Abuse, where is the line?

IowaDom​(dom male) • Oct 13, 2020

It should also be noted that in **most** states, no person can consent to allow a crime to be committed on them, ie, agreements, contracts etc will not protect you from assault and other charges...

Miki • Oct 13, 2020

i get it OK? you're right.. But the Fuzz won't write a report if no one calls their blue asses in.. Right? I have let men do things to me that might be illegal but I did not phone the Law

WILHELM{AFTER APPR} • Oct 13, 2020

IF ANYONE THINKS THE STATE IS “INTRUSIVE” TODAY...WHEN YOU MUST BE MARKED ON FOREHEAD OR RIGHT HAND AS THE “NEW” FORM OF CURRENCY....CORRECTION...AS THE “ONLY” FORM OF CURRENCY PERMITTED “BY LAW”...EATING WILL TAKE PRIORITY OVER ANY FORM OF “ABUSE”! AND THAT DAY OF 666 “MARK OF THE BEAST” IS JUST ONE ELECTION OF DEMON RATS AWAY FROM ACTUALITY!!!

Miki • Oct 13, 2020

Good Grief! Did you have to yell, fella?

TheDavidsons{Yes} • Oct 13, 2020

There are many discussions about abuse in ths lifestyle. Just because we have a different lifestyle does not mean there aren't consensual agreements. We have an agreement with any person to have an obligation to each other, such as marital status, consideration to act as agreed, personal property and financial obligation, and termination of the relation. Are they legal? There are some states will view the agreement as valid legal document when signed by all parties (including an attorney).

mstrseeking​(dom male) • Oct 13, 2020

It's fairly simple to know what's abuse and what's part of the lifestyle. Always have a safe word, never deviate into limits unless discussed first. As I've said here before, being a Dom is just as much about having control over yourself as it is over someone else. If you can't handle yourself, You can't handle someone else.

Legally is another issue. I think the best I've seen done is through a pornographic website. Each submissive is required to sign documentation, and verbally on video what's to happen asking with safe words with and without gags in. I know that's not really feasible in every single sexual encounter, but a contract is almost a requirement when dealing with a Dom/sub exclusive relationship.

IowaDom​(dom male) • Oct 13, 2020

In the scope pf performing for pay in a porno movie, even that videotaped consent will not stand up in court. Bottom line is, causing physical harm to another person is against the law .. period. And no person can consent to allow themselves to be physically harmed - period. As of 09/2019 - no court or jury has accepted consent as a defense, and no defendant has won because they had consent, including some people in movies! Here is a section of actual case law, it is actually from a very thourough international writing to be found at https://newjurist.com/bdsm-torture-porn-and-the-law.html


Domestic U.S. law regarding consent and BDSM

In addition to having precedent internationally, there is not a single appellate court decision anywhere in the United States of America that has accepted consent as a defense in an assault or abuse prosecution arising from BDSM acts. Any act of harm that is not considered to be “athletic” or “medical” is defined as a criminal act when serious bodily injury occurs, and courts have come to judge “any injury caused during a sadomasochistic encounter as being serious.” (see Bergelson, V. (2008). Consent to Harm, 28 Pace Law Review. 683 (2008) Rutgers University Legal Working Paper Series, 46).

An early example of the “consent is no defense” ruling in the United States is the People v Samuels 1967 decision in California. In this case, Martin Samuels was convicted of assault based on his behavior in a film showing an alleged consensual BDSM scene. The court not only rejected the defense of consent in this case, but also held that any such consent would be “some form of mental aberration.”. The decision clearly stated that:

“Even if it be assumed that the victim in the ‘vertical’ film did in fact suffer from some form of mental aberration which compelled him to submit to a beating which was so severe as to constitute an aggravated assault, defendant's conduct in inflicting that beating was no less violating of a penal statute obviously designed to prohibit one human being from severely or mortally injuring another”.
People v. Samuels was cited as recently as 2006, in People v Febrissy.
In this case, the defendant’s lawyer sought to invoke the doctrine articulated by the Supreme Court in Lawrence v. Texas, which was a sodomy prosecution of two consenting males. The Court held that without a“compelling societal interest” the government cannot make private consensual sexual activity a crime. However it is important to note that Lawrenc v. Texas also established that consent is not a defense to assault. The argument by the defense in Febrissy citing Lawrence, regarding the governments’ limits on intervening in private consensual sexual activity was rejected in People v. Febrissy because injury was involved.

Additionally, an argument based on Lawrence v. Texas was rejected in the 2004 Nebraska case of State v. Van. Van was convicted of first-degree assault on the basis of an extended imprisonment and an extremely intense BDSM/torture of a gay male “submissive”. The submissive initially consented to the acts. On appeal, Van, the defendant, argued that this was a case of “two adults who, with complete and mutual consent, engaged in sexual practices common to their homosexual, BDSM lifestyle” and as such the defense argued that Van was protected as a result of the decision in Lawrence v. Texas. The court rejected the argument based on three principles. First, the court noted that the ruling in Lawrence v. Texas contained a very important limiting phrase, stating that its doctrine only applies “absent injury to a person”. Second, the court emphasized that the evidence on the issue of consent was not clear-cut. Last and most importantly, the court held that consent is not a defense to a charge of assault, additionally citing the cases referenced above. The court said: “Our statutes defining first and second degree assault include no reference to consent… This court has held that “all attempts to do physical violence which amount to a statutory assault are unlawful and a breach of the peace, and a person cannot consent to an unlawful assault.”

In the majority of BDSM assault cases, the testimony of the victim is central to the case, and often there is a conflict regarding the issue of consent. However, even in cases where both parties agree that the acts in question were consensual, the courts have held that consent cannot be a defense. For example in the Massachusetts case of Commonwealth v. Appleby, the Massachusetts court held that “Grimm’s consent to assault and battery upon him by Appleby by means of a dangerous weapon cannot absolve Appleby of the crime…” Another example is seen in the case of State v. Collier. In this case there were extremely different accounts given of the incident involving BDSM, however the judge refused to let the jury even consider the question of consent. The Appellate Court upheld the conviction and ruled that consent was not a defense.

Yet another example is the New York case of People v. Jovanovic involving an extremely violent scene between a man and a woman who had previously engaged in extensive discussion of their BDSM interests over the internet. The two engaged in a BDSM scene, and the woman victim subsequently complained to the police. Jovanovic, the defendant, was tried and convicted of assault, sexual assault and kidnapping. The Court of Appeals, although it reversed the convictions on evidentiary grounds, very explicitly stated that “[j]ust as a person cannot consent to his or her own murder as a matter of public policy, a person cannot avoid criminal responsibility for an assault that causes injury or carries a risk of serious harm, even if the victim asked for or consented to the act".

In the decision, the Jovanovic court cited the Samuels, Appleby and the Collier decisions. The Jovanovic court affirmed the fact that there is an established precedent that has been set by numerous courts across the country that consent is not a defense to a charge of assault arising from BDSM practices.

Sidenote - I am not an attorney, and offer this post as reference material only, not to be taken as legal advice - just saying!

SAXMANIAC​(sub female) • Oct 17, 2020

Within the D/s dynamic, I think it seeps into the level of abuse if things are done in anger. If we are angry at each other then we won't even attempt to engage in a scene.

Lil Foxy Baby​(sub female) • Oct 29, 2020

Consent! That's the difference between BDSM and abuse. In BDSM everything should have consent. In abuse it's done to you with no consent

IowaDom​(dom male) • Oct 29, 2020

C'mon Miki .. you ever heard "and then God whispered" ... lol

Disclaimer: this has been a joke, had it been an actual reply to the other poster, it would have been in all caps