Washington State Makes It Unlawful To Unlock Your Chastity Cage Without Your KH’s Consent

Fit To Be Tied

Fit To Be Tied

Long term member
Mar 5, 2019
402
1,268
143
73
Whidbey Island, Washington
fetlife.com
I am NOT making this up! This is REAL. How did I miss this? I live in Washington State (which is obviously now embracing some very positive social policies.)

In any event, as of July 1, 2024, it is against the law in Washington State to unlock your chastity cage for the purpose of sexual contact (including with yourself) without the consent of your keyholder. There is a statutory civil penalty of $5000 per violation, plus whatever compensatory damage and injunctive relief the judge assigns to your case.

(Looks down at his cage.) Don’t even think about it … that’ll just be a $5000 penalty.

Technically speaking, this law applies to any “sexually protective device,” defined as a “physical barrier device intended to prevent pregnancy or sexually transmitted infection”. It’ll be difficult to argue that any well designed chastity cage is unable to do that.

I’m not making any of this up. Here’s a link to the full text of the law if you want to take a look for yourself.

https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Pdf/Bills/Session Laws/House/1958.SL.pdf

So, for all those all the locked men in Washington, you better start behaving yourself!
 
  • Like
Reactions: lockedbyLadyKat, LukeVallentine, Locked4QueenK and 11 others
It's clearly meant for condoms so kinda a stretch. Which makes sense, std's, unplanned pregnancy and all. No way they had sex toys in mind for this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: O2beyoursub
Mr_anonymous said:
It's clearly meant for condoms so kinda a stretch. Which makes sense, std's, unplanned pregnancy and all. No way they had sex toys in mind for this.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but there are 50 Shades of Grey and it only takes one judge to interpret it in that way. No tampering or removing then for our Washington friends.
 
The words in the bill include: "...or any other physical barrier device intended to prevent pregnancy"

It's not that far of a stretch to include chastity devices as they clearly present a barrier to achieving erections, thus preventing penetration, and therefore preventing...pregnancy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Peter Rabbit
I am waiting for that to be brought up in presidential elections this fall.... national campaign :lockkey::p:p
 
  • Like
Reactions: Kamaczo
Fit To Be Tied said:
I am NOT making this up! This is REAL. How did I miss this? I live in Washington State (which is obviously now embracing some very positive social policies.)

In any event, as of July 1, 2024, it is against the law in Washington State to unlock your chastity cage for the purpose of sexual contact (including with yourself) without the consent of your keyholder. There is a statutory civil penalty of $5000 per violation, plus whatever compensatory damage and injunctive relief the judge assigns to your case.

(Looks down at his cage.) Don’t even think about it … that’ll just be a $5000 penalty.

Technically speaking, this law applies to any “sexually protective device,” defined as a “physical barrier device intended to prevent pregnancy or sexually transmitted infection”. It’ll be difficult to argue that any well designed chastity cage is unable to do that.

I’m not making any of this up. Here’s a link to the full text of the law if you want to take a look for yourself.

https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Pdf/Bills/Session Laws/House/1958.SL.pdf

So, for all those all the locked men in Washington, you better start behaving yourself!
Click to expand...
IMG_6390.jpeg
hate to bust your bubble but this section clearly makes it about removing a protective item AT THE TIME OF SEXUAL CONTACT, so not applicable to taking off a cage unless just before….what? Penetrative sex to which the other party consented only if the cage stayed on? Doesn’t really track, does it…?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Dr MBogo and rubberboy58
Muppet said:
View attachment 78072
hate to bust your bubble but this section clearly makes it about removing a protective item AT THE TIME OF SEXUAL CONTACT, so not applicable to taking off a cage unless just before….what? Penetrative sex to which the other party consented only if the cage stayed on? Doesn’t really track, does it…?
Click to expand...
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story, LOL!
 
  • Like
Reactions: lockedfascination and TangoSub
Kind of makes you think if a civil contract like the ones you see here all the time between a mistress and her slave could be enforced using this law.
 
Let's face it chasity will never be legally binding or enforced by law. Certain contracts like criminal acts or slavery which a D/S relationship resembles aren't legally binding. It's a fun fantasy maybe but not a feasible reality.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vance
I think it could be argued that a chastity cage is NOT a:

"physical barrier device intended to prevent pregnancy or sexually transmitted infection. "

It may have the affect of preventing pregnancy or infection but that is not it's intent. Now a lawyer can try to pervert that. It is fun to think about though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Vance
Muppet said:
View attachment 78072
hate to bust your bubble but this section clearly makes it about removing a protective item AT THE TIME OF SEXUAL CONTACT, so not applicable to taking off a cage unless just before….what? Penetrative sex to which the other party consented only if the cage stayed on? Doesn’t really track, does it…?
Click to expand...

Actually now I'm kind of thinking it does. I was on the fence until I read your post.

e.g. Penetrative sex is possible while caged if you use a harness with an attachment. Seems to me this is exactly what's being called out here.

IANAL, though - obviously. Carry on.
 
Fit To Be Tied said:
I am NOT making this up! This is REAL. How did I miss this? I live in Washington State (which is obviously now embracing some very positive social policies.)

In any event, as of July 1, 2024, it is against the law in Washington State to unlock your chastity cage for the purpose of sexual contact (including with yourself) without the consent of your keyholder. There is a statutory civil penalty of $5000 per violation, plus whatever compensatory damage and injunctive relief the judge assigns to your case.

(Looks down at his cage.) Don’t even think about it … that’ll just be a $5000 penalty.

Technically speaking, this law applies to any “sexually protective device,” defined as a “physical barrier device intended to prevent pregnancy or sexually transmitted infection”. It’ll be difficult to argue that any well designed chastity cage is unable to do that.

I’m not making any of this up. Here’s a link to the full text of the law if you want to take a look for yourself.

https://lawfilesext.leg.wa.gov/biennium/2023-24/Pdf/Bills/Session Laws/House/1958.SL.pdf

So, for all those all the locked men in Washington, you better start behaving yourself!
Click to expand...
Nice. The lawmakers in the US never fail to impress.
Maybe in time it'll evolve into a misdemeanor.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ChazTD
hmmm..assuming just for a second that it really would apply to chastity/caged lockees, and if Chastity Mansion were hosted in the Microsoft Azure cloud...and that data center was happened to be in Washington state...would that preclude all locked participants here subject to bindings (notice how I threw in soft BDSM ref) of that law? Would that possibly make Miss Lucy the defacto Supreme Court judge in interpretation of any discretions in said law?....

Its Friday here and I am thinking while having first drink of the end of the week :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Slutty Susan, Danny15 and atxmtb
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom