First to say that s**t is weird

I'd refuse to answer this law school hypothetical, fail the course, and then sue my professor and school for discrimination for making me answer related to something I found icky. And then drop the suit when I realized I was wasting my money, but not after starting a website soliciting donations from other people icked out by these activities.

I can't imagine a court inferring that consent to bondage includes consent to assume a risk of death. I'm sure Lat will keep us posted if this ever goes to trial.

Read this on cnn.com yesterday but it was after 5 p.m. so I didn't bother to send it along.

Would enforcing such a waiver be contrary to public policy?

2:02, thanks for sharing. numbnuts.

On one hand, we have a right to engage in consensual activity. But on the other hand, when other people's safety is involved, we have the obligation to act responsibly. I don't have much firsthand knowledge of the bondage community, but I'm pretty sure they're fairly established and have some sort of code of ethics. Leaving this guy suffocating for that long has to be a bit beyond the pale. The guy in the dom position had to know this was a bit much, and very unsafe. I think the family has a right to sue.

I love it when Lat posts his own personal photos.

OK, on the one hand I find it funny that myself and the prior poster both found it so necessary to distance ourselves from the S&M community.

On the other, I also find the negligence standard that 2:18 is proposing to be rather humorous--"the reasonable dom standard," as it were.

In some states (like NY), you can't consent to physical violence outside of the sports context. Moreover, Lawrence wouldn't apply because it specifically states that the opinion is not one about violence/pain (I forget the exact language). In short, yes, absolutely, the family can sue. No matter what risks might be inherent in the victim's activities, he couldn't consent to them.

If this boils down to a question of implied consent, and that seems to be the case, the reasonable dom standard and the subjective intent of the parties both seem to be critical issues. Given the delicacy of discussing the unusual sexual proclivities of recently deceased family members, I would bet against this going to trial.

Safe, sane and consensual are the buzzwords of the Leather/BDSM community. It would seem to me that two of there three precepts were violated here.

That's it...my reasonable dom standard better enter the casebooks. I coined it, damnit.

2:27-

the exchange of power is where the sex aspect of this (and all S&M) comes in. sex and power, control (taking and relinquishing), and trust in someone else are all related. S&M is an (extreme, sometimes) expression of that. you might not find it arousing to be (voluntarily) under someone else's control (or to have someone else allow you that control over them), but many people do, to varying degrees.

or so i've read.

3:44 hits the nail on the head.

bondage "code of ethics"? are you kidding.

the best legal maxim for something like this is from the old school roman codes: caveat emptor; freako-beware

There is a definite code of ethics, and in many large cities in the US there is an organized bondage-s/m community that promotes the code - safe, sane and consensual is the heart of it. In NYC the group is Gay Male S&M Activists, which holds educational programs at the LGBT Community Center to educate members of the community about safe and consensual S&M and bondage techniques.

There are some interesting cases about whether consensual S&M is nonetheless unlawful. In a case originating in the UK, the European Court of Human Rights found no violation of the personal autonomy of the individual when the UK imposed criminal penalties on men found to have engaged in consensual S&M activities that fell within the scope of the common law crime of maiming.

In the US, there was a case in the midwest involving a heavy extended S&M scene gone bad in which the perpetrator was the subject of a lengthy manhunt and was ultimately sentenced to lengthy imprisonment. In that case the victim, who had originally requested the treatment in question, was subjected to imprisonment in a basement dungeon, beating, heavy bondage, scarring ,and branding with hot irons, as well as intense psychological torture. The perpetrator pled consent as his defense but the court wouldn't buy it. The scene went on much longer than the victim wanted; he had changed his mind and wanted to revoke his consent and couldn't convince his "master" that this was a genuine withdrawal of consent, because his initial consent was phrased as irrevocable.

Anyone interested in reading about it is referred to State of Nebraska v. Van, 688 N.W.2d 600 (Neb. 2004).

4:38: I don't care that they call their "rules" a code of ethics. Nothing about wanting someone to dominate you or wanting to humiliate and hurt someone else is ethical, or normal for that matter. Masochism is a sign of a jacked up brain and is not part of the animal kingdom apart from the few freaks in the human race. Sadism doesn't even exist in the animal kingdom--animals always kill with a motive (i.e. perceived threat, hunger, etc.). I feel sorry for this dude's family, but trying to legitimize this whole realm of sexual activity by attributing a "code of ethics" to it is ridiculous.

"trying to legitimize this whole realm of sexual activity by attributing a "code of ethics" to it is ridiculous."

Bingo. This whole world consists entirely of insane and derranged people, and these acts are in no way normal or tolerable and should be looked upon with disdain.

It doesn't matter what you think about S&M, please separate this from the issue here. It is weird, but I refuse to be a conservative and let my judgement be clouded by my personal opinion of S&M.

So far as I understand the world of S&M, as soon as the safe word is said, the whole thing is supposed to stop. Also, the dom cannot leave the bounded person unattended (in situations like this. I heard that some people are left in cages alone, but not bounded inside the cage).

They do have code of ethics, and just because your personal view doesn't approve of S&M doesn't mean their idea of code of conduct is meaningless.

Informed consent applies to both the dom and the sub. The dom takes the respobsibility/liability to make sure whatever goes on doesn't endanger the sub's life. The sub gives consent to leave control to someone else, well, that is the whole point anyway. But the sub doesn't give consent to not being supervised. No one is consenting to death or real torture.

So the family has a right to sue in my opinion. The dom has been negligent.

my point wasn't whether there should or should not be liability. i was commenting, as i have a right to do (try refusing to be a liberal and allow me the right to speak), that these people are nuts and in an ultimate sense, reap the consequences of their poor choices. should the dom dude's family be liable? probably. but negligence is not the standard, douche. it's battery.

05:46 --

I wasn't referring to you. My comments were to everyone who shares your view. I am not even judging your view, not discussing your view.

And only a conservative would think I am not giving you the right to speak.

Also, nowhere in my post did I say conservatives should not comment on this issue.

I said I refuse to be conservative because I do find this kind of extreme S&M weird. But it shouldn't matter, only the legal issues should.

I don't understand these Hitler-like comments (not referring only to you 05:46). Just because you think they are weird and doing "irrational" acts doesn't mean they deserve to die.

i didn't say they did. they don't deserve to die in terms of the law. whether they deserve to die in terms of morality or evolutionary biology is a different question. that explains why i said that the dom's family is liable, but not on a negligence standard. i think battery is the appropriate standard. i guess i shouldn't have said you don't want to give me the right to speak. frankly, you have no input re: that right. but when you make ad hominem attacks (i.e. "I refuse to be a conservative and let my judgment be clouded by my personal opinion on S&M"), you stifle conversation. that was my point. regardless, the law cannot be separated from morality. the law encompasses both what is wrong, but it doesn't stop there. it also encompasses what ought to be wrong. this is why we amend laws, create laws, repeal laws. because our individual, and collective views on other people's actions do matter. hope that helps.

Yep, it helped.

"the law encompasses both what is wrong, but it doesn't stop there. it also encompasses what ought to be wrong. this is why we amend laws, create laws, repeal laws. because our individual, and collective views on other people's actions do matter."

Especially here you are right, and I do agree with you.

I like to be hit in the head with a wiffle ball bat as I masturbate

He assumed the risk. Both participants are dead. Everyone loses.

This says more about the greedy family of the first victim, who you think would let it go already instead of further sullying their deceased relative's remaining bit of dignity, suing the estate of the suicide case... But, hey, if they can squeeze some money out of it, why not endure a little more humiliation?

Is dumping a dead body in the woods against the Code of Ethics?

What about the minister in Alabama who was found dead hogtied, wearing two rubber wet suits, a diving mask, diving gloves and flippers, and had a dildo up his ass?

which one?

as an s&m slave myself I have to say that, damn that boy in the cage is hot!! wish it was me! As for the story - in our world "safe, sane, and consensual are the code but many times slaves, like me, will consent to "no limits" in that case it is up to the Master to bring in the safe part. to me, the crime/liablity here doesn't come into play until 1) the Master left the slave unatteded and in a situation likely to cause death and 2) if you read the story closely enough - they actual found him alive - dieing and blue in teh face - but they found him alive. In fact the suicide note says that had the Master not havve panicked (i.e. had he have called for help) the slave would likely be alive. in the end, from this slave's standpoint, the Master had the right to do what he wished with his property - up until the point of death - as that is not what the slave had consented to. ON another note - if any of you hot boys out thre are looking for a young, fit, rich, slave boy - let me know ;-) - i am to please ;-) ....worthlessshit69@yahoo.com

Lat, can we have a post about furries?