Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Conversation >

Extreme BDSM in public: what's illegal?

03:35 / 15.08.04

Okay, so we're back from London's wondrous Duckie (for Loomis: they played 'First Of The Gang To Die' and 'Last Of The Famous International Playboys'), and tonight's cabaret threw up a couple of questions.

Duckie's cabaret spot is often hit-or-miss, and this evening's was introduced, by the lovely Amy Lame, as a couple of Japanese and one Portuguese person doing "Yoko Ono meets Robert Mapplethorpe". So far so intriguing.

Anyway, a little Japanese guy in leather trousers, a gimp mask and a black open-kimono does a few minutes of intro, before welcoming on a tattooed Marco-from-Big Brother lookalike and a busty, buttocky dominatrix, complete with (very) tight corset and silver lipstick. She ties Marco's hands (with a nice bit of Japanese rope bondage) and proceeds to insert six sterile needles in his brow, three above each eye. He doesn't wince. She adds another couple of needles through each nipple, cross-wise, then whips off his loin-cloth to reveal a Prince Albert-pierced cock. The little gimp-masked guy cuts three lengths of clothes-line and threads one through the PA, pulling the guy's cock taut, so it looks at least half-erect. The dominatrix ties the other two ropes around the needle-pierced nipples, and gets Gimp-Mask to hold them. The lights go down, and she produces some sort of electrical device, shocking Marco's nipples and PA.

Aaanyway, at this point, Amy appears onstage and says (slightly apologetically) that she needs to stop the performance because she's been informed it's "totally illegal". The performers grin, there's applause, and they leave the stage.

I wondered: which bit of the act was illegal? Was it the semblance of an erect penis in a room of people who may not have been 18 (the door staff decide)? Was it the fact that the door was open and, theoretically, the public could've gawped inside? Did it count as assault, despite being (presumably) consenting? Was it the fact that it was carried out onstage at the Royal Vauxhall Tavern instead of Guantanamo Bay?

I'm curious. I'd be interested to hear from those who know more about the legal schtuff than I do.

STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK

03:46 / 15.08.04

I think there's a distinction between a paying venue and a private members' (as it were) club- did you just pay on the door or was there some sort of nominal membership required as there is at TG?

03:51 / 15.08.04

That's what I figured, Stoatie, from the shenanigans Suzie Kruger had to go through post-FIST. It was pay-on-the-door and, as I say, the door was open to the street, so (theoretically, anyway) a suitably curious passer-by could've peered through at the cabaret. The performance stuff isn't usually SM-orientated (not piercing/electro, anyway), and it's not a members' club.

08:18 / 15.08.04

why does that make it illegal?
shouldnt the consent issue really be the only one?

19:57 / 15.08.04

Woah, sounds like a good duckie. But, does this mean we should register as members for special Duckie privleges?

20:01 / 15.08.04

Nah, I think they'll just be careful about cabaret involving Mull of Kintyre mutilation (if that's what the problem was).

They did play 'You're So Vain', though. Classic.

pointless and uncalled for

06:45 / 16.08.04

Use of the phrase totally illegal is a little bit misleading. However there are some grey area problems that are very difficult to define in a legal sense. Now while my capacity on legal matters may have served well in other threads, I must admit that my knowledge of the law relating to demonstrations of sexual activity in clubs is somewhat lacking.

However I'm going to do some educated guesswork here.

1) The door is not the issue, the place is billed as 18+ only and the fact that alcohol is served is the main factor here.

2) The door being open is certainly a problem if there is evident line of sight from the street or other public area or private residence. The dear old Queer Granny &trade should be allowed to walk the streets or look out of the window safe in the knowledge she will not catch sight of a big fat hairy cock. This applies to all forms of choreographed nudity.

3) This is the real kicker as far as I can determine

"shocking Marco's nipples and PA"

Actual genital stimulation of any kind where the genitalia and form of stimulation are visible and evident is prohibited without the proper authorisations and licences. There probably also needs to be clear notification to patrons that they will see a display of sexual activity.

I can't comment on places like the TG but one would imagine that the entry routine involves some for of advisory/waiver and that it has specific dispensations for licences based on it's reputation and no doubt profile of some of the attendees.

14:04 / 16.08.04

why does that make it illegal?
shouldnt the consent issue really be the only one?

Here in America, assault is assault, regardless of consent. It is illegal to engage in an action that is solely and specifically intended to cause physical pain or bodily harm to another person.

14:17 / 16.08.04

That may be true, as far as the general legalities go, but the cases I've heard about where people have been prosecuted and punished for consensual acts of BDSM have been in Britain.

Was there a little bit of "ohmygod, you're such perverts, we don't do that sort of thing here" in your "Here in America..." statement? Americans do, y'know...

14:48 / 16.08.04

so in the US the victim doesnt have to press charges?
that seems odd.

pointless and uncalled for

06:42 / 17.08.04

There are some very dodgy legal precedents that have been set in the US that basically mean that prosecutions can almost always go ahead, even if it is directly against the express wishes of the victim.

Lilly Nowhere Late

07:14 / 17.08.04

exactly: If the arresting entity or the district attorney decide they want to "press charges", this being based of course on their liklihood to obtain a conviction, they may and might proceed regardless of the offender, the victim, the non victim or witnesses.
Is this different in the UK?

pointless and uncalled for

07:46 / 17.08.04

It very simply comes down to the weight of precedent in the legal system. The US sets a lot of store by cases that may not be relevant and therefore a suitable legal standpoint, whereas the UK tends to a far more objective perspective on claims of precedent.

14:22 / 17.08.04

Was there a little bit of "ohmygod, you're such perverts, we don't do that sort of thing here" in your "Here in America..." statement? Americans do, y'know...

Christ, ease up. That was merely an IANAL and more specifically an IANABritishLawyer (IANASoliciter/Barrister) disclaimer. As in, "I don't know about the legality of public displays of BDSM in the UK, but here in America, at least, it would probably be illegal." Relax.

19:25 / 17.08.04

they played 'First Of The Gang To Die' and 'Last Of The Famous International Playboys'

I would have thought 'The Boy With The Thorn in His Side' would have been more appropriate ...

19:31 / 17.08.04

Well, 'The Boy With The Ring Through His Cock' would've been most appropriate. One of the good things about the Readers Wifes is that they don't attempt to 'theme' their choices in any way...

21:15 / 17.08.04

Duckie is just crying out for a night of alternating tracks from Arab strap and throbbing gristle...