No constitutional right to engage in consensual BDSM sex

[pornlaw]

Very interesting Court decision from a federal District Court in Virgina on Friday...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...sual-bdsm-sex/

The Court finds that Lawrence v. Texas does not apply to consensual BDMS relationships stating...

Thus, as in Cruzan and Glucksberg, a legislative restriction on BDSM activity is justifiable by reference to the state?s interest in the protection of vulnerable persons, i.e. sexual partners placed in situations with an elevated risk of physical harm.

Accordingly, consistent with the logic of Lawrence, plaintiff has no constitutionally protected and judicially enforceable fundamental liberty interest under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to engage in BDSM sexual activity.

[Mickey_]

Check the addendum that clearly states "Unless the safe word used is Panda Bear".

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

Very interesting Court decision from a federal District Court in Virgina on Friday...

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...sual-bdsm-sex/

The Court finds that Lawrence v. Texas does not apply to consensual BDMS relationships stating...

That's exactly what I would have expected since things like assisted suicide are not protected.

In the specific case of BDSM, why would the court think that someone can consent
to anything after being restrained?

There can be a complex argument about the role play involved in the case but that means reading the victims mind.
The less complex argument is that a person tied up is a person tied up, no matter what's in their mind.

Simply put, if he tied someone up and they didn't like it then he fucked up.
The court simply agreed to see things the same way the neighbors would.

[iSpyCams]

The plaintiff student was expelled for allegedly having sex with a woman without her consent, by refusing to stop a BDSM sexual act when his sexual partner said the safe word.

Edit: OK just read the article, and the actual issue seems to be he continued after the safe word was said and consent was clearly rescinded. Potentially controversial, but that does seem to constitute rape in most juristictions, whether it's a BDSM scenario or not. Am I reading that right?

[xXXtesy10]

thanks for clearing that up. like laws really apply to adult these days

[The Porn Nerd]

If you want to live on the edge and experience "non traditional" sexual acts then do not expect widespread public (or legal) acceptance. That's why it's called an 'alternative' lifestyle.

[pornlaw]

It's not just the application of the facts of this case - it's also the Judge's legal reasoning. He broadly states that BDSM doesn't have the same protections under the Constitution that gay sex had under Lawrence v Texas. That's what makes it legally interesting otherwise it's just another expelled student because of a rape and then that analysis isn't necessary.

[The Porn Nerd]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

It's not just the application of the facts of this case - it's also the Judge's legal reasoning. He broadly states that BDSM doesn't have the same protections under the Constitution that gay sex had under Lawrence v Texas. That's what makes it legally interesting otherwise it's just another expelled student because of a rape and then that analysis isn't necessary.

Perhaps because 'gay sex' is considered non-voluntary (as in, gays don't "choose" to be gay) whereas BDSM is (or should be) totally voluntary?

[Rob]

Originally Posted by pompousjohn

Edit: OK just read the article, and the actual issue seems to be he continued after the safe word was said and consent was clearly rescinded. Potentially controversial, but that does seem to constitute rape in most juristictions, whether it's a BDSM scenario or not. Am I reading that right?

I would have to agree with you on what you wrote without having read the article. I have no desire to read the article since BDSM isn't a part of my lifestyle. If they established a safe word, and the act continued after the safe word was used, the any consent would be rescinded. A safe word is another way of saying stop. In any other circumstance, if someone tells you to stop and you continue, that would constitute sexual assault. I imagine it would fall under the same guidelines.

[blackmonsters]

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd

Perhaps because 'gay sex' is considered non-voluntary (as in, gays don't "choose" to be gay) whereas BDSM is (or should be) totally voluntary?

No, it's more like gay sex doesn't require a rope around someone's neck.

[pornlaw]

Originally Posted by The Porn Nerd

Perhaps because 'gay sex' is considered non-voluntary (as in, gays don't "choose" to be gay) whereas BDSM is (or should be) totally voluntary?

No. It has nothing to do with consent or voluntary vs. non-voluntary.

It has to do with a deeply seated right and being persecuted for it...

Here are the Judge's words in regards to BDSM..

In this respect, the conclusion … that there is no deeply rooted history or tradition of BDSM sexual activity remains relevant and important to the analysis. Also relevant and important to the analysis is the absence of a history of impermissible animus as the basis for the restriction at issue here. Sexual activity that involves binding and gagging or the use of physical force such as spanking or choking poses certain inherent risks to personal safety not present in more traditional types of sexual activity.

Apparently to him, BDSM is a "new" type of sex and people who engage it in are not entitled to same sexual rights as a homosexual since homosexuality is a long standing practice and homosexuals have been subjected to a myriad of criminal, societal, familial and religious repercussions for engaging in homosexual sex through-out human history.

Perhaps if the Bible had said "Thou shall not spank" then it would be thought of the same by this Judge.

[Mediamix]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

No, it's more like gay sex doesn't require a rope around someone's neck.

[The Porn Nerd]

Originally Posted by blackmonsters

No, it's more like gay sex doesn't require a rope around someone's neck.

You've obviously never been to some Greenwich Village clubs. :D