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 r**e 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.
So… for anyone that knows what happened with the case…
Did the woman sue the prosecutor? If not, she really should’ve.
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.
Same with children actually.
Child protection and women rights are used to control people!
It’s not about rights or protection anymore!
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.
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.
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.