Current Events > BDSM (Well Sadomasochism at least) is technically illegal in the UK

Topic List	Page List: 1
UnfairRepresent 10/21/23 11:58:14 AM #1:	The five appellants engaged in sadomasochistic sexual acts, consenting to the harm which they received; whilst their conviction also covered alike harm against others, they sought as a minimum to have their mutually consented acts to be viewed as lawful. None of the five men complained of any of the acts in which they were involved, which were uncovered by an unrelated police investigation. The physical severity was not disputed. Each appellant (having had legal advice) pleaded guilty to the offence when the trial judge ruled that consent of the victim was no defence. The question approved and certified as in the public interest on appeal was whether the prosecution had to prove (in all similar cases) a lack of consent on the recipient's part. The appellants argued against conviction under the Offences against the Person Act 1861 as they had in all instances consented to the acts they engaged in (volenti non fit injuria), that as with tattooing and customary-site body piercings their consent would be directly analogous to the lawful exceptions laid out by three cornerstone (and other) widely-spaced precedent cases. The certified question of appeal which the House of Lords was asked to consider was: Where A wounds or assaults B occasioning him actual bodily harm (ABH) in the course of a sado-masochistic encounter, does the prosecution have to prove lack of consent on the part of B before they can establish A's guilt under section 20 or section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861? The Lords by a bare majority, two out of five dissenting answered this in the negative, holding that consent could not be a defence to these (typically overlapping) offences. Lord Templeman stated: "It is not clear to me that the activities of the appellants were exercises of rights in respect of private and family life. But assuming that the appellants are claiming to exercise those rights I do not consider that Article 8 invalidates a law which forbids violence which is intentionally harmful to body and mind. *Society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence*. Pleasure derived from the infliction of pain is an evil thing. Cruelty is uncivilised. I would answer the certified question in the negative and dismiss the appeals of the appellants against conviction. His judgment examined the acts to be "unpredictably dangerous and degrading to body and mind and were developed with increasing barbarity and taught to persons whose consents were dubious or worthless". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Brown Basically arguing that BDSM shit is so cruel and unusual that it doesn't matter whether you consented to it or not. --- ^ Hey now that's completely unfair! http://i.imgur.com/yPw05Ob.png <cite>UnfairRepresent posted [p:976781088] in BDSM (Well... [t:80599292]...</cite> <quote><quote>The five appellants engaged in sadomasochistic sexual acts, consenting to the harm which they received; whilst their conviction also covered alike harm against others, they sought as a minimum to have their mutually consented acts to be viewed as lawful. None of the five men complained of any of the acts in which they were involved, which were uncovered by an unrelated police investigation. The physical severity was not disputed. Each appellant (having had legal advice) pleaded guilty to the offence when the trial judge ruled that consent of the victim was no defence.The question approved and certified as in the public interest on appeal was whether the prosecution had to prove (in all similar cases) a lack of consent on the recipient's part. The appellants argued against conviction under the Offences against the Person Act 1861 as they had in all instances consented to the acts they engaged in (volenti non fit injuria), that as with tattooing and customary-site body piercings their consent would be directly analogous to the lawful exceptions laid out by three cornerstone (and other) widely-spaced precedent cases. The certified question of appeal which the House of Lords was asked to consider was:Where A wounds or assaults B occasioning him actual bodily harm (ABH) in the course of a sado-masochistic encounter, does the prosecution have to prove lack of consent on the part of B before they can establish A's guilt under section 20 or section 47 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861?The Lords by a bare majority, two out of five dissenting answered this in the negative, holding that consent could not be a defence to these (typically overlapping) offences.Lord Templeman stated:"It is not clear to me that the activities of the appellants were exercises of rights in respect of private and family life. But assuming that the appellants are claiming to exercise those rights I do not consider that Article 8 invalidates a law which forbids violence which is intentionally harmful to body and mind. Society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence. Pleasure derived from the infliction of pain is an evil thing. Cruelty is uncivilised. I would answer the certified question in the negative and dismiss the appeals of the appellants against conviction.His judgment examined the acts to be "unpredictably dangerous and degrading to body and mind and were developed with increasing barbarity and taught to persons whose consents were dubious or worthless".</quote>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_BrownBasically arguing that BDSM shit is so cruel and unusual that it doesn't matter whether you consented to it or not. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheSavageDragon 10/21/23 12:09:24 PM #2:	We had a similar trail regarding this about a judge and his wife back in the 90s. Even got made into a movie in the early 2000s. Basically she was very into it and requested of him to go to further extremes to the point of having her genitals sewn shut and weird stuff like that. He was found guilty of assault and battery and is no longer a judge. <cite>TheSavageDragon posted [p:976781267] in BDSM (Well... [t:80599292]...</cite> <quote>We had a similar trail regarding this about a judge and his wife back in the 90s. Even got made into a movie in the early 2000s.Basically she was very into it and requested of him to go to further extremes to the point of having her genitals sewn shut and weird stuff like that. He was found guilty of assault and battery and is no longer a judge. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
sauceje 10/21/23 12:11:47 PM #3:	TheSavageDragon posted... We had a similar trail regarding this about a judge and his wife back in the 90s. Even got made into a movie in the early 2000s. jesus they went a bit too far there imo but I dont think the law should prevent or forbid something happening between four walls in which all parties involved are consenting adults --- He was born in a coop, raised in a cage, children fear him, critics rage, He's half alive, he's half dead, folks just call him Buckethead <cite>sauceje posted [p:976781290] in BDSM (Well... [t:80599292]...</cite> <quote>TheSavageDragon posted... </cite><quote>We had a similar trail regarding this about a judge and his wife back in the 90s. Even got made into a movie in the early 2000s.</quote>jesus they went a bit too far there imobut I dont think the law should prevent or forbid something happening between four walls in which all parties involved are consenting adults </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ai123 10/21/23 12:15:52 PM #4:	Yeah, the law states that you cannot consent to death or serious injury. Also removes the 'rough sex' defence. --- You'll see motivational pictures about working hundred hour weeks/Well, it only applies to those who are operating at a really basic level <cite>ai123 posted [p:976781341] in BDSM (Well... [t:80599292]...</cite> <quote>Yeah, the law states that you cannot consent to death or serious injury.Also removes the 'rough sex' defence. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheSavageDragon 10/21/23 12:17:27 PM #5:	sauceje posted... jesus they went a bit too far there imo No shit, the movie that portrays these events and the trail isn't graphic at all. It is in fact rather tame, especially when compared to 50 Shades. But that was still one of the most uncomfortable things I've ever watched, seeing his wife on the witness stand discussing this in detail. Can't begin to imagine what the vibe in that courtroom must've been like IRL. <cite>TheSavageDragon posted [p:976781364] in BDSM (Well... [t:80599292]...</cite> <quote>sauceje posted... </cite><quote>jesus they went a bit too far there imo</quote>No shit, the movie that portrays these events and the trail isn't graphic at all. It is in fact rather tame, especially when compared to 50 Shades. But that was still one of the most uncomfortable things I've ever watched, seeing his wife on the witness stand discussing this in detail. Can't begin to imagine what the vibe in that courtroom must've been like IRL.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
streamofthesky 10/21/23 12:19:04 PM #6:	UnfairRepresent posted... The five appellants engaged in sadomasochistic sexual acts, consenting to the harm which they received; whilst their conviction also covered alike harm against others, they sought as a minimum to have their mutually consented acts to be viewed as lawful. None of the five men complained of any of the acts in which they were involved, which were uncovered by an unrelated police investigation. Ok, this paragraph reads incredibly confusing to me and the rest didn't clarify. Were the five men the doms or the subs? Because it sounds like the UK literally convicted them for getting dominated / (arguably) abused? Which would be super fucked up. As far as overall... I do think there should be limits to what can be "consented" to, and if a sub is asking for or agreeing to extremely harmful or dangerous activities, the dom has responsibility as a human being to not go along with or encourage it. "Consenting adults" is great, but some people are incapable of consent (drugged, significant mental illness, under coercion, ...whatever the current politically correct term for "extremely low IQ to the point they can't function normally" is, etc...). <cite>streamofthesky posted [p:976781399] in BDSM (Well... [t:80599292]...</cite> <quote>UnfairRepresent posted... </cite><quote>The five appellants engaged in sadomasochistic sexual acts, consenting to the harm which they received; whilst their conviction also covered alike harm against others, they sought as a minimum to have their mutually consented acts to be viewed as lawful. None of the five men complained of any of the acts in which they were involved, which were uncovered by an unrelated police investigation.</quote>Ok, this paragraph reads incredibly confusing to me and the rest didn't clarify.Were the five men the doms or the subs?Because it sounds like the UK literally convicted them for getting dominated / (arguably) abused? Which would be super fucked up.As far as overall... I do think there should be limits to what can be "consented" to, and if a sub is asking for or agreeing to extremely harmful or dangerous activities, the dom has responsibility as a human being to not go along with or encourage it. "Consenting adults" is great, but some people are incapable of consent (drugged, significant mental illness, under coercion, ...whatever the current politically correct term for "extremely low IQ to the point they can't function normally" is, etc...).</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnfairRepresent 10/21/23 5:06:07 PM #7:	streamofthesky posted... As far as overall... I do think there should be limits to what can be "consented" to, and if a sub is asking for or agreeing to extremely harmful or dangerous activities, the dom has responsibility as a human being to not go along with or encourage it. "Consenting adults" is great, but some people are incapable of consent (drugged, significant mental illness, under coercion, ...whatever the current politically correct term for "extremely low IQ to the point they can't function normally" is, etc...). This is kinda poor arguments. It's a non-sequitur If someone is mentally ill or drugged they can't consent: Fair they can't. But you started out by saying that "some things can't be consented too" which has nothing to do with drugs or mental illness If they're sane and sober and not under coercion, what should they be banned from doing to their own body? I'm with the libertarians on this one. You are not the property of the government, that's unironically communism at it's highest. --- ^ Hey now that's completely unfair! http://i.imgur.com/yPw05Ob.png <cite>UnfairRepresent posted [p:976785612] in BDSM (Well... [t:80599292]...</cite> <quote>streamofthesky posted... </cite><quote>As far as overall... I do think there should be limits to what can be "consented" to, and if a sub is asking for or agreeing to extremely harmful or dangerous activities, the dom has responsibility as a human being to not go along with or encourage it. "Consenting adults" is great, but some people are incapable of consent (drugged, significant mental illness, under coercion, ...whatever the current politically correct term for "extremely low IQ to the point they can't function normally" is, etc...).</quote>This is kinda poor arguments. It's a non-sequiturIf someone is mentally ill or drugged they can't consent: Fair they can't.But you started out by saying that "some things can't be consented too" which has nothing to do with drugs or mental illnessIf they're sane and sober and not under coercion, what should they be banned from doing to their own body?I'm with the libertarians on this one. You are not the property of the government, that's unironically communism at it's highest. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
streamofthesky 10/21/23 5:38:54 PM #8:	UnfairRepresent posted... This is kinda poor arguments. It's a non-sequitur If someone is mentally ill or drugged they can't consent: Fair they can't. But you started out by saying that "some things can't be consented too" which has nothing to do with drugs or mental illness If they're sane and sober and not under coercion, what should they be banned from doing to their own body? I'm with the libertarians on this one. You are not the property of the government, that's unironically communism at it's highest. If someone wants a dom to do permanent bodily harm to them, do an activity that could easily result in their death, or such... Frankly I don't care if it's not yet diagnosed, there's something wrong with such a person and a decent human being would say no, and try to direct that person to professional help. <cite>streamofthesky posted [p:976786151] in BDSM (Well... [t:80599292]...</cite> <quote>UnfairRepresent posted... </cite><quote>This is kinda poor arguments. It's a non-sequiturIf someone is mentally ill or drugged they can't consent: Fair they can't.But you started out by saying that "some things can't be consented too" which has nothing to do with drugs or mental illnessIf they're sane and sober and not under coercion, what should they be banned from doing to their own body?I'm with the libertarians on this one. You are not the property of the government, that's unironically communism at it's highest.</quote>If someone wants a dom to do permanent bodily harm to them, do an activity that could easily result in their death, or such... Frankly I don't care if it's not yet diagnosed, there's something wrong with such a person and a decent human being would say no, and try to direct that person to professional help.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnfairRepresent 10/21/23 5:42:55 PM #9:	Vanilla sex can result in death Who gets to decide that someone can't consent because obviously they're wrong since you disagree? --- ^ Hey now that's completely unfair! http://i.imgur.com/yPw05Ob.png <cite>UnfairRepresent posted [p:976786216] in BDSM (Well... [t:80599292]...</cite> <quote>Vanilla sex can result in deathWho gets to decide that someone can't consent because obviously they're wrong since you disagree? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#10	Post #10 was unavailable or deleted.
streamofthesky 10/21/23 5:53:57 PM #11:	UnfairRepresent posted... Vanilla sex can result in death Who gets to decide that someone can't consent because obviously they're wrong since you disagree? Courts somehow manage to navigate "reasonable standards" for stuff like manslaughter. Someone dying in a freak accident or heart attack during vanilla sex obviously isn't a crime. If someone goes to a dom and says they've always fantasized about being run over by a car (for example), I'd hope the dom would refuse. And this discussion is only assuming the most "ideal" scenario where the sub is seeking it out. There are sick fucks out there that look to prey on people to live out their sadistic fantasies, and proving "whether the chicken or the egg came first" in court might not be possible. I'd rather it just be discouraged in general... <cite>streamofthesky posted [p:976786371] in BDSM (Well... [t:80599292]...</cite> <quote>UnfairRepresent posted... </cite><quote>Vanilla sex can result in deathWho gets to decide that someone can't consent because obviously they're wrong since you disagree?</quote>Courts somehow manage to navigate "reasonable standards" for stuff like manslaughter.Someone dying in a freak accident or heart attack during vanilla sex obviously isn't a crime.If someone goes to a dom and says they've always fantasized about being run over by a car (for example), I'd hope the dom would refuse.And this discussion is only assuming the most "ideal" scenario where the sub is seeking it out. There are sick fucks out there that look to prey on people to live out their sadistic fantasies, and proving "whether the chicken or the egg came first" in court might not be possible. I'd rather it just be discouraged in general...</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
ai123 10/21/23 5:59:07 PM #12:	[LFAQs-redacted-quote] A woman with a penis can be guilty of rape. A woman without a penis who penetrates another person, or forces them to penetrate, faces the same penalty as rape. The legal system just uses different terminology. --- You'll see motivational pictures about working hundred hour weeks/Well, it only applies to those who are operating at a really basic level <cite>ai123 posted [p:976786439] in BDSM (Well... [t:80599292]...</cite> <quote><cite>[LFAQs-redacted-quote]</cite> A woman with a penis can be guilty of rape.A woman without a penis who penetrates another person, or forces them to penetrate, faces the same penalty as rape. The legal system just uses different terminology. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnfairRepresent 10/23/23 2:47:23 PM #13:	That's not the defense you think it is --- ^ Hey now that's completely unfair! http://i.imgur.com/yPw05Ob.png <cite>UnfairRepresent posted [p:976818882] in BDSM (Well... [t:80599292]...</cite> <quote>That's not the defense you think it is </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MatzoTov 10/23/23 2:49:25 PM #14:	America stays winning. --- Sigless by choice <cite>MatzoTov posted [p:976818919] in BDSM (Well... [t:80599292]...</cite> <quote>America stays winning. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheSavageDragon 10/23/23 3:07:41 PM #15:	MatzoTov posted... America stays winning. You mean the land where acknowledging any sort of sexual activity at all gets frowned upon? <cite>TheSavageDragon posted [p:976819217] in BDSM (Well... [t:80599292]...</cite> <quote>MatzoTov posted... </cite><quote>America stays winning.</quote>You mean the land where acknowledging any sort of sexual activity at all gets frowned upon? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
PoopPotato 10/23/23 3:10:03 PM #16:	Butt sex and blow Jays are punishible in the US military --- http://i.minus.com/i5EWBMXTN4ERv.gif <cite>PoopPotato posted [p:976819255] in BDSM (Well... [t:80599292]...</cite> <quote>Butt sex and blow Jays are punishible in the US military </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
MatzoTov 10/23/23 3:12:39 PM #17:	TheSavageDragon posted... You mean the land where acknowledging any sort of sexual activity at all gets frowned upon? ...What Footloose-ass village are you posting from? --- Sigless by choice <cite>MatzoTov posted [p:976819303] in BDSM (Well... [t:80599292]...</cite> <quote>TheSavageDragon posted... </cite><quote>You mean the land where acknowledging any sort of sexual activity at all gets frowned upon?</quote>...What Footloose-ass village are you posting from? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnfairRepresent 10/23/23 3:18:29 PM #18:	MatzoTov posted... ...What Footloose-ass village are you posting from? Probably the south or any Republican Christian foothold The places were sex-ed is banned --- ^ Hey now that's completely unfair! http://i.imgur.com/yPw05Ob.png <cite>UnfairRepresent posted [p:976819397] in BDSM (Well... [t:80599292]...</cite> <quote>MatzoTov posted... </cite><quote>...What Footloose-ass village are you posting from?</quote>Probably the south or any Republican Christian footholdThe places were sex-ed is banned </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheSavageDragon 10/23/23 3:22:53 PM #19:	UnfairRepresent posted... Probably the south or any Republican Christian foothold The places were sex-ed is banned Or you know...Europe where I grew up with commercials for shower gel featuring a topless woman during cartoon hours right after school without anybody going apeshit over it. <cite>TheSavageDragon posted [p:976819477] in BDSM (Well... [t:80599292]...</cite> <quote>UnfairRepresent posted... </cite><quote>Probably the south or any Republican Christian footholdThe places were sex-ed is banned</quote>Or you know...Europe where I grew up with commercials for shower gel featuring a topless woman during cartoon hours right after school without anybody going apeshit over it.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Solar_Crimson 10/23/23 3:28:39 PM #20:	MatzoTov posted... America stays winning. You mean the country that still struggles with teaching basic sex-ed? --- "Be good to yourself, because everyone else in the world is probably out to get you." - Dr. Harleen Quinzel <cite>Solar_Crimson posted [p:976819558] in BDSM (Well... [t:80599292]...</cite> <quote>MatzoTov posted... </cite><quote>America stays winning.</quote>You mean the country that still struggles with teaching basic sex-ed? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
RVallant 10/23/23 3:33:11 PM #21:	It is a bit dated, but I don't think the CPS would prosecute for consensual extreme BDSM as it wouldn't be in the public interest. 1994 was far back enough you're talking when the UK was just getting used to homosexuality being legalised. So, still a time period where they all get icky about stuff you wouldn't bat an eye about today. <cite>RVallant posted [p:976819623] in BDSM (Well... [t:80599292]...</cite> <quote>It is a bit dated, but I don't think the CPS would prosecute for consensual extreme BDSM as it wouldn't be in the public interest.1994 was far back enough you're talking when the UK was just getting used to homosexuality being legalised. So, still a time period where they all get icky about stuff you wouldn't bat an eye about today.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Guide 10/23/23 3:36:15 PM #22:	UnfairRepresent posted... Pleasure derived from the infliction of pain is an evil thing What a b********************* --- evening main 2.4356848e+91 https://youtu.be/Acn5IptKWQU <cite>Guide posted [p:976819674] in BDSM (Well... [t:80599292]...</cite> <quote>UnfairRepresent posted... </cite><quote>Pleasure derived from the infliction of pain is an evil thing</quote>What a b********************* </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnfairRepresent 10/23/23 5:40:14 PM #23:	TheSavageDragon posted... No shit, the movie that portrays these events and the trail isn't graphic at all. It is in fact rather tame, especially when compared to 50 Shades. But that was still one of the most uncomfortable things I've ever watched, seeing his wife on the witness stand discussing this in detail. Can't begin to imagine what the vibe in that courtroom must've been like IRL. @TheSavageDragon What was the name of the movie? --- ^ Hey now that's completely unfair! http://i.imgur.com/yPw05Ob.png <cite>UnfairRepresent posted [p:976821618] in BDSM (Well... [t:80599292]...</cite> <quote>TheSavageDragon posted... </cite><quote>No shit, the movie that portrays these events and the trail isn't graphic at all. It is in fact rather tame, especially when compared to 50 Shades. But that was still one of the most uncomfortable things I've ever watched, seeing his wife on the witness stand discussing this in detail. Can't begin to imagine what the vibe in that courtroom must've been like IRL.</quote>@TheSavageDragon What was the name of the movie? </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
TheSavageDragon 10/23/23 6:24:42 PM #24:	UnfairRepresent posted... @TheSavageDragon What was the name of the movie? https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1289432/ I don't know if it's easily available to you and if there are English subtitles available somewhere because the movie is entirely in Dutch. <cite>TheSavageDragon posted [p:976822301] in BDSM (Well... [t:80599292]...</cite> <quote>UnfairRepresent posted... </cite><quote>@TheSavageDragon What was the name of the movie?</quote>https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1289432/I don't know if it's easily available to you and if there are English subtitles available somewhere because the movie is entirely in Dutch.</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnfairRepresent 10/23/23 6:32:22 PM #25:	I might check it out if I can, it sounds interesting --- ^ Hey now that's completely unfair! http://i.imgur.com/yPw05Ob.png <cite>UnfairRepresent posted [p:976822418] in BDSM (Well... [t:80599292]...</cite> <quote>I might check it out if I can, it sounds interesting </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#26	Post #26 was unavailable or deleted.
WesternMedia 10/26/23 8:56:50 PM #27:	https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCibGz6RDWY --- Cherish me <cite>WesternMedia posted [p:976879289] in BDSM (Well... [t:80599292]...</cite> <quote> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCibGz6RDWY </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
spikethedevil 10/26/23 9:01:05 PM #28:	Solar_Crimson posted... You mean the country that still struggles with teaching basic sex-ed? When Last of Us 2 came out some people on the LOUT2 board were struggling with the concept of doggy style/from behind being useable for vaginal sex and not just anal. --- A garbage pod!? It's a smegging garbage pod! <cite>spikethedevil posted [p:976879355] in BDSM (Well... [t:80599292]...</cite> <quote>Solar_Crimson posted... </cite><quote>You mean the country that still struggles with teaching basic sex-ed?</quote>When Last of Us 2 came out some people on the LOUT2 board were struggling with the concept of doggy style/from behind being useable for vaginal sex and not just anal. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#29	Post #29 was unavailable or deleted.
UnfairRepresent 10/30/23 4:57:19 AM #30:	spikethedevil posted... When Last of Us 2 came out some people on the LOUT2 board were struggling with the concept of doggy style/from behind being useable for vaginal sex and not just anal. lol --- ^ Hey now that's completely unfair! http://i.imgur.com/yPw05Ob.png <cite>UnfairRepresent posted [p:976934107] in BDSM (Well... [t:80599292]...</cite> <quote>spikethedevil posted... </cite><quote>When Last of Us 2 came out some people on the LOUT2 board were struggling with the concept of doggy style/from behind being useable for vaginal sex and not just anal.</quote>lol </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
spikethedevil 10/30/23 5:30:36 AM #31:	[LFAQs-redacted-quote] No there is no one who has heard of the man who cracked the enigma code snd then was persecuted for his sexuality. --- A garbage pod!? It's a smegging garbage pod! <cite>spikethedevil posted [p:976934261] in BDSM (Well... [t:80599292]...</cite> <quote><cite>[LFAQs-redacted-quote]</cite> No there is no one who has heard of the man who cracked the enigma code snd then was persecuted for his sexuality. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#32	Post #32 was unavailable or deleted.
Barber102 10/31/23 11:07:10 PM #33:	spikethedevil posted... When Last of Us 2 came out some people on the LOUT2 board were struggling with the concept of doggy style/from behind being useable for vaginal sex and not just anal. lmfao I remember that. --- Dinosaurs built the pyramids. <cite>Barber102 posted [p:976967733] in BDSM (Well... [t:80599292]...</cite> <quote>spikethedevil posted... </cite><quote>When Last of Us 2 came out some people on the LOUT2 board were struggling with the concept of doggy style/from behind being useable for vaginal sex and not just anal.</quote>lmfao I remember that. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
UnfairRepresent 11/01/23 5:12:14 AM #34:	[LFAQs-redacted-quote] Spike is british --- ^ Hey now that's completely unfair! http://i.imgur.com/yPw05Ob.png <cite>UnfairRepresent posted [p:976970502] in BDSM (Well... [t:80599292]...</cite> <quote><cite>[LFAQs-redacted-quote]</cite> Spike is british </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
#35	Post #35 was unavailable or deleted.
spikethedevil 11/03/23 4:36:40 PM #36:	[LFAQs-redacted-quote] Yeah fair point. --- A garbage pod!? It's a smegging garbage pod! <cite>spikethedevil posted [p:977015959] in BDSM (Well... [t:80599292]...</cite> <quote><cite>[LFAQs-redacted-quote]</cite> Yeah fair point. </quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1

Current Events > BDSM (Well Sadomasochism at least) is technically illegal in the UK (+) Yeah! (+)

Current Events > BDSM (Well Sadomasochism at least) is technically illegal in the UK