RE: No constitutional right to consensual BDSM acts?
March 24, 2016 at 10:01 pm
(This post was last modified: March 24, 2016 at 10:08 pm by Thumpalumpacus.)
(March 24, 2016 at 10:24 am)Clueless Morgan Wrote: The article states that the plaintiff in the case failed to end the BDSM sex when the "safe word" was used by his partner - but that does not give the Federal government the leeway to come in and declare that engaging in consensual BDSM sex now violates a person's constitutional rights - like wuuuut??
Using the same logic the court used, having passengers in your car should be deemed unconstitutional because driving cars carries the inherent risk of getting into a serious accident, whether or not that passenger consented to get into your car or not.
WTF America?
When the safe word is not honored, does not the sex act lose its consensual status and become a form of rape?
Of course I don't favor banning outré sex (at least until I've tried it to see if I like it ... a few times). The court shouldn't be recommending anything anyway.
But anyone who violates a safe-word compact should have to worry about legal ramifications, I think.
