(March 24, 2016 at 1:09 pm)Clueless Morgan Wrote:(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.
but... From what I gather, they're just saying that the constitution does not create a special protective package concerning legislation on BDSM behavior.
Why should the constitution provide such protection?
