(March 24, 2016 at 11:07 am)mh.brewer Wrote: All I hear in my head is judas priest breaking the law.

Maybe the Federal Court realised that BDSM wouldn't be half as enjoyable if they approved of it?

Maybe the judges who reached this judgement disappeared to a gay brothel soon afterwards, to inform the rent boys that they were very naughty and deserved a good spanking?

(March 24, 2016 at 10:27 am)Chad32 Wrote: We just got around to making vanilla same sex acts legal. I'm not surprised by this news. The people in charge just really don't like sex in this country.

That's cuz jesus hates fucking.

Well, the Courts are full of religitards. Perhaps they feel they now have a loophole to get around all the other bullshit they had to approve of because of public outcry.

Guessing we should start a huge public outcry over this.

(March 24, 2016 at 10:24 am)Clueless Morgan Wrote: Federal Court Rules You Have No Constitutional Right to Engage in 100% Consensual Rough Sex

What does this mean?

"Thus, as inCruzan and Glucksberg, a legislative restriction on BDSM activity is justifiable by reference to the state’s interest in the protection of vulnerable persons"

So... this just means that someone can now legislate about this in order to make it illegal to engage in BDSM activities?

Many things are immoral that do not rise to a level justifying restrictions on personal liberty. Whether this applies to particular sexual conduct I cannot say not knowing much S&M except from reading the Story of O and Venus in Furs. Also in absence of detailed knowledge of the case, there may have been other considerations, like if there was a monetary exchange, permanent scarring and/or injury, etc.

Yes, but one incident should not set a precedent for everyone else who enjoys that sort of thing.

(March 24, 2016 at 11:39 am)FebruaryOfReason Wrote: Maybe the Federal Court realised that BDSM wouldn't be half as enjoyable if they approved of it?

Maybe the judges who reached this judgement disappeared to a gay brothel soon afterwards, to inform the rent boys that they were very naughty and deserved a good spanking?

Don't stop there you fucking tease !!

(March 24, 2016 at 12:33 pm)pocaracas Wrote: So... this just means that someone can now legislate about this in order to make it illegal to engage in BDSM activities?

Essentially, yes. They're saying that people can't engage in consensual BDSM in order to "protect" people who might be harmed by engaging in it - without seeing the nuisance between two people consensually engaging in BDSM and everything going well, and two people engaging in BDSM where one disregards the other person who is saying the agreed-upon safe word and trying to end things.

The first scenario is perfectly acceptable. The second scenario is what starts to get dangerous. They're saying that the second scenario should be the driver for all BDSM behavior because someone somewhere might get hurt if their partner doesn't heed their desire to stop.

How far can this go? What if the only consent is a signed waiver because the masochist wants to be gagged? Surgically tortured? Amputated? Not that anyone actually would, but hypothetically speaking.