• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Court Rules There's No Constitutional Right to Consensual BDSM Sex

Mr Person said:
According to feminists like Gayle Rubin and Patrick Califia, BDSM is an expression of female sexuality.

According to Andrea Dworking and Susan Griffin, it is anti-female violence related to the "patriarchy".

Teresa Hornsby and Maneesha Deckha split along similar lines on the question of lesbian BDSM.



There are a wide range of views, but you only mentioned one for the purpose of attacking feminists generally. Your bias is showing.
Click to expand...

There are heretics in any movement, just look at how the law moves to see what the mainline position is, because the feminists have long driven sex law. Around the world the trend has been towards the recriminalization of BDSM.
 
Master PO said:
why you you use right libertarian as meaning we all might think the same.
Click to expand...


I woudl think that the term 'Many' does not mean 'all'. It might not even mean 'most'. Why do you think 'many' means 'all'?
 
RAMOSS said:
I woudl think that the term 'Many' does not mean 'all'. It might not even mean 'most'. Why do you think 'many' means 'all'?
Click to expand...

well because the statement could have read, I love how quickly a Right Libertarian is to jump into other people's bedrooms and declare what they can and cannot do"

i have people think because i have a
next to libertarian this somehow connects me to republicans, which it does not.

i cannot speak for many or all right libertarians, but i am a strict constitutionalist, and when i am faced with problems between people or a person and an entity, my first question is always " who property are we talking about", and that gives me my answer on solving the issue.

i dont decide by faith or emotions, but the rights of man.​
 
Last edited:
maquiscat said:
Since perversion is a subjective value, you have no true basis of argument, at least insofar as an activity that all participants consent to.
Click to expand...

Actually the legal basis for outlawing BDSM is quite straightforward. Consent has never been recognized as a defense to battery involving serious injury, and isn't always a defense to battery involving other injury.
 
Paleocon said:
Actually the legal basis for outlawing BDSM is quite straightforward. Consent has never been recognized as a defense to battery involving serious injury, and isn't always a defense to battery involving other injury.
Click to expand...

Then why isn't boxing legal? If consent is not a defense to battery involving serious injury, then boxing and other contact sports such as football and rugby must be made illegal. Otherwise double standard.

This is before we even consider the fact that many aspects and play of BDSM involve no injury or battery whatsoever. The D/s aspect alone doesn't even require physical contact.

Additionally define serious injury. I can get a spanking for a hour straight, and the worse I will get is red, which will fade within minutes. No injury there.

There is no legitimate reason to ban consensual BDSM activities, at least not one that isn't ignored in any other situation.
 
maquiscat said:
Then why isn't boxing legal? If consent is not a defense to battery involving serious injury, then boxing and other contact sports such as football and rugby must be made illegal. Otherwise double standard.

This is before we even consider the fact that many aspects and play of BDSM involve no injury or battery whatsoever. The D/s aspect alone doesn't even require physical contact.

Additionally define serious injury. I can get a spanking for a hour straight, and the worse I will get is red, which will fade within minutes. No injury there.

There is no legitimate reason to ban consensual BDSM activities, at least not one that isn't ignored in any other situation.
Click to expand...

Sports are specifically regulated by law.

Most jurisdictions define serious injury as a protracted or life-threatening injury.
 
Paleocon said:
Sports are specifically regulated by law.
Click to expand...

So you are saying that consent can be a defense to battery with serious injury as long as the law allows it. Which contradicts the whole basis of why to make BDSM illegal. If two people can consent to engage in one activity that allows such potential for injury, then why not other activities. Show where the difference is. Additionally, these sports are only regulated by law where they are played professionally. Therefore, by your logic, playing them in your backyard should be illegal.

Most jurisdictions define serious injury as a protracted or life-threatening injury.
Click to expand...

A condition which is not a result of most BDSM activity. So again, there is no real basis for making BDSM activity illegal.
 
maquiscat said:
So you are saying that consent can be a defense to battery with serious injury as long as the law allows it. Which contradicts the whole basis of why to make BDSM illegal. If two people can consent to engage in one activity that allows such potential for injury, then why not other activities. Show where the difference is. Additionally, these sports are only regulated by law where they are played professionally. Therefore, by your logic, playing them in your backyard should be illegal.
Click to expand...

Playing some sports (e.g. MMA) in your backyard could be subject to battery prosecution, as it clearly meets the definition of "recklessly inflicting physical injury". For the record I don't think MMA should have been legalized.

On the other hand, the same is not true of other sports. For example, although football is known for causing injuries, there's no particular (legal) move in football that qualifies as "recklessly inflicting physical injury".

A condition which is not a result of most BDSM activity. So again, there is no real basis for making BDSM activity illegal.
Click to expand...

Not all jurisdictions allow consent as a defense to non-serious physical injury either.
 
Paleocon said:
Playing some sports (e.g. MMA) in your backyard could be subject to battery prosecution, as it clearly meets the definition of "recklessly inflicting physical injury". For the record I don't think MMA should have been legalized.

On the other hand, the same is not true of other sports. For example, although football is known for causing injuries, there's no particular (legal) move in football that qualifies as "recklessly inflicting physical injury".
Click to expand...

Seems to me that grabbing someone and throwing them to the ground is rather reckless, and highly probable of serious injury. And Rugby! Wow! And that is before we get to all those high risk activities such as sky diving and base jumping and so many others. Because if consent isn't an allowable basis, it holds true for self injury as well.

Not all jurisdictions allow consent as a defense to non-serious physical injury either.
Click to expand...

Well that throws out all surgeries, and tattoos, and piercings (including earrings) and so much more. Injury is injury. Intent is obviously not a factor from your point of view.
 
maquiscat said:
Seems to me that grabbing someone and throwing them to the ground is rather reckless, and highly probable of serious injury. And Rugby! Wow!
Click to expand...

Ok. I'm pretty sure that's just a knee-jerk response, and that you actually do understand that people are tackled in football all the time without injury.

And that is before we get to all those high risk activities such as sky diving and base jumping and so many others. Because if consent isn't an allowable basis, it holds true for self injury as well.
Click to expand...

No. It's not possible to commit battery against oneself.

Well that throws out all surgeries, and tattoos, and piercings (including earrings) and so much more. Injury is injury. Intent is obviously not a factor from your point of view.
Click to expand...

Surgery, tattoos, etc are regulated by law. Intent actually is a factor, but I think you are meaning motive, not intent.
 
Paleocon said:
Ok. I'm pretty sure that's just a knee-jerk response, and that you actually do understand that people are tackled in football all the time without injury.
Click to expand...

And people engage in BDSM all the time without injury. More often than not any "injuries" sustained in BDSM play are comparable to those sustained in casual sports play. Bruises and minor cuts at most.

Surgery, tattoos, etc are regulated by law. Intent actually is a factor, but I think you are meaning motive, not intent.
Click to expand...

Intent or motive, it really doesn't matter because those within BDSM play are the same as in other activities.
 
maquiscat said:
And people engage in BDSM all the time without injury. More often than not any "injuries" sustained in BDSM play are comparable to those sustained in casual sports play. Bruises and minor cuts at most.
Click to expand...

And not all BDSM acts are illegal

Intent or motive, it really doesn't matter because those within BDSM play are the same as in other activities.
Click to expand...

You seem to be making the assumption that because there are certain exceptions to a law, that the law should be entirely abolished. That doesn't follow.
 
Paleocon said:
You seem to be making the assumption that because there are certain exceptions to a law, that the law should be entirely abolished. That doesn't follow.
Click to expand...

I am making the assumption that when there is no difference on the basis of "battery" between BDSM and sports and other similar activities then the same exception applies.
 
maquiscat said:
I am making the assumption that when there is no difference on the basis of "battery" between BDSM and sports and other similar activities then the same exception applies.
Click to expand...

You want BDSM to be regulated by the state?
 
LowDown said:
A student expelled for BDSM sex, failing to stop when his partner used the safe word, sued on the basis of Lawrence v Texas. He said that the school assumed that BDSM sex was per se wrong thus violating his right to consensual sex.

The court ruled otherwise on the basis that BDSM sex carries risk of bodily harm not found in other kinds of consensual sex. Thus it could be regulated by the state. It also ruled that BDSM sex was not the target of an animus and that efforts to restrict it were not made on the basis of any animus.

I beg to differ about the animus. I have an animus against BDSM -- those people are f**** crazy! I suspect many people feel the same way. But regardless, it seems to me that this ruling opens the door to all sorts of other restrictions on our intimate affairs on the basis of some real or imagined risk of harm. Some people are claiming that just being critical of them or disagreeing with them harms them.

Somehow I imagined that the promise of progressivism was more and more individual freedom, especially sexual freedom, but it hasn't worked out that way.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ional-right-to-engage-in-consensual-bdsm-sex/
Click to expand...

Have you ever seen "cage fighting" on television? To me it looks brutal. Those who promote this sport report that despite the "perception" that is causes significant physical damage - few fighters sustain long-term or life threatening injury.

So, if that's even close to true with cage fighters, I doubt that in a physical sense - injury in the BDSM lifestyle is commonplace. I suspect there is minor injuries and probably aren't all that frequent.
 
LowDown said:
A student expelled for BDSM sex, failing to stop when his partner used the safe word, sued on the basis of Lawrence v Texas. He said that the school assumed that BDSM sex was per se wrong thus violating his right to consensual sex.

The court ruled otherwise on the basis that BDSM sex carries risk of bodily harm not found in other kinds of consensual sex. Thus it could be regulated by the state. It also ruled that BDSM sex was not the target of an animus and that efforts to restrict it were not made on the basis of any animus.

I beg to differ about the animus. I have an animus against BDSM -- those people are f**** crazy! I suspect many people feel the same way. But regardless, it seems to me that this ruling opens the door to all sorts of other restrictions on our intimate affairs on the basis of some real or imagined risk of harm. Some people are claiming that just being critical of them or disagreeing with them harms them.

Somehow I imagined that the promise of progressivism was more and more individual freedom, especially sexual freedom, but it hasn't worked out that way.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ional-right-to-engage-in-consensual-bdsm-sex/
Click to expand...
This will be trouble for the guy... failing to observe the safe word. I have no issues with BDSM, and I don't buy into the notion that one should have to get verbal confirmation at every turn, but no does mean no, and use of a safe word is 'no'.
 
Paleocon said:
You want BDSM to be regulated by the state?
Click to expand...

Is casual backyard sports play regulated by the state? And sure I am ok with pro Dommes and Pro Doms(rare) being regulated since they are paid professionals.
 
maquiscat said:
Is casual backyard sports play regulated by the state?
Click to expand...

Before we go any further, I want you to clarify, do you believe that BDSM acts which constitute "recklessly inflicting physical injury" should be illegal? Say punching your partner in the face.
 
FieldTheorist said:
I love how quickly many Right Libertarians are to jump into other people's bedrooms and declare what they can and cannot do.

I doubt this ruling will hold up.
Click to expand...

That's because some "libertarians" want to limit government...to the bedroom.
 
Paleocon said:
Before we go any further, I want you to clarify, do you believe that BDSM acts which constitute "recklessly inflicting physical injury" should be illegal? Say punching your partner in the face.
Click to expand...

Your use of the word "recklessly" might well be key here, for all that it is subjective. I teach a BDSM 101 class, and one of the things I stress is safety. Now safety is relative to the act. Obviously flying in an airplane is safer than parachuting out of it, assuming nothing wrong with the plane.

Add to that, that I have not heard of face punching as a fetish, although I can't dismiss the possibility. Slapping and even backhanding. With all such risky actions, there is a right way and a wrong way to do them such that actual injury doesn't occur. Mind you in this context injury means that which is not desired or expected. If you look at suspension hooks, one could claim injury as they are pierced through the flesh. But this is expected by the suspended, and thus not classified as such in the context.

Once we go past the concept that as one gets into more and more risky behaviors, that one should properly learn how to do them to minimize the risks, we then have to look at intent. I've punched someone in the face once because I was pulling on something and my hand slipped off. They happened to be standing in the right place at the right moment, trying to see what I was doing (they were assisting at the time) and got a face full of my semi fist (not fully closed). Likewise, things can happen in BDSM plays where no matter how much you prepare, injury occurs. In the same manner that one would not have charged me with battery for my hand slipping, nor should someone be charged when such accidents occur in BDSM.

All that said, reckless action, failure to get proper training, or even the willing consent of the bottom type while developing a new technique (not really different from correagraphing a new fight routine) should be met with some type of charge. Reckless endangerment is fine. Being indifferent to the bottom type and their limits is grounds for battery. But the act in and of itself should not be subject to legal action, assuming that both participants are willing and consented.
 
maquiscat said:
Your use of the word "recklessly" might well be key here, for all that it is subjective.
Click to expand...

Just refer to any "definitions" statute if you want to know the meaning of a term I'm using in this thread.

If you look at suspension hooks, one could claim injury as they are pierced through the flesh. But this is expected by the suspended, and thus not classified as such in the context.
Click to expand...

But of course, they would qualify as physical injury under the law.

Reckless endangerment is fine.
Click to expand...

Then please top with the comparison to sports. There are no legal moves in football that would qualify as reckless endangerment, whereas you've mentioned BDSM acts that involve intentional injury.
 
Paleocon said:
Just refer to any "definitions" statute if you want to know the meaning of a term I'm using in this thread.
Click to expand...

I meant that your use of the word, injects a different attitude towards one's partner in a scene than is actually there. IOW, you want to call it reckless when it isn't. But that recklessness also entails a certain amount of knowledge and education. So one person performing an given act could be reckless where another performing the same act would not. And just to be clear, the recklessness could come on the part of the bottom, engaging in activities without any real knowledge of what it entails, AND not making it clear to the top that such is so the case.

But of course, they would qualify as physical injury under the law.
Click to expand...

Then so would earring piercings.

Then please top with the comparison to sports. There are no legal moves in football that would qualify as reckless endangerment, whereas you've mentioned BDSM acts that involve intentional injury.
Click to expand...

You have my apologies here as I was typing the previous post at lunch and was in a bit of a hurry. In fact I thought you had made up something out of whole cloth at first. Reckless endangerment is NOT fine. But a given action is not automatically reckless. The context in which those actions are taken determine whether or not they are reckless. Simply being done in the context of BDSM is not enough to call an action reckless.
 
Carjosse said:
Why do states keep wanting to get involved in what people do in their bedrooms? In this case it was rape, but there is nothing wrong with BDSM in and of itself.

‘There’s no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation’ - Pierre Trudeau
Click to expand...

It's a difficult one though.

The state should be doing what it can to stop rape but many people fetishize it, and there's a fine line there, especially when it comes to outward appearances.
 
maquiscat said:
I meant that your use of the word, injects a different attitude towards one's partner in a scene than is actually there.
Click to expand...

The law is not and should not be concerned with something as subjective as attitude.

Then so would earring piercings.
Click to expand...

Ear piercings are specifically regulated by law.

You have my apologies here as I was typing the previous post at lunch and was in a bit of a hurry. In fact I thought you had made up something out of whole cloth at first. Reckless endangerment is NOT fine. But a given action is not automatically reckless. The context in which those actions are taken determine whether or not they are reckless. Simply being done in the context of BDSM is not enough to call an action reckless.
Click to expand...

So to be clear, you agree with consensual reckless endangerment being illegal?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom