I was brought up in Massachusetts, a place known for its college campuses, colorful leaves, and the first state to recognize same-sex marriage. But one of the moments I remember best, and the event that got me interested in the politics of sexuality, was an event in 2001 called “Paddleboro”.
“Paddleboro” was the media term for a raid of a warehouse in Attleboro, Massachusetts. Police officers claimed they were looking for stolen guitars, but instead they found a kinky sex party in full swing. Seizing whips, steel hooks, riding crops, leather belts, condoms, and, most famously, a wooden spoon, the cops ended up arresting two people—Stefany Reed, who was spanking a tied-up woman, was charged with assault, and Ben Davis was charged with running a house of prostitution or ill repute... because he was taking money at the door, donations for snacks and drinks. Eventually, thanks to the defense funds put together by the ACLU and the National Coalition of Sexual Freedom, the case was dropped, but it raised some important questions.
One particularly prominent question relates to the question of consent. Obviously, BDSM is meant to be a consensual practice between adults. However, often the law does not allow you to consent to physical assault, which includes things like spanking, face slapping, crops, whips, paddles, etc. This is to support people in domestic abuse cases, who are sometimes reluctant to charge their abuser as such— in these cases the law can step in and follow through with a domestic violence case. As it turned out, the case against Ms. Reed was dropped because the submissive “victim” she was spanking refused to cooperate, and there was not enough other evidence to support the charge. Bruises, by the way, often count as evidence. There’s a reason why pro dommes often prefer not to leave marks, as much as their clients prefer not to have them! Still, it points to a question—is it better to offer protection to people who are unable to fight back against their abusers, or to give consenting adults the freedom to enjoy sexual pleasure in a mutually enjoyable (if perhaps violent) way?
This kind of thinking doesn’t exclusively affect the US... or kinky parties. It’s also been affecting smut, both commercial and private, as I realized when I moved to the U.K. and discovered that movies and images containing fisting were illegal. As are images and videos of ballbusting, needle play, or cutting if it’s of the breasts or genitals, or violent sex if the penetratee is tied up. Actually, in the UK, it’s all pretty complicated, and most of the images are illegal to produce but not to possess, which means there’s a lot of potential for legal gray areas.
One group combating these laws is the Spanner Trust, whose focus is on helping people facing legal issues involving charges of assault relating to S/M acts. Here’s a little history of the Spanner case:
“During a raid in 1987 the police seized a videotape which showed a number of identifiable men engaging in heavy SM activities including beatings, genital abrasions, and lacerations. The police claim that they immediately started a murder investigation because they were convinced that the men were being killed. This investigation is rumoured to have cost £4 million. Dozens of gay men were interviewed. The police learned that none of the men in the video had been murdered, or even suffered injuries which required medical attention. However the police may well have felt that they had to bring some prosecutions to justify their expensive investigation.
In December 1990, 16 gay men were given prison sentences of up to four and a half years or fined for engaging in consensual S/M activity...The convictions have now been upheld by both the Court of Appeal and the Law Lords in the U.K. and the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg...Their defence, that they had all consented to the activities, was denied.”—from the Spanner Trust site
Print
