How Much Can You Sign Away?

[PrinceofLowLight]

How much should a person be able to legally sign away? Does it ever reach a point where no one can consent to have something done to them?
I was arguing with my friend who was supporting prosecuting BDSM enthusiasts. He debated that consent was irrelevant, you can't let certain rights-right not to be harmed, right not to be enslaved be taken away from you.

I think that makes sense in a way...what's the difference between going a bit overboard in bondage play and a genuinely abusive relationship, from a legalistic perspective? People into S&M don't often prosecute one another for the normal things that entails, but neither do battered wives. Morally, one is clearly fine and the other not, but how could a judge differentiate?

What about indentured servitude? That's completely voluntary. What about the right to vote? Could an employer ask people to sign a contract saying they won't vote?

[Trytostaydead]

Well, according to the US there are certain inalienable rights. And no one but the government has the right to disenfranchisement

[Jawawithagun]

How much should a person be able to legally sign away? Does it ever reach a point where no one can consent to have something done to them?
I was arguing with my friend who was supporting prosecuting BDSM enthusiasts. He debated that consent was irrelevant, you can't let certain rights-right not to be harmed, right not to be enslaved be taken away from you.

Of course that would forbid any surgery too as they cut you open and thereby harm you to make you better.

[NecronLord]

I was arguing with my friend who was supporting prosecuting BDSM enthusiasts. He debated that consent was irrelevant, you can't let certain rights-right not to be harmed, right not to be enslaved be taken away from you.

Your friend has the brain of a sparrow. Slavery is morally objectionable for the preciese reason that it denies people freedom to do as they wish. If they don't want that freedom, the reason for objection is gone faster than a rat down a drainpipe. Secondly, it's a very rare "BDSM enthusiast" that expects legal recognition of the nature of their relationships. Bonds of trust are far different from those of law.

Harm. Guess what? It is legal to allow harm to come to you by someone you trust. Every time you put yourself in for an injection, that's precisely what's happening.

[NecronLord]

More to the point, I'm not sure about what he's talking about regarding slavery. The only possible thing I can think of is the idea that "BDSM" relationships should be banned, in order to provide the submissive with freedom. This is bullshit, in every BDSM relationship I've heard of, there is a damned easy way to get out. It starts thus: "I'm breaking up with you..."

[General Zod]

[quote]I was arguing with my friend who was supporting prosecuting BDSM enthusiasts. He debated that consent was irrelevant, you can't let certain rights-right not to be harmed, right not to be enslaved be taken away from you.
[/qutote]

that's one of the most idiotic things i've heard. with BDSM both partners are consenting. nobody forces anyone to enter into a bdsm relationship. the whole fucking point is that the people want to experience that type of relationship. the only condition it can be bad is when someone is forced to do so against their will, then it becomes criminal. i'd be curious as to what level of harm constitues his arbitrary cutoff point. unsing his idiotic logic we shouldn't let people get shots, tattoos or piercings because it harms them.

[Frank_Scenario]

I think there's something to your friend's position, but it's not what your friend thinks it is. I'm of the opinion that there are some things where consent is irrelevant. One is indentured servitude. If we accept the principle that no one owns anyone (which has some intuitive merit), it follows that no one owns themselves. This seems exactly right to me; people aren't property. Hence, you can't legitimately sell yourself into slavery, since you never had a legitimate ownership claim.

I don't think this would apply to BDSM relationships, since no one is claiming ownership (except perhaps as part of some bedroom talk, but that's not really about ownership). It probably wouldn't apply to prosititution, either, any more than it would apply to a pro athlete. In both cases, it's someone contracting out a service which makes use of the body, but which doesn't constitute any transfer of ownership.