If boxing, then why not

(consensual) sadomasochism?

I

n December 1990 16 men were given prison

sentences of up to four-and-a-half years for

engaging in sadomasochistic sexual activity –

the specific offence being ‘assault occasioning

actual bodily harm’. The case was brought about

as the result of a 1987 operation in Manchester

(England) – Operation Spanner – in which the

police seized a videotape of men engaged in

‘heavy’ SM activities which included beatings,

genital abrasions and lacerations. The police

claimed that they were convinced the men were

being killed, although they eventually discovered

that this was not the case, and that they had not

even required hospitalisation. However, the state

prosecutor (Crown Prosecution Service) decided

to press ahead with the case. The men appealed

the decision, first to the Appeal Court, then the

Law Lords (England’s highest court) and

ultimately to the European Court of Human

Rights. All their appeals failed, although the

Appeal Court did reduce the sentences, and the

Law Lords voted only narrowly (3–2) to uphold

the original convictions.

The basis of the men’s defence and of their

appeals was that (a) they had all consented,

and (b) parallels should be drawn between

consensual sadomasochism and certain contact

sports, such as boxing: if boxing was permitted,

then why not sadomasochism? The judge at the

original 1990 trial argued that consent could be

a ground for ‘harm’ but it had to be backed up

by a justification of the activity itself, and the

following were legitimate: surgery; a ‘properly

conducted game or sport’ (boxing and wrestling

are ‘manly diversions, they intend to give

strength, skill and activity, and may fit people

for defence, public as well as personal, in time

of need’, Foster, Crown Law(1792), p. 259);

tattooing and ear-piercing. Bodily ‘harm’ applied

or received during sexual activities in which pain

was momentary or slight were discounted. The

majority decision in the 1993 appeal to the Law

Lords stressed the presumption against violence

(rather than the presumption in favour of

freedom): we presume violence is bad unless

there are good reasons for permitting it (and

there are good reasons in the case of boxing).

The onus was on the defendants to demonstrate

the merits of sadomasochism. If a parallel is to

be drawn, argued the Law Lords, then it was

with bare-knuckle fights and duels, both of

which were outlawed in the nineteenth century.

At the end of the chapter we will revisit this

case, but in the meantime consider your own

reactions to it: should the men have been

convicted of assault? Is there a parallel between

(consensual) sadomasochism and boxing or are

there important differences between these two

activities? Should both be permitted? Should

both be banned?

© Geo Rittenmyer/Corbis