The state permits individuals to risk harming themselves only where such risks can be independently scrutinised and regulated  A distinction should be made between socially legitimatized recreational violence- such as rugby or boxing- and stigmatized recreational violence- such as S&amp;M [i] . Rugby, ice hockey or motor racing must, of necessity, occur in public. Each of these events incorporates large numbers of competitors and is regulated by a referee. It is not possible for a Rugby player to be forced to play a match against his will, nor will he be prevented from leaving the field if he is injured or feels threatened. Indeed, referees can force players to withdraw if they believe they are at risk.  Where violent sports events take place without any form of official sanction or oversight, their size makes them easy to detect, and legal principles such as negligence and ineffective consent make them easy to prosecute.  Society permits violent public events such as rugby, while condemning violent private entertainments such as S&amp;M partly because consent, capacity and safety are much easier to determine in a public context.  In short, individuals are allowed to consent to the risks inherent in participating in a rugby match because the state- and society at large- is satisfied that sufficient safeguards exist to ensure that players’ consent is informed – that the risks they will be exposed to are foreseeable. This level of control and accountability cannot be generally guaranteed within individuals’ private sexual relationships.  Although S&amp;M practices, when properly conducted, do not carry a risk of permanent harm and are not likely to result in non-consensual activity, oversight of participant’s behavior is simply not possible. Sexuality is inherently private and individual sexual acts are closed off from public discussion.  [i] Farrugia, Paul, ‘The Consent Defence in Sport and Sadomasochism’ (1997) Auckland University Law Review, 8 (2), 472