Swedish court considers sadomasochism case

[Stella_Omega]

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?

Well, yes-- and then again, no. The problem is when it gets out of the bedroom and into the public sphere. Then the evidence of whatever consensual violence has been inflicted- is inflicted on unwilling bystanders.

This is knowledge that is hurtful to most people, and quite rightly, because most of the time, bruises really do mean abuse.

 

[Shrubbery]

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?

To be honest I'm not sure where I'd draw the line, or whether there needs to be a line. I think it's a matter of rights of the person to be treated how they want vs the duty of care we all have to other human beings.

An adult in our society has the legal right to injure or kill themselves as they wish. In theory, we should have as much right to kill ourselves with the help of someone else, through BDSM or whatever, as we do to kill ourselves through jumping off a bridge or dangerous activities like mountain climbing, and in this sense the other person should hold no responsibility for our injury or death.

However. If someone else helps to hurt a person, it makes most people (including me) wonder whether they've fulfilled their duty of care. Have they ensured this person is in their right mind? Have they tried to convince that maybe it's not such a good idea? Have they, in fact, coerced or persuaded the person into that decision for their own ends? How can we be sure that there was no ulterior motive?

I think in theory anything goes, but we should maybe compromise some of our rights to be abused in order to safeguard vulnerable people (like 16 year old girls) from making questionable choices under the influence of others.

Also yes, I'm very much in favour of Romeo and Juliet laws. There simply isn't one age at which you suddenly become sexually mature and capable of making your own decisions and having one legal age of consent is a compromise between failing to protect young people from manipulative pervy older people, and prohibiting normal and healthy sexual development and exploration

 

[Shrubbery]

Well, yes-- and then again, no. The problem is when it gets out of the bedroom and into the public sphere. Then the evidence of whatever consensual violence has been inflicted- is inflicted on unwilling bystanders.

This is knowledge that is hurtful to most people, and quite rightly, because most of the time, bruises really do mean abuse.

Interesting point. I've heard this argument before, in relation to wearing bike helmets. Risking your own life is one thing, but if some unwitting driver knocks you off your bike and kills you, they have to live with that and it's just not fair to inflict that on people.
However, I don't think I agree with it in this instance, as we'd then also have to ban skateboarding, boxing, walking into revolving doors, etc. The idea of not being allowed to be bruised in public is just not something I feel makes a lot of practical sense.

 

[sb2009]

we really don't have carte blanche to hurt ourselves - if someone is to be admitted for mental health observation, one of the parameters is if they are a danger to themselves or other people.

Now, if you truly want to hurt yourself you can put on a nice act and say "no, I am not intending to hurt myself" and go to your room and knock yourself off. But USUALLY a person who is wanting to hurt themselves and who is being questioned is having a mental health crisis of some sort, and will not be savvy enough to answer the questions in such a way to get a clear bill of health.

NOT ALL THE TIME. I am aware that there are people who are perfectly find adn like to hurt themselves, just like I am aware that there are subs who need emergency care but who consented to the injury and tht there are even subs who get off on all sorts of things....but in this case, I'm just stating that "injury to myself or others" is a standard criteria for 72 hour mental health evaluation.

As far as this girl is concerned, the case if icky. I don't like the age difference, but it's legal where she lives. Briuses? I have bruises quite a bit. I have had exams with bruises and explained to my dr that it's a kinky thing and she was fine with it. Im sure my demeaner and general attitude was a clue that I wasn't being abused.