BDSM Sex Couple Charged with Assault

bdsm-shibari-nipple-clamp-play.png

A couple who decided to engage in kinky BDSM sex now face prosecution after police decided to file charges of aggravated assault against the man, despite both parties consenting.

The couple, a 32-year-old man and a 16-year-old girl (the age of consent in Sweden is 15), met on a Swedish sex website and struck up a steamy BDSM-based relationship.

The girl, apparently the masochist of the pair, wrote in a letter that she wanted to be “used, abused and thoroughly humiliated,” and her sadistic partner was only too happy to oblige, locking her into a cage and applying nipple clamps, amongst other acts.

However, a relative of the girl noticed bruises left over from their play, and police soon stuck their nose in with a view to arresting the man.

The public prosecutor is outraged at the consenting couple’s dungeon antics, conceding that whilst she cannot charge the man with rape due to the consenting nature of their sex, she can still charge him with aggravated assault whether both parties consented or not:

“What I want to establish is that even if they say they are in agreement over this then you not allowed to seriously assault someone.

It is on this issue that the district court has to issue a ruling, is this aggravated assault and was she able to agree to it?”

Sweden apparently allows consenting parties to beat each other’s brains out if they do so in the ring, as with boxing or similar, but it may very well not be permissible to engage in rough sex or BDSM play, consent or no.

The defendant is said to be calling an expert in sadomasochism to testify on his behalf, in a case which could soon be giving police in less radical nations ideas about how to finally get rid of their unwanted perverts without falling foul of tedious arguments over civil liberties – simply accuse them of violence against women.

Leftist gender politics appear to have come full circle – once intended to free women from traditional restrictions, advocates of such politics now use them to restrict and control others, imposing censorship and anti-sex laws in the name of protecting women and girls from male bestiality.

Indeed, feminism is now ironically proving far more effective than traditional religious concerns in imposing moralist laws on the public – few things are now considered more harmful than something potentially injurious to the rights of women.


    Post Comment »
    218 Comments
    Sort by: Date | Score
    Avatar of Courvossier
    Comment by Courvossier
    11:20 07/06/2010 # ! Neutral (+0.2)

    Anonymous said:
    Actually, it has never come up in front of the Supreme Court. No one yet has had the BALLS to challenge the statutory rape, child sexual abuse, etc. laws under the notion that children have mouths of their own and are MORE than able to tell someone whether they wish to have them touch them in any fashion whatsoever.

    No one has been willing to argue that, not because it would automatically be dismissed, but because it would entail numerous people being hired to state what children have been like for the past 100 years, at least.

    To be blunt, you cannot force a child to do ANYTHING that they do not wish to do, even sex. If you try, they are going to yell, scream and PHYSICALLY resist you and will have injuries afterward.

    What do most 'victims' of 'sexual abuse' have? No injuries whatsoever, and no mental problems until the police, parents and psychologists get done with them!

    The irony of you chastising others for not having the balls to challenge laws you don't like from within an anonymous forum post sailed entirely over your head, didn't it pedo?

    Comment by Anonymous
    02:51 08/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Contesting statutory rape is like trying to prevent witch burnings. You're not going to be popular for trying.

    Avatar of takarada
    Comment by takarada
    11:23 07/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    This is true of many loony left countries.
    I think the UK also does not allow consensual sm

    lefts are always worried about a fascist take over but in truth the fascists are in power

    Comment by Anonymous
    02:38 23/07/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    How exactly are fascists in power? Fascism is virtually dead in Europe considering what happened in World War 2. The original fascists are either dead or old beyond belief.

    Comment by Anonymous
    11:31 07/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Where that picture comes from?

    Avatar of ToxikEnvy
    Comment by ToxikEnvy
    10:13 07/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    I find it hilarious that the prosecutor is trying to force her to sue when it seems that no one else in her family is trying to go against him, lol.

    Comment by Anonymous
    09:56 07/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    banging someone half your age; epic win. going to jail for bruise marks; prison rape.

    Comment by Anonymous
    10:21 07/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Some additional information according to Swedish newspapers is that she stayed at his apartment for a weekend. He told the police that he during times locked her in a cage and also that he put clamps on her nipples that he fastened to the wall, forcing her to stand on her toes unable to move and proceeded to whip/cane her.

    When she got home, her mother noticed severe bruising and swelling and therefore contacted the police. The police are bound by law to start an investigation, and that investigation later lead to charges being filed.

    There are no information about what the girl has or has not said, other than the prosecutor saying that the crime is more serious due to that she is a young girl that is very (implied; psychologically) unwell. This could really mean anything though and is a pretty standard thing to say.

    My personal reflection is that I cant help but wonder what taking this case to court is going to do to her, depending on how she feels about it today.

    ToxikEnvy: They are not forcing her to sue, she doesn't need to do anything and can just sit quiet if she wishes. Assault and aggravated assault falls under "common charges" or something along those lines which means police are forced to investigate and file charges even if the victim does not wish for it.

    Comment by Anonymous
    11:54 07/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    "male bestiality"? Someone needs to consult a dictionary before writing.

    Avatar of imaslut
    Comment by imaslut
    15:58 07/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    this is some BS, but he will get punished for this no matter what happens due to people being retarded nowadays.

    Avatar of Shuubi
    Comment by Shuubi
    14:40 07/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    You guys really need to read the facts articles instead of Artefact's usual sexist slant he sticks on the end of thinsg.

    Your issues with 'feminism' and 'evil womenz' have nothing to do with this. It's just a dumb case, caused by dumb police and dumb lawyers and a dumb bystander. The girl involved in all this did not press charges against the man; remind me again why this has anything to do with women being evil?

    You need to learn that both men and women are flawed, and nonemoreso than the other. In a general sense, it's humanity itself that is 'evil', gender has nothing to do with it. And anyone who sincerely buys into that view that containing a difference in chromosomes somehow influences your moral decency, I honestly just feel sorry for you.

    Avatar of a lolicon
    Comment by a lolicon
    22:06 07/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    remind me again why this has anything to do with women being evil?

    The evil prosecutor in this case, Ulrika Rogland, is a woman.

    Comment by Anonymous
    03:58 08/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    So, because one woman does something bad, all women are bad.

    Yeah, that's sexism at work. Thanks for giving such a wonderful example.

    I mean, your claim is as idiotic as claiming that, proven by your idiotic comment, all men are idiots.

    In reality, men generally aren't idiots, even if you are one. Using logical fallacies doesn't make you smart, it just makes you easy to laugh at.

    Avatar of a lolicon
    Comment by a lolicon
    03:13 16/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    your claim ... your idiotic comment ... men generally aren't idiots, even if you are one

    What did I claim?
    Why is my comment idiotic?
    Why am I an idiot?

    I quoted you where you asked what this had to do with women being evil. I gave an example of a woman being evil. That's it. Then you went on a fucking rampage about what you probably wish I had said just so that you could rage about some bullshit you had read somewhere else.

    Do the world a favor; take anger management classes.

    p.s. Internet = srsbsns. Ya rly.

    Comment by Anonymous
    13:47 07/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Well, proves that lawyers are scum like we did not know that anyway.

    Comment by Anonymous
    14:34 07/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Can someone tell me about a page where I can find girls who want to be (at least) verbally abused?

    Comment by Anonymous
    09:18 07/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    I see, Swedens criminality rate isn't actually that high, the prosecutors are just paranoid.

    Comment by Anonymous
    10:16 07/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Maybe they are so bored from the lack of criminals that they are willing to prosecute innocent people just to have something to do.

    Comment by Anonymous
    07:44 07/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    As a girl who loves being submissive, this really pisses me off. Not only are they totally invading this couple's privacy, but they are totally out of line by comparing it to violence against women. I hate these fucking anti-sex "feminists" who are trying to tell me that my fantasies and inclinations are wrong. Stay out of my damn bedroom.

    Avatar of Shuubi
    Comment by Shuubi
    15:32 07/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    I hear you sister! I can't stand these feminazis that think they can make decisions for us, the ones they think they are protecting. If they were truly advocating women's rights, they would let all women think what they want to think, not how THEY want to think.

    Comment by Anonymous
    23:36 07/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    But that would open the field for men to brainwash women into thinking they like to have sex with them!!!

    Comment by Anonymous
    07:27 07/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Sounds like that man
    *puts on sunglasses*
    needs to pull his head out his ass.

    Avatar of Barbarian of Gor
    Comment by Barbarian of Gor
    07:04 07/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    See what I mean?

    The New World Order wants to enslave humanity, and one of their most powerful weapons is to destroy the man, under all sorts of guises, like "Feminism".

    Comment by Anonymous
    08:06 07/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Problem is that the rights of the feminists and these moral crusaders STOP when they are trying to force their view of morality on other people, period and done with.

    I am very sure that Sweden's courts will see the perilous path that the police are treading down, and will throw out this case.

    It's also time to realize that 'pervert' is a man-made invention that has no meaning, period and done with.

    Comment by Anonymous
    09:04 07/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    It's not a question about sex, it's a question if you are allowed to assault someone because they consent. They can have sex as much as they want according to the law.

    For example, two drunk men in a bar decides to go outside and beat the crap out of each other, both of them will be charged with assault in Sweden. This case is about sex, but couldn't one say that the state shouldn't be involved in a private duel either?

    According to the law you cannot consent to assault. Don't think this case will go anywhere though, just make sure no one sees your partner beaten black and blue.

    Comment by Anonymous
    02:03 08/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    It's not the same thing. When you're drunk you're not fully aware of what you're doing and saying.

    Unless this girl was not in full possession of her faculties (which I highly doubt) I don't see why the state should be involved.

    Avatar of PrinceHeir
    Comment by PrinceHeir
    16:45 07/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    hmm if they are both agreed upon doing(which is stated here) it then i guess no charges should be made. plus it's their life though i guess the relative was concerned about her family. ahh laws :D

    Comment by Anonymous
    15:03 09/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    What? Consensual means nothing anymore?

    Avatar of Courvossier
    Comment by Courvossier
    04:35 10/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Anonymous said:
    Could you dumb fucks actually learn about the law before crying havoc?

    THERE IS NO FEMINIST AGENDA OR SO CALLED "LEFTIST GENDER POLITICS" AT WORK HERE.

    This is based on precedent, primarily of UK cases, all the way from R v Coney (1882) to probably the most famous application of the doctrine; R v Brown (1994).

    These cases were established because it was determined that society did not approve of such levels of violence, consensual or otherwise. And you know what? NEITHER OF THOSE CASES INVOLVED WOMEN.

    R v Coney involved a fistfight between two MEN. R v Brown featured a group of sadomasochistic gay MEN.

    If you fucktards would open a book for once, you'd know this. But I guess it's easier to simply bitch about feminism than it is to actually know anything.

    Fucking idiots.

    Holy shit. This guy literally just stomped the shit out of 95% of the posts in this thread.

    Comment by Anonymous
    14:45 08/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Could you dumb fucks actually learn about the law before crying havoc?

    THERE IS NO FEMINIST AGENDA OR SO CALLED "LEFTIST GENDER POLITICS" AT WORK HERE.

    This is based on precedent, primarily of UK cases, all the way from R v Coney (1882) to probably the most famous application of the doctrine; R v Brown (1994).

    These cases were established because it was determined that society did not approve of such levels of violence, consensual or otherwise. And you know what? NEITHER OF THOSE CASES INVOLVED WOMEN.

    R v Coney involved a fistfight between two MEN. R v Brown featured a group of sadomasochistic gay MEN.

    If you fucktards would open a book for once, you'd know this. But I guess it's easier to simply bitch about feminism than it is to actually know anything.

    Fucking idiots.

    Avatar of Artefact
    Comment by Artefact

    If you followed your own advice more closely you might realise Swedish law is based on civil law, not common law, so a precedent in a UK court has absolutely no bearing on their decisions.

    Avatar of chad001
    Comment by chad001
    05:41 10/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Feminazi lawyers... what is the world coming to?

    Comment by Anonymous
    09:18 20/03/2011 # ! Neutral (0)

    Same with children actually.
    Child protection and women rights are used to control people!
    It's not about rights or protection anymore!

    Avatar of Courvossier
    Comment by Courvossier
    08:47 21/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Anonymous said:
    Could you dumb fucks actually learn about the law before crying havoc?

    THERE IS NO FEMINIST AGENDA OR SO CALLED "LEFTIST GENDER POLITICS" AT WORK HERE.

    This is based on precedent, primarily of UK cases, all the way from R v Coney (1882) to probably the most famous application of the doctrine; R v Brown (1994).

    These cases were established because it was determined that society did not approve of such levels of violence, consensual or otherwise. And you know what? NEITHER OF THOSE CASES INVOLVED WOMEN.

    R v Coney involved a fistfight between two MEN. R v Brown featured a group of sadomasochistic gay MEN.

    If you fucktards would open a book for once, you'd know this. But I guess it's easier to simply bitch about feminism than it is to actually know anything.

    Fucking idiots.

    --Reposting for emphasis, you permavirgin misogynist pedophiles.

    Comment by Anonymous
    10:35 18/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Pttf. Well the girl was 16 and the guy was 32. Of course this is going to be bad. Case over. No arguing about it. Age of consent is merely a trap designed by law makers. It doesn't mean anything with that huge of an age gap.

    I'd be interested to know if the same charges could be pressed for an 18 year old and 20 year old that were in the exact same situation. If that's true then I have a reason to find these charges outrageous.

    Right now they're only half outrageous due to the girl's age.

    Comment by Anonymous
    17:39 12/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Uh, EXCUSE me? Did you really just blame feminism and gender politics? Why don't you stick to writing about things you know about, huh? There are PLENTY of people who identify as feminists and also happen to be into BDSM. The feminism I know cares about CONSENT. I, as a feminist, could care less if you enjoy being flogged or needle play. If y'all consent to it and enjoy it, have fun.

    Comment by Anonymous
    07:20 08/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    I really like the picture chosen for this article :D

    Comment by Anonymous
    05:07 08/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    My friend of mine made this comment about this article on Facebook:

    "I like how they said that feminism has come full circle, because it really has. Feminists a few decades ago were fighting for women to freely express their sexuality, and now radical feminists are trying to outlaw hentai and BDSM because it's 'degrading,' even though no actual woman are mentally harmed or offended in either of those."

    Comment by Anonymous
    18:37 07/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Dad: "Well, son, you're of legal age now, your life is your own, and can do anything you want that doesn't hurt someone else."

    Son: "Can I kill myself?"

    Dad: "There's a law against that."

    Son: "Why?"

    Dad: "The State is presumed to have an overriding legal interest in protecting the life of an insane person."

    Son: "But I'm not insane -- I just want to kill myself."

    Dad: "The way the laws are written, attempting suicide is proof that you're insane, and then the State steps in to protect you from yourself."

    Son: "So, there's no way I can legally attempt to kill myself, and the law is written in a way which prevents my own life legally, totally belonging to myself."

    Dad: "Yup. Of course, if you succeed in killing yourself, there isn't anything the State can do about it. It's only if you try and FAIL to kill yourself that they will step in."

    Son: "That's messed-up. Why is it like that?"

    Dad: "Because too many people are unwilling to think clearly, and even lie to themselves."

    Comment by Anonymous
    18:49 07/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    @ Anon 18:37 :

    I think the BDSM people are twisted and sick, but I don't trust the psych people to be able to cure them, and I FEAR handing that power and legal charge to the psych people.

    If psychiatry truly is a science, why is it that Doctor A will testify in court, "That man is _not_ sane.", and Doctor B will testify in court, "That man _is_ sane."?

    Possible answer: "Psychiatry _is_ a science, and the only reason the two doctors disagree is because one of them is incompetent or outright lying."

    SARCASM Oh, well, then that's all right, then. /SARCASM.

    Comment by Anonymous
    04:03 08/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Wow, your comment is full of SPECIAL logic.

    So, people in courts making wrong statements proves that they, as a whole, are not scientific.

    You just proved science wrong, including general doctors (he was murdered/no he wasn't), geologists (the company knew it'd suck/they didn't), meterologists (the weather would have prevented him/no it wouldn't) and many others.

    Congratulations. Or, maybe, your argument is retarded. I am leaning to that.

    Hint: Some things can have different view points. Real life isn't math, there is not a 100% possibility something will happen in exact one specific way. A wound can have many causes, even if they look identical. Drilling oil can have many causes, even if the act of drilling was the same.

    And acting in some way can have different psychological causes.
    DUH. That's the real world. Unlike the videogames you're used to, things are a little more complex. What you hear in court is simply all sides reporting what is best for their view point. That is why you have both sides. The jury and the judge are supposed to work this out to avoid interest conflicts. DUH.

    Legal system: It's really easy, if you use your damn brain.

    Comment by Anonymous
    19:36 07/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Wrong case, right issue. There should probably be limits to BDSM, somewhere around feral country, but this is not it, unless those bruises were truly severe.

    Stupid feminazi prosecutor.

    Comment by Anonymous
    04:04 08/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Feminazi: Because wanting equal rights for women is just like gassing millions of jews.

    Comment by Anonymous
    19:47 07/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Anywaaaaay....
    Anybody know what CG is this game from?

    Avatar of Yuuki
    Comment by Wisteria Berlitz
    01:07 07/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    And once again,the Law has denied the obvious logic.Enough said.

    Avatar of a lolicon
    Comment by a lolicon
    01:15 07/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    The media is already making him out to be a woman beater.

    Sweden likes to convict people for committing victimless crimes. This will be no different.

    Comment by Anonymous
    01:53 07/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    "Sweden likes to convict men for committing victimless crimes"

    Fixed.

    Comment by Anonymous
    00:52 07/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Tough luck...

    Avatar of g0dslay3r
    Comment by g0dslay3r
    00:31 07/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    either cops in sweeden are running out of money so they are sticking their nose in everything or they have too much money and want to spend some

    Avatar of Sukunai
    Comment by Sukunai
    00:34 07/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    WTF??

    The girl didn't file the charges the state did.

    I think it's time to tell the state to fuck right off.

    If she had had a problem, well she didn't that's the thing.

    Comment by Anonymous
    00:41 07/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    "Apparently in Sweden it is permissible to kill people if they consent, under the guise of euthanasia"

    It's not. Doctors may abort life-supporting treatment, but active euthanasia is illegal. People have gone to jail for it.

    Avatar of Artefact
    Comment by Artefact

    Passive euthanasia is still murder in much of the world.

    Comment by Anonymous
    07:38 07/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    If you'd read up about the case you would have realized it is a case of voluntary passive euthanasia, which in most countries are considered legal or grey-area.

    In almost all western countries the patient's right to refuse treatment, even if it causes the death of the patient, is established.

    Comment by Anonymous
    03:41 08/06/2010 # ! Neutral (0)

    Taking someone off life support is usually allowed, especially if its determined that they are braindead etc.







    Post Comment »

Popular

Recent News

Recent Galleries

Recent Comments