"Yes" Means Harm: HIV Risk, Consent and Sadomasochism Case Law, Annette Houlihan,* 20 Law & Sex
When "No" Means "Yes" and "Yes" Means Harm: HIV Risk, Consent and Sadomasochism Case Law, Annette Houlihan,* 20 Law & Sex. 31 (2011). Law & Sexuality: A Review of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Legal Issues BIO: * Annette Houlihan. Ph.D. (Law) Griffith University, Postgraduate Diploma of Arts (Criminology) University of Melbourne, Graduate Certificate in Higher Education (Monash), Bachelor of Arts (Sociology), University of Queen- sland, currently completing Juris Doctor, Murdoch University. Lecturer, School of Law, Murdoch University. The author wishes to thank Professor Rosemary Hunter, Kent Law School and Professor William MacNeil, Griffith Law School for their feedback on this Article and for continual support. I. Prelude Well, I got me a harness! I got my boy straddled! In some jurisdictions, I could get "done" with a paddle, law ain't noth- ing but a funny, funny riddle ... Thank God, I'm not a positive leather queen! II. Introduction There are marked differences in the crimino-legal treatment of sadomasochism (s/m) from that of other sexualities, es- pecially the heteronormative and procreative. This Article will demonstrate how Other sexual bodies have been crimi- nalised through offences against the person, regardless of sexual consent. Heterosexual men have often been exculpated from violence committed against women during sex. Further to this, penetrative vaginal intercourse has been legally validated over Other sexualities. Generally, heterosexual males are afforded protection from crimino-legal punishment because they are engaging in what the common law, rather narrowly, defines as "sex" (i.e., penetrative vaginal hetero- sex). Yet, same-sex desiring men are subjected to rather extreme punishment because their s/m desires are placed out- side of these definitional boundaries of sex, blending male same-sex s/m with assault.
[Show full text]