santaslayer
Active Member
For all those ladies who like to be on top. Think about this:
http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=77976
HOW good at sex is a person legally required to be? If, through lack of reasonable care, you injure your lover in a car accident or decorating incident, you are liable to pay compensation. What, though, if injury is sustained during carnal liaison? This question was recently answered by the Massachusetts Appeals Court.
Early one morning, a man and woman in a long-term relationship were engaged in consensual sexual intercourse. During the passionate event, and, as the law report notes, “without the explicit prior consent” of the man, the woman suddenly manoeuvred herself in a way that caused her partner to suffer a penile fracture. Emergency surgery was required. Generally, under Massachusetts law, people owe others a duty of reasonable care to avoid injury. In this case, however, the court ruled that while “reckless” sexual conduct might be actionable, merely negligent conduct would not be. It dismissed the man’s case. Justice Trainor noted that “in the absence of a consensus of community values or customs defining normal consensual sexual conduct” neither a jury nor judge could be expected to resolve a claim about whether any sexual activity had been executed with reasonable care.
The forays of British judges into the jurisprudence of the bedroom have sometimes been problematic. In the Court of Appeal in December 1980, Lord Justice Ormrod, Lord Justice Dunn and Mr Justice Arnold ruled in a case involving a married couple from Basingstoke that a wife who rationed copulation with her husband to once a week was behaving reasonably. The case was reported in The Times under the headline “Sex once a week enough, appeal judge says”. Lord Hailsham later revealed that the ruling had provoked some newspapers to try to interview the wives of all the judges in the case.
The plaintiff and the defendant were in a long-term committed relationship. Early in the morning of September 24, 1994, they were engaged in consensual sexual intercourse. The plaintiff was lying on his back while the defendant was on top of him. The defendant's body was secured in this position by the interlocking of her legs and the plaintiff's legs. At some point, the defendant unilaterally decided to unlock her legs and place her feet on either side of the plaintiff's abdomen for the purpose of increasing her stimulation. When the defendant changed her position, she did not think about the possibility of injury to the plaintiff. Shortly after taking this new position, the defendant landed awkwardly on the plaintiff, thereby causing him to suffer a penile fracture.
Although this was generally a position the couple had used before without incident, the defendant did vary slightly the position previously used, without prior specific discussion and without the explicit prior consent of the plaintiff. It is this variation that the plaintiff claims caused his injury. While the couple had practiced what the defendant described as "light bondage" during their intimate relations, there was no evidence of "light bondage" on this occasion. The plaintiff's injuries were serious and required emergency surgery. He has endured a painful and lengthy recovery. He has suffered from sexual dysfunction that neither medication nor counseling have been able to treat effectively.
...Hmmmmmm....
(Courtesy of frigid
)
http://community.boredofstudies.org/showthread.php?t=77976
HOW good at sex is a person legally required to be? If, through lack of reasonable care, you injure your lover in a car accident or decorating incident, you are liable to pay compensation. What, though, if injury is sustained during carnal liaison? This question was recently answered by the Massachusetts Appeals Court.
Early one morning, a man and woman in a long-term relationship were engaged in consensual sexual intercourse. During the passionate event, and, as the law report notes, “without the explicit prior consent” of the man, the woman suddenly manoeuvred herself in a way that caused her partner to suffer a penile fracture. Emergency surgery was required. Generally, under Massachusetts law, people owe others a duty of reasonable care to avoid injury. In this case, however, the court ruled that while “reckless” sexual conduct might be actionable, merely negligent conduct would not be. It dismissed the man’s case. Justice Trainor noted that “in the absence of a consensus of community values or customs defining normal consensual sexual conduct” neither a jury nor judge could be expected to resolve a claim about whether any sexual activity had been executed with reasonable care.
The forays of British judges into the jurisprudence of the bedroom have sometimes been problematic. In the Court of Appeal in December 1980, Lord Justice Ormrod, Lord Justice Dunn and Mr Justice Arnold ruled in a case involving a married couple from Basingstoke that a wife who rationed copulation with her husband to once a week was behaving reasonably. The case was reported in The Times under the headline “Sex once a week enough, appeal judge says”. Lord Hailsham later revealed that the ruling had provoked some newspapers to try to interview the wives of all the judges in the case.
The plaintiff and the defendant were in a long-term committed relationship. Early in the morning of September 24, 1994, they were engaged in consensual sexual intercourse. The plaintiff was lying on his back while the defendant was on top of him. The defendant's body was secured in this position by the interlocking of her legs and the plaintiff's legs. At some point, the defendant unilaterally decided to unlock her legs and place her feet on either side of the plaintiff's abdomen for the purpose of increasing her stimulation. When the defendant changed her position, she did not think about the possibility of injury to the plaintiff. Shortly after taking this new position, the defendant landed awkwardly on the plaintiff, thereby causing him to suffer a penile fracture.
Although this was generally a position the couple had used before without incident, the defendant did vary slightly the position previously used, without prior specific discussion and without the explicit prior consent of the plaintiff. It is this variation that the plaintiff claims caused his injury. While the couple had practiced what the defendant described as "light bondage" during their intimate relations, there was no evidence of "light bondage" on this occasion. The plaintiff's injuries were serious and required emergency surgery. He has endured a painful and lengthy recovery. He has suffered from sexual dysfunction that neither medication nor counseling have been able to treat effectively.
...Hmmmmmm....
(Courtesy of frigid
)
