You are proceeding to a page containing mature content. Is this OK?

check Yes, show me everything
close No, hide anything sensitive

BDSM Sex Couple Charged with Assault

bdsm-shibari-nipple-clamp-play

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.

Leave a Comment

222 Comments

    • After all, the prosecutor basically told her she doesn’t have the right to consent to masochistic play, and I’m pretty sure telling a woman she doesn’t have rights is as anti-feminist as one can get. xD

      I’d say I’m surprised the feminists didn’t intervene, but in all honesty, they’re secretly as misogynist as they publicly are misandrist. They just use women as a public face, because they figure that since everyone sympathises with whichever party appears weaker, it’ll be easier to villainise men than it will be to villainise women. They then plan to use this to take away mens’ rights, at which point they’ll turn on women and take their rights away, as well.

  • Courvossier says:

    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.

  • Anonymous says:

    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.

  • Anonymous says:

    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.

  • Courvossier says:

    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.

  • Anonymous says:

    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.

  • Anonymous says:

    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.”

  • Anonymous says:

    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.

  • Anonymous says:

    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.”

    • Anonymous says:

      @ 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.

      • Anonymous says:

        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.

  • PrinceHeir says:

    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 😀

  • 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.

      • Anonymous says:

        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.

        • a lolicon says:

          [quote]your claim … your idiotic comment … men generally aren’t idiots, even if you are one[/quote]

          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.

  • 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

  • Courvossier says:

    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?

  • Anonymous says:

    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.

  • Anonymous says:

    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.

    • Anonymous says:

      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.

  • Anonymous says:

    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.

  • Anonymous says:

    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.

    • 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.

  • Barbarian of Gor says:

    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”.

  • Anonymous says:

    “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.”

    “What I want to establish is that I want to be able to be able to blame men for anything over nothing.”

    • Why doesn’t a woman in a modern society have a perfectly reasonable right to request to be abused and dominated by her male sex partner?

      Beats me.

      Wait… err, that’s not how I meant it.

    • stillcode says:

      Because in actuality, the law views women as children who are incapable of making decisions for themselves. The age of a woman does not matter. A woman is to be coddled and smothered to emotional death according to these kinds of modern freedom depriving laws.

      The upshot of all this is that a man who’s perfectly capable of contributing to society via working will be put behind bars and become a financial drain on society. Sweden, you reap what you sow.

      • Anonymous says:

        This really don’t have much to do with the Swedish government or Swedish law, ATM it a zealous feminazi prosecutor who speciallizes in abused child/women cases who is doing the charging. It’s not likely that it will actually hold up in court, or if conviceted in the first instance it will most likely be revised when taken up in a higher instance with competent judicial personnel.

        However, it’s also worth noting that the girl did “change her mind” after the BDSM act (quite likely due to pressure from family and friends), which while technically shouldn’t affect the outcome of the trial still makes it a lot easier for the prosecutor to press charges.

        Note: The first juridical instance in Sweden is a bit of a joke, where old politicians together with a judge pass sentence. Obviously, old politicians with no judicial training is not really fit to judge anything that is even remotely complex in a judicial sense, so their verdicts are quite often thrown in the trashbin when the case is driver to higher instance.

  • jonti_swe says:

    Wtf. I live in Sweden, though this is actually the first time hearing of this came. And this makes me even more mad..I mean like seriously, I don’t think any consented sex should be counted a crime..Stupid laws. Can’t understand this. But yeah, if the defence is good he should be able to go free unless the jury and the judge are some moral-panicking feminazis..let’s hope they’re not. BDSM is just a form of sexuality/fetish, we can’t ban people for having a sexuality. Both parts are consenting to it too.
    If he’d get convicted for having consensual sex, no matter if it’s a bit violent or not, I’d be a bit ashamed of being Swedish.

  • Anonymous says:

    Legal technicalities? Guy walks.
    If a prosecutor goes to trial by jury? Jail. Word of the Law not connecting with what people see as “Justice”. It’s like Death Note …only with 16-year-old kids wanting to engage in BDSM.

    The guy is gonna fry unless a really good defense attorney is going to get people to think that it’s entirely standard for any random 16-year-old consenting to say THIS is her sexual act of choice and that she specifically gave the okay to any one of 50 different kinds of physical assault.
    Honestly surprised this hasn’t come up in the US Supreme Court. Where do we draw the line between “my underage-but-consenting girlfriend wrote that she only reached climax when I jammed knives between her ribs” vs “you got her to consent while underage, good for you, but you can’t stab her to death you damn idiot.”

      • Anonymous says:

        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!

        • Anonymous says:

          This is just ignorant. You can easily force a child to many things they do not wish to do. Easy as hell.

          And no, most children won’t yell and scream. If you disbelieve it, two words to shut you up for good:

          Catholic Church.

          Or are you arguing these children wanted it, too?

          You’re stupid, seriously. Typical internet tough boy. In real life, you probably cower when someone strong walks by.

          And guess what? Most children are like that to predatory adults. Intimidating a child by force is easy as hell, especially if they were brought up in a religious family that taught them to shut up and listen to adults. The law rightfully notices this.

        • Anonymous says:

          While I see your point I disagree to a point. Children might choose not to resist for several reasons. For example the attacker might be an authority figure or simply be too physically strong. They would rather give up than fight if they fear they will get hit.

          I still think the statutory rape laws are bullshit to a degree, however.

  • “Apparently in Sweden it is permissible to kill people if they consent, under the guise of euthanasia, but it may very well not be permissible to engage in rough sex or BDSM play, consent or no. It also appears being an accessory to the crime is no crime at all.”

    lolwtf. The only time that is allowed is when someone is brain dead or otherwise incapacitated for life and the decision can only be taken by the ones closest to the person (children, parents, spouse etc) and with a doctor’s consent.

    • Anonymous says:

      There were recently a case in Sweden where a woman wanted her life support to be turned of, she wrote a letter to the government asking them to order the hospital to disconnect the machines, since the hospital wouldn’t do it due to the guidelines being unclear.

      She got her wish, the government decided that the hospital was not allowed to force treatment of her will and outspoken wish to not receive it, and clarified the guidelines.

      This is pretty standard in most European and North American countries, contrary to what Artefact seem to believe the patient always have the right to say no to treatment in almost all countries of the western world. Now, if Artefact is just ill-informed or knows full well that he is spewing BS in order to put a spin on the article, who knows…

  • So the two people of legal age consented to some sexual acts, yet charges are still brought up?

    Sounds to me like this case is more for the prosecutor’s sake than the girl’s.

  • Anonymous says:

    I keep telling you guys feminism is taking over. I guy in America can be locked up if he is 18 after having sex with a 17 year old girl who will turn 18 herself in one month.

    People are slaves TO THE LAW instead of working with it and laws do need to be bent at times, sadly people being slaves to the law OBEY it like it’s gods words.

  • Anonymous says:

    Wow, the writer of the article sure has issues with women. But well, typical for whiny men of his kind.

    If “evil leftist feminists” had been so successful, why do women still get blamed for being raped if they wear jeans? Why do women still get less payment for the same work/time with the same skills?

    Men are still by far advantaged in the real world, and arguing that, somehow, society actually cares about crimes against women (when, in reality, it largely doesn’t – a fact that, outside the US, even right wing people agree with, because it’s proven over and over again in every single scientific study not funded by american religious sects) it outright insane.

    The reason this went to courts? The police can’t rule out Stockholm Syndrome. If she were 21, this case wouldn’t have happened. Age of consent is not the only thing that matters, as you would know, if you weren’t so focussed on your little crusade.

    But hey, carry on with your persecution complex. Scientific studies in dozens of countries have already taken apart your “opinion”, so at the end of the day, all you’re doing is look foolish, like someone preaching how evil people are oppressing him for his opinion that the moon is made of cheese. Cause your opinion? Exactly as lunatic.

    • Wow. I can’t decide which possibility is more surprising;
      A – There are people believing what Anon wrote
      B – There are trolls capable of making this up

      [i]”Why do women still get less payment for the same work/time with the same skills?”[/i]
      Same reason they get better grades in P.E. for the same results. They just can’t really compete with men. So they get better grades and lower income to balance it out. Also, woman aren’t meant to earn money. They are meant to care for children. That’s an important job! Do not belittle housewives!!

      • Anonymous says:

        Wow, if you believe what you just wrote, you’re one sad individual. I pity you :/

        It’s also hilarious how sankakupeople are afraid of a reality check. The facts don’t lie. Luckily, you people are a dying minority. Every year, your crazy opinions get less and less popular, until they fade away into obscurity.

        Too bad. Those of us who value both genders as equal are winning, and you can’t do anything about it.

        Well, other than throw hissy fits in forums, or places like sankaku complex ^_^

      • Yeah let’s all rate down one of the few comments that makes sense here, just because it doesn’t share my misogynist ideas! It makes heaps of sense!

        You must really like it up the ass I guess, seeing as you hate women so much.

        • Anonymous says:

          I suspect he’s into women, just incapable of actually getting one. That’s why he’s so angry about them getting jobs:

          If women get jobs, there’s no reason why a woman would ever date such an ugly nerd like him: Not even money, nothing.

          In other words, he’s entirely useless, and he knows it.

  • Anonymous says:

    These feminazis would have all men in an underground facility used for the soul purpose of breeding. (Which would be ironic considering the situation.) At least until they came up with a cheap and affordable way to inseminate with only egg cells. Then they’ll just gas us.

    • Anonymous says:

      Keep telling people the world is becoming anti MALE. Women say they want to stop rape yet they have no desire to teach young boys that masculinity comes from the person inside and not being a meathead hyper aggressive jerk.

      Instead women of today us the term “boys will be boys” meaning all guys are violent aggressive jerkoffs. Women are programmed to think that men are supposed to be emotionless, cold hearted, muscle bound bullies.

      That’s the truth how what feminism is all about. They try to make men look bad but at the same time have the world ignore male issues.

      • Anonymous says:

        Call me a masochist, but in some way I think it is an appropriate revenge from the times in history where women were universally treated like crap. In most countries where it did stop, this is somewhat recent. We have a few millenia to pay for.

        Still, revenge is rather petty, and hardly ever justice or the right thing to do.

      • They ignore the issues just so they can restrict us more, its like pouring salt into wounds. I think feminazis have done more damage to the world in the past 50 years than human kind has done in 10000 years. I guess its just another mistake people will sweep under the rug.

  • Anonymous says:

    “locking her into a cage and applying nipple clamps, amongst other acts.”

    “a relative of the girl noticed bruises left over from their play”

    ….how did this “relative” notice bruises on the nipples?

  • Apparently in Sweden it is permissible to kill people if they consent, under the guise of euthanasia, but it may very well not be permissible to engage in rough sex or BDSM play, consent or no. It also appears being an accessory to the crime is no crime at all.

    Well, shit…. what if I wanted to engage in erotic asphyxiation with a willing partner in Sweden, and she accidentally dies? Hmmm….

    • Feminazis on this site? Nah, they should have something better to waste their time on. Like the kitchen. Allowing them to get rights was a grave mistake. Sadly an irreversible error on human behalf. Well, who cares. Gonna stick with 2D anyways. Still… stripping women of their rights would be a nice thing to do. Someone should make a serious anime/manga/VN/LN/whatever out of it. Like Minerva no Kenshi, only nowadays. Or instead of “My girlfriend” for DS, something along the lines of “My slave” for DS. It’s a fun idea. And you, the reader, should think about who you’ll gonna take serious on the intawebz. (Thinking about what is fun and what isn’t would be a nice idea, too. Hopefully you’ll come to the conclusion that everything can be made fun of and that nothing is sacred.)

      • Behold the ronriest man in existence!

        I love how you tards try to insert ‘WOMENZ ARE EVILZ” into every single article here. This has nothing to do with women, just some tard policemen. Who were probably men. Way to go.

  • Anonymous says:

    “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.

  • many otherwise “liberal” countries ban sm under indecency or violence laws.

    instead of modernising sex law when they have the chance, politicians stick to moralist views and restrict more and more.

    i’ve read the governement’s rationale behind the last revision in my c.o.r. and i was not amused, though i must admit they do have a point.
    it’s very hard for a politician to be very liberal and still save face when something happens that might have been prevented or could be punished had they imposed stricter laws. and as a successful politician, it’s all about saving face. too bad simple people don’t understand that well…

    • Anonymous says:

      Actually, we do understand that… we just don’t agree with it. The fact is that morality laws SHOULD NOT BE IN PLACE PERIOD AND DONE WITH! Argument finished for eternity and then some!

      If something ‘bad’ happens? Too damned bad, simply punish the person in question for injuring/killing the person in question without their permission, IF you can prove that they didn’t have the person’s permission.

        • Anonymous says:

          We don’t need to ‘burn them at the stake’. We need to start putting them in prison for KNOWINGLY putting their agenda into the laws, where it should not be.

          The law is supposed to be about ONLY banning things that are physically harmful to other people AND that they did not consent to, to prevent/punish stealing from someone else, and to punish killing someone else.

          Outside of those things? All other laws are INVALID, at least when you are talking about criminal law.

        • That feminist utopia is coming very soon sadly. Pretty soon its going to be a crime to be a male. We should burn them at the stake to stem it before it gets worse…but i guess that falls under crimes against humanity. But if all the men die to feminists, wouldn’t that be the same thing?

        • Anonymous says:

          I’d be more along the line of “Which will make you tolerate my action and not start a spiteful revenge?”

          (Actually, no I’d not. But with women I don’t know I probably *should*. Damn overzealous feminists. Damn creepy ‘better keep that from walking freely’ face of mine.)

  • Anonymous says:

    Fuck you Sweden. Seriously, fuck you.

    I still am somewhat optimistic though that the charges will get dropped. BDSM is quite established as a normal form of sexuality in the scientific community, and if the defendant’s lawyer is any good they should be able to get the man clear.

    • Don’t really see those charges giving a conviction, especially if it moves to the higher courts in Sweden. This being a prosecutor wanting to test a pretty far-fetched legal theory based solely in order to punish a kinky guy having weird sex with a 16 y.o. girl.

      Also the euthanasia thing Artefact posted is a strawman… If the one you are helping isn’t terminally ill or something it’s going to be pretty hard to argue it was legally euthanasia.

  • Anonymous says:

    if a maso woman get what she want from her S male partney, they called it woman abuse
    if a maso man get what he want from his S female parnert, they call the man a sick pervert
    DANG IT!

  • Anonymous says:

    Was the guy supposed to ask a lawyer, “I really want to abuse this 16 year old as a part of our BSDM relationship. But I am not sure of its legality; can you check it up for me?” or something?

    • Anonymous says:

      I guess it’d be creepy, but remember that ignorance is no defense: he should just have known from the law.

      (I still hear here and there people to say that. When they’re not rich, I cannot wish them any better than not actually believing any of this crap.)

    • What about sympathy for the woman, outright being told that she doesn’t have the right to decide for herself what she does or doesn’t consent to? That’s basically half of what this case boiled down to, in all honesty.

      1) Villainising the man, just because he’s a man.
      2) Telling the woman she doesn’t have the right to decide what she consents to.

    • I guess people misunderstand me. (not that I blame you)

      I was thinking more along the lines of what people will think when reading the newspapers and such.
      think: “public opinion”.
      a friend of mine had this to say a few days ago: “if it had been my daughter, I’d kill the guy” because he felt that while the girl was of age to have sex, the guy still took advantage of someone who wasn’t fully matured mentally. (not allowed to vote yet, not allowed to buy booze, or -I think- get a driver’s license or get married)

      you will find far less public sympathy for the guy in this case than you would if it was about two consenting adults.

      that said, yeah.. on sancom he’ll find lots.

      • Anonymous says:

        Well I do think 16 is old enough to consent to sex practice with non-lasting consequences. And vote too, but I’ll consent that voting could be something else than a matter of maturity, and more of being an active member of society (in theory.)

        Booze, driving, marriage – that’s not only yourself that you’ll hurt: it’s other people and society. If you can’t take responsibility for that, you should not be allowed it.

    • Age of consent is 15 there, so perfectly within the laws. Besides what’s wrong if both legal parties consent to BDSM foreplay? (note the keywords legal and consent)

      Learn to read.

        • Just keep in mind that the Bible was written by men as the ‘Word of God’. Men (with agendas of their own, the manipulative pricks) wrote it, so of course there’s gonna be a male-sided slant to it.

          BTW… I have no problem with God… it’s His asshole mediators on Earth who I outright loathe or ignore.

        • Marx-Taich0u says:

          ..and if it takes over the world, and if the Bible were still to exist at that time, then God will be charged for being sexist plus all the other charges they can put against men.

          Pity us men, oh future world. >_<

        • Anonymous says:

          Unfortunately, you are right. Though, this isn’t feminism… this is femNAZIsm, which is different from regular feminism in that the femnazi’s wish to make men lesser than women out of perverse desire to ‘protect’ women when they do not need protecting.