What would you do if BDSM would be illegal?

[Primalex]

it would come down to definitions then. paedophilia is very clearly defined, BDSM isn't, at least not until you get to the more physically extreme end.

You can replace "underage sex" with "same sex kissing" or "spraying of walls" or whatever. How can this come down to definitions then? Exactly which part of my texts made you believe that the definition of "BDSM" or "underage sex" would matter at all in this thread?

 

[KoPilot]

How can this come down to definitions then?

Because that's the only way that the law would be able to identify your proposed criminal acts and deal with them accordingly. There is no possible way that you'd be able to make even half of what many people categorize as BDSM illegal. You could outlaw corporal punishment (I'm sure many ill-informed parents would be very angry about this), and many other physical actions, but how would you go about criminalizing, say, cooking meals for you PYL or being completely in charge of housekeeping? Could you outlaw the act of telling your pyl what to wear out to dinner?

I think it's a silly discussion. Though, I'd like to see you try and come up with a comprehensive list of every BDSM act that you'd constitute as illegal in this situation. I dare ya.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Yes.

I just don't manage the step from this well-known observation to the conclusion that the illegality of actions doesn't matter.

You deserve a cookie for the wonderful logicality of your superior thought processes!

 

[DVS]

We would come up with a new code.

Some woman talked recently, about how she was interrogated about the men she knew-- were any of them homosexual? She said she did not know any homosexuals. The MP kept asking her if she knew someone on the base or nearby, named "Dorothy." This Dorothy, they thought, might be hosting parties for homosexual men.
Later she found out that "A friend of Dorothy" (As in "The Wizard Of Oz") was code for gay men, in the Army. Even though she was friends with some gay men, they never entrusted her with that secret signal.

There are always ways to make oneself known to others. There would be a lot fewer people involved, and a lot of solitary fantasies. A lot of people would never get to actualise what they wanted. No different than usual, really.

Just like the gays had a code in the military, there would be many more codes. And the obvious codes, like the handkerchief in the back pocket at bars would have to be changed. Many more subtle and very secret codes would be installed.

It would be like pot smoker or drug user code or like hooker code. The names for things would be coded and it would be very difficult to meet new people. I find it difficult to meet new people now, so I wonder how difficult it would be in such an illegal situation.

If there were any kind of reward for turning someone in, there would be the risk of telling anybody your kink. And that would also make it more difficult to meet people. And those meetings would be very private, only passed around by word of mouth...no Internet listings.

I think more would change than people think. You all talk like you'd stick to your current people, but that means the laws would change AFTER you knew these people. The question is, what if it was ALWAYS illegal. That means before you met the people you already know. You as well as they would not have been as open as maybe they were. Not as trusting and not as sharing for a lot longer before the trust factor has set in.

I do think it would be hotter, though. Something illegal seems to bring out the sexual heat more. It's kind of like the phobia about anal sex or some people seeing it as taboo. With all of BDSM being seen as taboo, the parties would be more private, but once the group was into it, parties would be hot!

 

[Stella_Omega]

For the first twenty years of my sexual life, I lived in ignorance of BDSM groups or traditions. The Janus group was active in my state-- I never heard of it.

Gay motorcycle groups were playing with power and hierarchy, in a secrecy that puts the CIA to shame.

I never heard of safewords, until the mid-nineties. I had no knowledge of negotiations, had no names for what I wanted. All I knew of pleasure/pain was the stuff I could glean from English boarding-school stories and what my skin told me. I rarely found satisfaction in real encounters, never met anyone with real experience.

A hella lot of people would experience things the same way if BDSM were pushed back underground.

 

[Sir_Winston54]

Sometimes qp's mode of argument/discussion reminds me of BBoring. :: blink blink :: Other times, he seems almost rational.

 

[Primalex]

but how would you go about criminalizing, say, cooking meals for you PYL or being completely in charge of housekeeping? Could you outlaw the act of telling your pyl what to wear out to dinner?

You don't have to. Assault doesn't list all possible attacks. There is no law for murder with poison, one for murder with a gun, one for murder with...
So your assumption this would be required for an anti-bdsm law is unfortunately completely wrong.

You should read some more laws.

 

[chy_girl]

I'm talking here about the impact of laws on persons with sexual desires. So your rant about consent completely misses the point.

Not exactly. You asked:

Considering that most think that it wouldn't matter much at all, whether it is legal or illegal - do you think it makes sense that underage sex is illegal?

The moral difference for me, and many others, is that consenting adults have the mental capacity to give consent from a legal, if not psychological, perspective. Children and teens do not. So yes, I'd say it makes perfect sense that there are laws saying a 35yo old person can't fuck a 12yo person.

Now, if you are talking about a potential correlation between the impact upon the "practice of," then I imagine that BDSM would be affected the same way as the underage sex people. There will be some who would look at the consequences and decide it wasn't worth the risk, there would be some who figured they could get away with it, there would be some who would be proud to become a spokes person/advocate for the right, and there would be those who flaunted it and then dared law enforcement to do something. And then there's be the "I didn't mean to tie her/him up and fuck... I just tripped over a shoe" crowd.

 

[Primalex]

Not exactly. You asked:

The moral difference for me, and many others, is that consenting adults have the mental capacity to give consent from a legal, if not psychological, perspective. Children and teens do not. So yes, I'd say it makes perfect sense that there are laws saying a 35yo old person can't fuck a 12yo person.

But why, if it doesn't change anything whether the law exists or not?

 

[BiBunny]

I don't imagine that if someone wants to fuck a kid that any of those pesky laws are going to stop them. I don't believe those laws are there as a deterrent.

 

[Primalex]

I don't imagine that if someone wants to fuck a kid that any of those pesky laws are going to stop them. I don't believe those laws are there as a deterrent.

Ah, finally someone with a consistent opinion.

Well, why are they there then?

 

[Stella_Omega]

Ah, finally someone with a consistent opinion.

Well, why are they there then?

Laws are, in best-case, expressions of the social norm. We don't make laws against playing baseball.

In fact, laws governing behavior do make a difference. Laws don't stop people who really want to do something. But they do stop people who only kinda-sorta think about doing something. They remind us that the community does not hold that behavior in high regard, and that we might lose more than we gain if we go that route-- not only monetary or incarceration, but social regard.

Some laws are more accurate indicators than others, and some behavior norms have changed-- the laws tend to reflect this in due time. There didn't used to be laws against child sex. There used to be laws against "fornication" on every level.

 

[BiBunny]

Ah, finally someone with a consistent opinion.

Well, why are they there then?

To punish the people who do those things, I suppose. Anybody who believes laws stop anybody from doing anything need only look at Prohibition and "the war on drugs." And, generally, if you have enough money, the law need not necessarily apply to you. So I guess you could say they're there to be arbitrarily enforced.

 

[KoPilot]

You don't have to. Assault doesn't list all possible attacks. There is no law for murder with poison, one for murder with a gun, one for murder with...
So your assumption this would be required for an anti-bdsm law is unfortunately completely wrong.

You should read some more laws.

No, but murder is defined by the taking of a life. And assault is treated differently based on the circumstances of the attack.

How would you go about defining BDSM in terms of law? Or are we supposed to be discussing this with the assumption that whatever governing body and judicial system that would be enforcing this is all-knowing and all-seeing, so that whatever activity that anyone would ever partake in that they might consider to be BDSM-related is automatically a prosecutable crime?

I refuse to conjecture in a vacuum with you.

 

[Primalex]

Laws are, in best-case, expressions of the social norm.

This sounds like the worst-case to me. Those laws are of the kind that allow stoning a raped woman to death for adultery. But this is just a sidenote, the really interesting part is here:

In fact, laws governing behavior do make a difference. Laws don't stop people who really want to do something. But they do stop people who only kinda-sorta think about doing something. They remind us that the community does not hold that behavior in high regard, and that we might lose more than we gain if we go that route-- not only monetary or incarceration, but social regard.

Now, taking this into consideration, do you still believe that it would be "no different than usual" if BDSM would be illegal?

 

[Primalex]

How would you go about defining BDSM in terms of law? Or are we supposed to be discussing this with the assumption that whatever governing body and judicial system that would be enforcing this is all-knowing and all-seeing, so that whatever activity that anyone would ever partake in that they might consider to be BDSM-related is automatically a prosecutable crime?

How does your opinion change whether there is an all-knowing and all-seeing government or not? Does your opinion about a law change depending on the governments ability to prosecute it?

Or let me rephrase it in a simple way:
Do you think it's bad that there is a law against murder when only 0.0001% of murderers are caught and do you change your opinion about the law when 60% of murderers are caught?

I can debate whether a law is economical or not, depending on the amount of convictions. But for everything else, the ability to prosecute it, is really not interesting.

 

[Primalex]

No, but murder is defined by the taking of a life.

Regarding this all-seeing government - it's not sufficient to just take a life of someone. It's not even sufficient to take someone's life and getting caught with the gun in the hand. The attorney must prove your deliberate intention that you wanted to kill that person. In your world, this is not possible, because you would have to be able to read the mind of the perpetrator - but for some strange reasons, people still get prosecuted for murder.

Think about it.

And once you figure out why people end in jail without mind-reading judges, you can apply this same solution to the sub that is "caught" serving a meal.

 

[KoPilot]

Since you don't seem to understand what I'm saying, let me put it in way broader terms:

The title of this thread is "What would you do if BDSM would be illegal?"

I'm asking you to define what exactly BDSM is on behalf of your fictitious lawmakers, because if you don't really know what it is, then you can't really make it illegal.

This thread illustrates that point pretty well.

 

[BiBunny]

Since you don't seem to understand what I'm saying, let me put it in way broader terms:

The title of this thread is "What would you do if BDSM would be illegal?"

I'm asking you to define what exactly BDSM is on behalf of your fictitious lawmakers, because if you don't really know what it is, then you can't really make it illegal.

This thread illustrates that point pretty well.

Two words: obscenity laws.

 

[KoPilot]

Two words: obscenity laws.

True, but don't obscenity laws mostly only pertain to material that is publicly accessible?

 

[statsultan]

True, but don't obscenity laws mostly only pertain to material that is publicly accessible?

They really deal with the buying/selling and public expression/showing of obscenity. Personal possession of porn or obscene images/videos is only illegal if it crosses into a different criminal infraction - such as images of minors in sexual situations, etc.

 

[Noira]

Well, apparently here in Canada it's illegal for anyone to consent to an abusive act. So...

Same here.

Honestly, the military has laws regarding everything, including sex. They outlined a lot of those laws while K was in basic training. Among them is no oral sex, no anal sex, no doggy position, no woman on top, no extra marital sex, no sleeping with prostitutes, etc.

When K got home we broke laws over and over and over. K wouldn't have sex unless we got to break a law. Having illegal sex is not an issue to us; it's not like we're publishing photos on the internet so who's gonna know?

No woman on top? No oral sex? I can see no sleeping with prostitutes... that makes sense from a 'drunkenly revealing military secrets' perspective, I suppose. How could ANYONE have sex without breaking a law at least once, then? None of those laws make sense!

I'd like to see them prosecute someone for getting a blowjob. Yeah right. They'd high five him and laugh him out of the report office.

I think more would change than people think. You all talk like you'd stick to your current people, but that means the laws would change AFTER you knew these people. The question is, what if it was ALWAYS illegal. That means before you met the people you already know. You as well as they would not have been as open as maybe they were. Not as trusting and not as sharing for a lot longer before the trust factor has set in.

I would love to see a story written about this question: "What if it was always illegal?"

For people like me, I guess that means I'd probably never discover anything different about myself. Since my venture into more graphic, R-rated, pornographic territory was led not by an interest in sex but by an interest in BDSM I suppose I would've stayed an adorable conservative prude. The fetish was there before I ever discovered porn, but would I have made the connection with no freely available BDSM literature? If it was illegal, would other people? Forums like these surely gave some people new ideas. Who would be left? The people who really, really wanted it? The crazies? The people who always knew something about them was weird (but with no available literature and websites, may never know what it was?) The people who accidentally discovered they really, really liked it during a spot of rough sex? Illegality would certainly reshape the remaining people, and those who were more outspoken about their love for the kink. It'd become like the people who talk about illegal downloading or drugs, maybe... maybe a sort of anarchist thing. Maybe.

I imagine it would be very difficult to be aware of a submissive and/or masochistic side. And dangerous to need to be a sadist.

I'm asking you to define what exactly BDSM is on behalf of your fictitious lawmakers, because if you don't really know what it is, then you can't really make it illegal.

I imagine the abuse of a partner for sexual kicks and or consent to abusive activities would be the BDSM aspects made illegal and it would be approached similarly by fictitous lawmakers as real lawmakers deal with real abusive relationships, just without the consideration of the consent of the submissive as an okay. I highly doubt that a submissive serving a meal would be in legal trouble, or the dominant recieving said meal. Persecuting consentual service would render almost every household disfunctional. "Make supper, dear!" "But someone might call the police!" "Oh well, I guess we'll have to order out." "We can't do that because cooks can no longer consent to serving us food!" "We're paying for it, my dear." "That's now legally considered prostitution!"

With that in mind, what would be persecuted would have to be what's considered abusive sexual activities. Bondage, sadism/masochism, the mental control over another person. Basically, I imagine that BDSM in this figurative alternate universe would simply be thrown under the blanket of domestic violence and abuse, but without the flag of consent ever being considered.

But that's far less interesting than a totalitarian society with an all knowing government determined to crush any and all who submit to anything but their laws, where the pursuit of pain as pleasure is strictly forbidden... yeah, I'm so writing this. Keep talking, guys! You're story fodder for me!

Though I would consider BDSM a sort of mindset rather than a specific fetish, illegalizing it seems both difficult and illogical. It seems more logical to outlaw a specific fetish rather than the mindset... for ease of definition and also, because people submissive by nature are maybe more easily controlled by the government and people dominant and sadistic by nature could be harnessed by a government for use... maybe I can't say it enough? This would make such a great fascist science fiction fetish novel!

All right, now I'm just distracted. This thread spins so many terribly interesting ideas in my mind.

 

[VelvetSin]

Most states would not need new laws. Others have already mentioned quite a bit of things done are already illegal. This article made me laugh. Read the yellow pane if nothing else. (I wonder if some butcher in Newcastle, Wyoming screwed the mayor's wife for that law to show up on the books.)

Even if they did not want to dig into obscure laws, BDSM could be prosecuted under the same laws that regulate domestic abuse in most cases. As for consent, you've seen Cops, right? Where someone heard fighting through the apartment wall and called 911, and the reported victim argues with the officers to leave her man in the mustard-stained wife beater shirt alone. So long as evidence is there, whether the victim wants to prosecute or not, someone gets put in cuffs (not the good kind) and most states will prosecute on behalf of the victim whether the victim wants it to happen or not.

It would come down to individuals weighing risk v. reward just like goes on now. After that, it would go to whether already overworked police cared enough to prosecute when there are “real” crimes happening.

The connection to underage sex is going too far, though. There is a huge difference between an adult's ability or capacity to consent and a child's. There is also a huge difference between an adult's ability or capacity to know and recognize what they are consenting to, and a child's. There is a huge difference between an adult's ability to recognize that what happened might *not* be consenting and knowing how to report it, and a child's ability to believe a trusted adult or be controlled and silenced through fear so abuse can continue. I don't see how this could even be remotely connected to the same argument as criminalizing BDSM.

 

[Stella_Omega]

This sounds like the worst-case to me. Those laws are of the kind that allow stoning a raped woman to death for adultery.

Um no, you are mistaking the governance with the punishment.

Adultery was illegal at one time. Women were hung for it, a few hundred years ago. Those were the norms. That's a norm that is no longer in force.

Stoning, as an execution method, is against the laws in the U.S.A. That's an expression of society's norms too.

But this is just a sidenote, the really interesting part is here:



Now, taking this into consideration, do you still believe that it would be "no different than usual" if BDSM would be illegal?

Yeah, for the people who really want and need to do it, like gay folk who, after all, can not turn off their gayness.

This current trend of availability is pretty damn unusual. I am hoping that it sticks around-- I'm politicking to help it stick around-- but [URL="http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=34784744]repression [/url] is exactly no different than usual.

 

[statsultan]

Most states would not need new laws. Others have already mentioned quite a bit of things done are already illegal. This article made me laugh. Read the yellow pane if nothing else. (I wonder if some butcher in Newcastle, Wyoming screwed the mayor's wife for that law to show up on the books.)

Even if they did not want to dig into obscure laws, BDSM could be prosecuted under the same laws that regulate domestic abuse in most cases. As for consent, you've seen Cops, right? Where someone heard fighting through the apartment wall and called 911, and the reported victim argues with the officers to leave her man in the mustard-stained wife beater shirt alone. So long as evidence is there, whether the victim wants to prosecute or not, someone gets put in cuffs (not the good kind) and most states will prosecute on behalf of the victim whether the victim wants it to happen or not.

It would come down to individuals weighing risk v. reward just like goes on now. After that, it would go to whether already overworked police cared enough to prosecute when there are “real” crimes happening.

Cute article, but already so outdated. I'd guess based on the reference to Clinton's affair w/ Lewinsky that it was written around '98. It's amazing what has changed since then.

The 2003 case of Lawrence v. Texas changed everything, and of course the circumstances were actually a little analogous to your "Cops" show -- police were called to a residence with a report of a domestic disturbance (neighbor w/ a vendetta called in a false report), police found two men engaging in homosexual conduct, and even though the report was false they had to arrest them under the laws of the state. The Supreme Court overruled the state law as an unconstitutional invasion of privacy.

So all those laws that may still technically on the books that you point to CANNOT be upheld. It takes an act of the state legislature to remove the bad law from the books, or a court challenge by someone who has been arrested by the law.

Now, what two people do in private is none of the government's business, so long as it is done among consenting adults. So says the Supreme Court of the United States. Hallelujah!!!