absolutely insures the participants will be either of those things.

 

[intothewoods]

I'm with you, except for that last bit.

There's always risk - even for the experienced and well-informed. Additionally, there's nothing about being in love that absolutely insures the participants will be either of those things.

You mean, love isn't all you need?

It was a bad joke, in light of recent threads around here.

 

[JMohegan]

You mean, love isn't all you need?

It was a bad joke, in light of recent threads around here.

Doh! Apologies.

Not sure which threads you're referring to; I only read a small portion of what's on the board.

 

[fuckmeat]

OK, I guess. That's treating sex as an altered state. If that's the case you should not be able to drive or work while lust-filled - or wearing a buttplug because your Master told you to, for that matter.

What if he was her 18 yo bf? That's the part that's tweaking me a bit, I think. Not the idea of a 16 yo getting some rough sex marks - just not from someone my age, egad.

*shrug*

What I meant was that I don't think anyone should be engaging in BDSM with a 16y/o, whether they're 18 or 80. The guy's comparative 'maturity' makes me inclined to see him as irresponsible for doing this, no matter whether she consented the whole time or not.

Wearing a buttplug while driving isn't the same as getting blown or fucked while driving or speeding down a freeway and masturbating. If it doesn't cause an altered state and impair judgement a bit, somebody needs to work on their technique.

 

[Netzach]

*shrug*

What I meant was that I don't think anyone should be engaging in BDSM with a 16y/o, whether they're 18 or 80. The guy's comparative 'maturity' makes me inclined to see him as irresponsible for doing this, no matter whether she consented the whole time or not.

Wearing a buttplug while driving isn't the same as getting blown or fucked while driving or speeding down a freeway and masturbating. If it doesn't cause an altered state and impair judgement a bit, somebody needs to work on their technique.

True.

I guess I don't have problems with the kiddies tying each other up if they're not killing each other - they're going to be trying stuff out. Biting and bruising should be the least of our worries. The more safety information is out there the better, there's only so much that social judgement and sanction is going to matter one way or another.

I agree that I sure as hell was not equipped to do this stuff nor even have sex at that age, but I'm not everyone else.

 

[Homburg]

I think the concern is that throwing sexual gratification into the mix can impair judgement in a way that I doubt you'd see on a hockey pitch. There's also more risk of people getting carried away in the heat of the moment and doing something seriously dangerous or regrettable.

This is a flawed idea. As JM said, adrenaline will screw with your head solidly, and so will blows to the head and body. Accumulated impact trauma messes with your head too. By this logic, veteran boxers are incapable of providing informed consent because they've been smacked around.

And the heat of the moment in competition is as intense as anything sexual vis a vis the emotions it can arouse, so I can't go with the heat of the moment either.

I don't know. I think you need real emotional maturity to engage in BDSM safely and sanely. If I had tried some of the things I enjoy now at the age of 15 or 16, I think I'd be a very different adult now and not in a good way. Besides, where's the fun in being totally sexually jaded before you're even 18?

I think that if anything, the guy who consented to play with her at that age should be gelded with a rusty spoon. That'd serve society better than anything else.

I think that there are two separate issues here and people are conflating them within their arguments.

1) Can a 16yr old provide informed consent?

2) Can someone consent to the 'violence' inherent to much of BDSM?

Legally, the age of consent there is 15. At which point, per their laws, yes, a 16yr old can provide informed consent to sexual acts. The second question is a different topic altogether, and asks whether or not anyone can consent to this sort of interchange at all. Answer those two questions, then approach whether or not a 16yr can apply informed consent to BDSM.

The age difference is largely immaterial in my opinion, as there would be no societal concern over a 30yr old having sexual congress with a 46yr old. What matters here is the age of the bottom and whether or not you think it is appropriate for said bottom to bottom. I personally see equal (if not greater) issues with a 16yr old bottoming to an 18yr old, so the fact that the top is 32 does not somehow make it worse in my eyes.

 

[Homburg]

Right. But you can't hit below the belt in boxing, for obvious reasons, and you can't face mask a guy in football because of the risk of neck injury. Contact sports are filled with rules specifically designed to mitigate the "extent of damage being risked."

So if you're arguing in favor of legal consensual kink, in my opinion sports analogies are not the way to go. Following that analogy through to its logical conclusion invites exactly the type of rules we seek to avoid.

At high level organised competition, yes, but backyard pick-up games are run by mass consensus. And I know I've called up a sparring partner and met for a few rounds of unsupervised sparring quite often.

The idea that they don't match up because there's no coach or ref or hard rules does not make the analogy completely flawed. Let's face it, the BDSM equivalent to organised sports would be parties and conventions, and there are all sorts of rules, monitors, and safety precautions in place at those events much like there are at sporting events.

 

[JMohegan]

At high level organised competition, yes, but backyard pick-up games are run by mass consensus. And I know I've called up a sparring partner and met for a few rounds of unsupervised sparring quite often.

The idea that they don't match up because there's no coach or ref or hard rules does not make the analogy completely flawed. Let's face it, the BDSM equivalent to organised sports would be parties and conventions, and there are all sorts of rules, monitors, and safety precautions in place at those events much like there are at sporting events.

I guess we could say that private bedroom kink is comparable to backyard football and unsupervised sparring, in the private rules sense.

Will there be tackling, yes or no? = Will there be breath play? (i.e., both are privately established boundaries.)

But you're still not allowed to go all Tyson and start biting ears off - whether you're boxing or playing ball or fucking. Even if no one is watching.

Which gets back to my earlier point, that the real question here is not "should you be allowed to consent to taking physical risks," but rather, "which acts should be illegal, and under what circumstances, regardless of whether consent was obtained or not?"

Should Lawrence Taylor have gone to jail for breaking Theismann's leg? Of course not. But should it be illegal for a D to deliberately break a consenting partner's leg, to get his/her rocks off? To teach the s a lesson? Or just because he was pissed off? My answer to those questions are yes, yes, and yes.

Other people may have different answers to those questions, but most people have a line somewhere. The line between violence they believe consent gives the right to inflict, and violence so extreme that consent becomes irrelevant.

 

[intothewoods]

Doh! Apologies.

Not sure which threads you're referring to; I only read a small portion of what's on the board.

I think you kind of have to limit yourself these days if you want time for, you know, eating and stuff.

 

[ownedsubgal]

interesting case. i am one of those who happens to believe that, barring it causes no direct harm to anyone else, a person can consent to be subjected to whatever they wish. i don't really care if my Master decides to break my leg, but many women would be dialing 911 if their partner slaps their face. so-called "lines" will always be completely subjective, and therefore not fit to be defined by law.

where the law can play a useful role, imo, is by attempting to actually verify consent. like, in this particular case, send the girl to a couple of sessions with a qualified psychologist...if she seems content and not coerced, then let them be. if not, probe a bit further.

 

[Homburg]

I guess we could say that private bedroom kink is comparable to backyard football and unsupervised sparring, in the private rules sense.

Will there be tackling, yes or no? = Will there be breath play? (i.e., both are privately established boundaries.)

This was essentially my point, yes.

But you're still not allowed to go all Tyson and start biting ears off - whether you're boxing or playing ball or fucking. Even if no one is watching.

Which gets back to my earlier point, that the real question here is not "should you be allowed to consent to taking physical risks," but rather, "which acts should be illegal, and under what circumstances, regardless of whether consent was obtained or not?"

Should Lawrence Taylor have gone to jail for breaking Theismann's leg? Of course not. But should it be illegal for a D to deliberately break a consenting partner's leg, to get his/her rocks off? To teach the s a lesson? Or just because he was pissed off? My answer to those questions are yes, yes, and yes.

Other people may have different answers to those questions, but most people have a line somewhere. The line between violence they believe consent gives the right to inflict, and violence so extreme that consent becomes irrelevant.

In my own life, if it is likely to produce a visit to a medical professional, I don't do it. If it is, in fact, likely to result in a trip to the medicine cabinet, I generally don't do it.

And I think the Theismann example is a good one. I rather doubt that Taylor intended to break his leg. It was a hard hit and accidents happen. Intent becomes the defining aspect to me. I know I've wound up in front of a doctor due to injuries I've suffered while pursuing my own physical hobbies. In one case, it was due to an eye injury while sparring with practice knives. My sparring partner felt REALLY bad about it, and it was as much my fault as it was his. In that case, while there was harm, there was no foul.

 

[Netzach]

interesting case. i am one of those who happens to believe that, barring it causes no direct harm to anyone else, a person can consent to be subjected to whatever they wish. i don't really care if my Master decides to break my leg, but many women would be dialing 911 if their partner slaps their face. so-called "lines" will always be completely subjective, and therefore not fit to be defined by law.

where the law can play a useful role, imo, is by attempting to actually verify consent. like, in this particular case, send the girl to a couple of sessions with a qualified psychologist...if she seems content and not coerced, then let them be. if not, probe a bit further.

My hunch is that with legal minors parents are often too busy having an aneurysm to actually consider their offspring's wishes.

 

[Shrubbery]

My hunch is that with legal minors parents are often too busy having an aneurysm to actually consider their offspring's wishes.

I don't mean to sound like an authoritarian meanie, but surely the point of being a legal minor is that you are too immature for your wishes to be the defining factor? When I was younger, there were all sorts of things I wished to do, like eating paint, or tying my skatebard to the back of my mum's car and having her drag me, where my wishes were rightly overruled by people who knew better than me.

The intent argument has little relevance, because most BDSM play is entirely intentional (although accidents do, inevitably, happen).

I do see the logic of the sports analogy, but just for the sake of argument, I'm going to take more extreme examples, like mountain climbing (which I love). This carries with it the danger of instant horrifying death by avalanche, or by gravity, or by snowstorm, etc, etc. There are no laws against mountain climbing, nor have I ever heard anyone arguing that there should be. For that matter, there are no laws against purposefully breaking your own leg, drinking a pint of bleach, or jumping into an industrial mincing machine. The issue is not how bad the damage is likely to be or where the line is, but the possibility of abuse of consent. I think one of the reasons many people baulk at the idea of euthanasia, for example, is the possibility of money-grabbing relatives bumping you off while you lie in a coma, or some such. Suicide is legal and carries little stigma. Euthenasia is illegal in most countries and at least controversial everywhere else. Both result in death, but only one carries the possibility of someone's life being taken against their will.

BDSM does carry this difficulty of defining consent, as it specifically involves giving over control to your dom, hence the importance of trusting relationships, safety words, etc.

I think anyone should have as much right to risk death at the hands of their sex partner through suffocation play or similar as I do to risk death by avalanche.
However, a moutain cannot coerce me to come and climb on it against my will. Nor can it break any pre-arranged rules and agreements. Mountains don't have safety words.

Any court cases involving BDSM need to understand the specific relationship between the people, and decide if there has been coersion.

Wow, that turned into a proper rant! Didn't quite intend that..
well, thanks for bearing with me. Unless you just skipped to the end, in which case, screw you!

 

[JMohegan]

I don't mean to sound like an authoritarian meanie, but surely the point of being a legal minor is that you are too immature for your wishes to be the defining factor? When I was younger, there were all sorts of things I wished to do, like eating paint, or tying my skatebard to the back of my mum's car and having her drag me, where my wishes were rightly overruled by people who knew better than me.

The intent argument has little relevance, because most BDSM play is entirely intentional (although accidents do, inevitably, happen).

I do see the logic of the sports analogy, but just for the sake of argument, I'm going to take more extreme examples, like mountain climbing (which I love). This carries with it the danger of instant horrifying death by avalanche, or by gravity, or by snowstorm, etc, etc. There are no laws against mountain climbing, nor have I ever heard anyone arguing that there should be. For that matter, there are no laws against purposefully breaking your own leg, drinking a pint of bleach, or jumping into an industrial mincing machine. The issue is not how bad the damage is likely to be or where the line is, but the possibility of abuse of consent. I think one of the reasons many people baulk at the idea of euthanasia, for example, is the possibility of money-grabbing relatives bumping you off while you lie in a coma, or some such. Suicide is legal and carries little stigma. Euthenasia is illegal in most countries and at least controversial everywhere else. Both result in death, but only one carries the possibility of someone's life being taken against their will.

BDSM does carry this difficulty of defining consent, as it specifically involves giving over control to your dom, hence the importance of trusting relationships, safety words, etc.

I think anyone should have as much right to risk death at the hands of their sex partner through suffocation play or similar as I do to risk death by avalanche.
However, a moutain cannot coerce me to come and climb on it against my will. Nor can it break any pre-arranged rules and agreements. Mountains don't have safety words.

Any court cases involving BDSM need to understand the specific relationship between the people, and decide if there has been coersion.

Wow, that turned into a proper rant! Didn't quite intend that..
well, thanks for bearing with me. Unless you just skipped to the end, in which case, screw you!

Okay, let's take it to extremes. Do you believe that a person should be able to kill a consenting partner, simply because snuff gets him/her off?

As you said, most BDSM play is entirely intentional. So it's not a question of risking bruises, it's a matter of intentional bruising. Take that intention all the way up the ramp of escalating physical "injury," and you've got snuff at the end.

Do you believe anything goes, literally anything at all in the consensual bedroom, as long as there's been no coercion?

 

[BiBunny]

I think this is just a slippery slope all the way around.

 

[Netzach]

I don't mean to sound like an authoritarian meanie, but surely the point of being a legal minor is that you are too immature for your wishes to be the defining factor? When I was younger, there were all sorts of things I wished to do, like eating paint, or tying my skatebard to the back of my mum's car and having her drag me, where my wishes were rightly overruled by people who knew better than me.

The intent argument has little relevance, because most BDSM play is entirely intentional (although accidents do, inevitably, happen).

I do see the logic of the sports analogy, but just for the sake of argument, I'm going to take more extreme examples, like mountain climbing (which I love). This carries with it the danger of instant horrifying death by avalanche, or by gravity, or by snowstorm, etc, etc. There are no laws against mountain climbing, nor have I ever heard anyone arguing that there should be. For that matter, there are no laws against purposefully breaking your own leg, drinking a pint of bleach, or jumping into an industrial mincing machine. The issue is not how bad the damage is likely to be or where the line is, but the possibility of abuse of consent. I think one of the reasons many people baulk at the idea of euthanasia, for example, is the possibility of money-grabbing relatives bumping you off while you lie in a coma, or some such. Suicide is legal and carries little stigma. Euthenasia is illegal in most countries and at least controversial everywhere else. Both result in death, but only one carries the possibility of someone's life being taken against their will.

BDSM does carry this difficulty of defining consent, as it specifically involves giving over control to your dom, hence the importance of trusting relationships, safety words, etc.

I think anyone should have as much right to risk death at the hands of their sex partner through suffocation play or similar as I do to risk death by avalanche.
However, a moutain cannot coerce me to come and climb on it against my will. Nor can it break any pre-arranged rules and agreements. Mountains don't have safety words.

Any court cases involving BDSM need to understand the specific relationship between the people, and decide if there has been coersion.

Wow, that turned into a proper rant! Didn't quite intend that..
well, thanks for bearing with me. Unless you just skipped to the end, in which case, screw you!

All valid points. In this case though it seems there was some bruising. I also absolutely abhor the idea that the 17 year old partner of a 16 year old, in theory, could be hauled off on the same statues as someone in another age bracket - I do think "Romeo and Juliet" clauses have a purpose. Younger people are going to have sex, some of it quite kinky. It avoids the coercion and manipulations of older people to make them wait till kinky Juliet is 18. Something this dude would have been far wiser to do.