Weekly Round-Up


!1 able nd8q0rabEa1qg0rlgo1_1280 !1 about c211 !1 AI 413 !1 ats sgs-cheerleader-otk-absent !1 CP spanking-blog !1 RS 13385_009 !1 sb ready-to-be-spanked !1 sps 8-8-1931 !1 spSt from-papas-spanking-to-movie-star-in-6-jumps !1 SRM _nr0l2meoMG1qjdnyzo1_500 !1 van wonder-woman-2 !1 vin-waiting-on-the-stairsIt seems a lot of people have been slow to update their blogs, but I did notice that Bonnie is back and answering questions. Also Kia has taken up a debate I started some years ago and has written about safe words and explains why she doesn’t always use them. I also snagged an image off her blog.

However the big news of the week seems to the US Court ruling that BDSM is not protected by the constitution. I am not sure that this as bad at it sounds, but feel free to put me right. While I would love some legal protection for my favourite subject and have subDom lifestyles put on the same par as Gay rights issues, I am not sure the law wants the added complication of unpicking legal rights from criminal acts every time sex goes wrong and ends up in court. More rights tend to mean less power for them. My pint being, they are not necessarily going to launch an all out attack.

Of course I am not naive, this is yet another triumph of the right wing over something they don’t understand, but with what is coming down that seems the least of the world’s troubles. I suppose it is a matter of watching this space (or that one).

The Spank Statement, absent from comment here for a while, has a feature on cartoon spankings of yesteryear. There are some samples up above. I also liked the rare bare bottom spanking Wonder Woman (as Diana) gets from her day job boss, also carried above. You can read more about the artist and see Batwoman spanked at Vanilla Spanking.

I thought the 1930s nude on the stairs was worth posting again (originally a Vintage Sunday) after Devlin reposted it last week. His comment is spot on.

Other pictures are from: Able,Real Spanking, Spanking Blog, CutiePie, All Things Spanking, Scarlet’s Real Magic and About Spanking.



6 Responses to “Weekly Round-Up”

  1. 1 Rollin Hand

    The court case does not really stand for the proposition that BDSM is not protected. What happened is the district court judge, who is at the trial court level, opined that perhaps BDSM practices are not per se protected under the US Constitution. The way it will play out is in the context of a prosecution for battery. Remember, all battery — which includes touching, kissing, and other person-to-person contact, including things like medical treatment, is potentially criminal. What excuses it is consent or privilege. If a court were to rule the defense of consent is not available due to the nature of the practice, this would amount to a criminalization of the conduct. In this case as I recall the top kept going because the sub did not utter the safe word. So he thought he had her consent to continue. The court refused to allow the conventions of BDSM play to trump the sub’s stated intent that the session end and basically ruled consent had been withdrawn and it was up to the top to realize this.

    • 2 DJ

      Thanks Rollin,

      Not as strict as the Spanner case ruling in the UK then – consent is no defence at all following that ruling.

  2. 3 Kia

    Thanks for the mention! That is one (of many) of your older posts that I find have stuck with me and are worth a revisit now and again.

  3. 5 Lily

    I’m a lawyer. I have read the entire 45 page decision. As Rollin pointed out, this decision came from a district court judge, which means it is unlikely to be the last word on the issue and really isn’t binding on too many people.

    A bit of background on the case may help. The top was the plaintiff. He had been expelled from a state university following an investigation of allegations of impermissible conduct by the university. What Rollin attributed to the court in his comment, was actually the conclusion of the university. The top won in court. He had asserted three reasons the university decision should be vacated; the court sided with him on two, but rejected his claim that BDSM sexual activity is constitutionally protected.

    On that issue, the court’s decision says that courts must look at whether the government limiting activities is a justifiable use of power, rather than an abuse of power. The judge found that since the risk of harm in BDSM activities can justify restrictions and concluded that there is “no constitutionally protected and judicially enforceable fundamental liberty interest…to engage in BDSM sexual activity.”

    Whether consent is a defense to battery depends on state law, which varies.


    • 6 DJ

      Hi Lily,

      Thanks for the heads up – very informative – consent for battery is an interesting one. No one would condone or support consent for murder or anything in that extreme direction. So where (particularly if you are one of those earnest people who doesn’t get BDSM) does one draw the line?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: