Comments
by Java Mann 
Call it irony or just a strange
coincidence, but it struck me as odd that the day my piece on sodomy hit
the web, I found an article in the Boston Globe detailing the police shut
down of a local S&M club.
S&M (Sadism and Masochism)
is one of those fringe fetishes that most people don’t understand, but
can recognize if only from the wardrobe frequently associated with it.
From the leather mask-wearing master to the whip wielding dominatrix, it
is the fodder of bad comedy routines and B movies.
Like most people, S&M
is not my scene, though I will confess a certain fondness for leather,
but unlike most people I’ve actually come in contact with it. I’ve talked
to people about it and read books on it, and I have at least a rudimentary
understanding of it (enough to know it’s not for me).
The article in the paper
dealt with a private club, housed in an Attleboro warehouse. The police
stumbled upon the club by accident while investigating the theft of electronic
equipment. The club owner had made no attempt to hide the club, which was
located diagonally across the street from the police station. Upon entering
the club, the police found about 50 people, some naked, crowded in a few
small rooms filled with whips, paddles and other articles of "torture"
and a host of "marital aids". Of course, arrests were made.
Of the two people arrested,
one, the "Mistress" of the club was charged with assault and battery. The
police caught her in the act of paddling the butt of another (consenting)
woman. The alleged victim was not available for comment. The owner of the
club was arrested as well. His charges included: exhibiting and/or lending
articles for self-abuse, keeping a house of ill fame or lewdness, and eight
counts of possession of dangerous weapons (meaning whips, chains, paddles,
etc.).
What makes this whole scenario
amusing (if only to me) is the fact that criminal law had never
been applied to people involved in S&M acts in the commonwealth of
Massachusetts. In other words, no one really knows if these laws can
or do apply to consensual acts of violence for erotic stimulation. A
hearing to determine this is scheduled. Needless to say the lawyers, like
the cockroaches they emulate, are scurrying out of the woodwork. Everyone
has an opinion, and phrases like "Laws such as assault and battery should
not be relied on as proxy for enforcing moral judgement about private yadder
yadder yadder…." are being bandied about.
The fact remains that no
one entered the club under duress. They knew what to expect and were looking
for it. Any "assault" committed was consensual. Everything happened behind
a closed door so the public was protected and no one needed to avert their
eyes. The club caused no trouble in the neighborhood, and it was open for
six months before the police knew it existed, even though it was less than
100 yards from their own front door.
I guess the bottom line is
this: If what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own home
is legally protected, shouldn’t what two, four or 50 consenting adults
do in the privacy of a private club be equally protected? Or rather: As
long as it’s done in private and the participants are consenting adults,
and as long as no permanent damage is done, do we really
need laws telling us what we can or cannot do concerning our own sexual
gratification?
I think not.
But I guess that’s up to
the courts to decide.
|
