No constitutional right to consensual BDSM acts?

[FebruaryOfReason]

... In the case at hand, it seems like JD was essentially saying "you have to take the rules you have about consent and alter them in the BDSM context", and the court disagreed. What this means in practice, well, I don't know exactly.

You're bringing a very informative and interesting perspective here, TRJF.

I have a question: When it comes to this case, haven't the two parties agreed in advance a modified - but still fundamentally conventional - idea of what constitutes consent? (Because they agreed that JD's partner was consenting in all cases except where she used the safe-word).

If that is the case, the court wouldn't need to alter its idea of consent fundamentally. A good analogy might be if the two partners agreed only to speak in Russian. The word "no" would not have any meaning in this context, but the word "neyt" would. This applies especially if they had both explicitly agreed that "no" and "stop" did not mean "no" and "stop".

Of course that wouldn't alter the burden of criminal responsibility in this case, if JD's partner clearly withdrew implicit consent by using the agreed safe-word.