playing while under the influence

[39-29-36]

That the act of sex is a legal and binding contractual agreement between two people?

Did you also know that no one can enter into a legally binding contract is they are legally intoxicated, or "shit faced" as it were?

Therefore, by the definition of legal terminology, you have violated the consensuality of the BDSM relationship by engaging in the activity in which you practiced. Also, by a loose definition of legal terminology, you have comitted rape.

That is why my ONLY response to this question will ever be "Don't do it."

Sorry to interrupt. and get somewhat off the beaten path of this established thread but . . .

Assuming we are speaking of Anglo-American jurisprudence, at common law, the only contract which involves sex is -marriage. Among other property rights, marriage is legally sanctioned sex. Hence, adultery was a crime until it was pretty much abrogated statutorily in most jurisdictions you may come across. However, it is still pervasive as a civil action -that's not to civil if you ever witness it. I know there's statutorily sanctioned prostitution, and so on . . . But, statutory law is not a good point of reference outside of anywhere other than the place wherein it applies. You'll always get variations of the common law and an ocassional fluke, so to speak.

Second, I don't believe there is a settled definition for legally intoxicated. A common misconception is that DWI-DUI law applies outside of driving, etc.. Under DWI-DUI law there is measure for being considered impaired, which varies from state to state, here in the US. But, I have never heard of a bright-line legal definition for intoxicated outside of that realm. However, as for contracts, that a person has to be well beyond DWI drunk to void a contract. Evidently, the law deems volition, judgement and intelligence to be more of a stalwart under the assault of intoxicants than driving dexterity.

As for the law on non-consenual relations, which is what we're getting at, the law deals with it both criminally and civilly, along the lines of the lines of accost, assault, battery, gross sexual imposition, rape, mayhem, etc. . . on and on (let your imagination roam) depending upon the particular facts. But, breach of contract? Normally, I would consider that a stretch.

Lastly, in the context of this thread, non-consensual anything is wrong. If someone does not possess the capacity to consent.

So if one ever had to be held accountable for such a reprehensible act, breach of contract, would be the least of one's legal worries . . . .

Personal safety is another matter entirely. . . .

As a wise man once said. "Don't do it."