Sadomasochism In Spanner Summary

From Matthew Weait’s analogy, the reasoning behind illegalizing sadomasochism in the Spanner case are explained. The sadomasochistic activities engaged in by the sadistic bodies that resulted in deriving pleasure from pain, in the eyes of criminal law was seen as a mockery to its punitive nature. Such transgression which seemed to undermine criminal law’s authority to dish out punishment saw to the law demonizing the sadomasochistic acts regardless of consensual sexuality and in turn banishing the sadistic bodies that seemed to enjoy other than be repellent to pain.

Interestingly, the same sadomasochistic activities indulged into in a heterosexual sexuality, an instance well represented in the Wilson’s case were illuminated by the law in a whole new spectrum. The activities were no longer deemed as a mockery to criminal law’s punitive nature, instead the acts were naturalized and normalized as though they were norms. This divided standpoint of the law, advanced the impression that the submissive female body was an avenue upon which pleasure and
Moran says that violence in society exists in its legitimate and illegitimate forms. Criminal law, in its position of authority is then tasked with controlling this violence in its two extremes and in so doing, punishing any adversity. The punishing of the sadist bodies is an example of the law brandishing legitimate violence upon bodies/subjects that in its view were transgressors and in so doing stamping and reaffirming its authority on social policing and control. Moreover the association of the sadomasochistic acts with HIV/AIDS in the spanner case only accelerated the dangerous nature that the law perceived same-sex sadomasochism yet in the heterosexual sadomasochism, HIV/AIDS seemed a risk