Voluntary BDSM or Aggravated Assault?

[Arcade22]

We have an interesting law case here in Sweden. A 16 year old had sex with a 30 year old. Now this in by itself is 100% legal since the age of consent is 15, except in special circumstances. The problem was that the sex was violent. He apparently "locked the girl in a dog crate, how he put crocodile clips on her breasts and fastened them to the wall so she had to stand on her toes and that he repeatedly struck the girl's naked body with a cane". The girls mother apparently saw the bruising and contacted the authorities.

He was cleared in the Tingsrätt but the prosecutor decided to appeal to the Hovrätt. I heard someone said that they would hear the case in may but i haven't heard anything new about the case.

This obviously begs the question on what kind of things one should be allowed to do to another person. Personally i feel that as long as the risk of long term injury, death or etc is minimal then it should be legal.

Here's the story btw (yeah it's goggle translate but you get the gist of it, våldssex = violent sex): http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sydsvenskan.se%2Fmalmo%2Farticl e893657%2FGrans-for-valdssex-provas-Expert-Man-kan-inte-samtycka-till-grov-misshandel.html

[JJM 777]

many painful things are legal for minors, such as boxing and martial arts

[Cleon]

many painful things are legal for minors, such as boxing and martial arts

High school...

[Cavemonster]

many painful things are legal for minors, such as boxing and martial arts

I'll give you that.
Now I don't know about Sweden, but in the US, places where adults train children under 18 in those disciplines are subject to liscensing, need liability insurance, and are subject to whatever laws their state has for safety equipment and practices. So I wouldn't say that's comparable.

That said, although I have nothing against rough sex, I think BDSM often blurs the lines of real informed consent, and although it isn't impossible for a 16yo to be absolutely ready and truly willing, on average, the brain chemistry of a 16yo is radically different from an adult in ways that make risk judgement exceedingly difficult. Their culture, going to school every day, living under their parent's roof, makes their relationship to adults inherently inequal.

I think it would do more good than harm if play of the kind listed in the OP had to wait a few more years.

[Professor Yaffle]

In England (possibly UK?) consent is not a valid defence to actual bodily harm. See this controversial case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanner_case

ETA: The reasoning for the House of Lords decision:

"In principle there is a difference between violence which is incidental and violence which is inflicted for the indulgence of cruelty. The violence of sadomasochistic encounters involves the indulgence of cruelty by sadists and the degradation of victims. Such violence is injurious to the participants and unpredictably dangerous. I am not prepared to invent a defence of consent for sadomasochistic encounters which breed and glorify cruelty [...]. Society is entitled and bound to protect itself against a cult of violence. Pleasure derived from the infliction of pain is an evil thing. Cruelty is uncivilized."

[AgeGap]

I think it is ridiculous for this to become a legal matter. It is more to do with individual "morals". We have had similar cases in the UK.
If I knew what my friends, family and neighbours got up to in private I would probably want them locking up as well.:)

I think it would do more good than harm if play of the kind listed in the OP had to wait a few more years.

If the lawmakers wanted to do that they should pass specific laws or increase the age of consent. From the, perhaps not impartial, article it looks as though the girl consented. I don't think, legally, age comes into it.

[AgeGap]

Sorry, double post.

[Arcade22]

many painful things are legal for minors, such as boxing and martial arts

Whether she was 16 or 25 is legally unimportant here because the same rules apply to 15-17 year olds and those who are 18 or above, expect in special circumstances where the older partner is in a position of power over the minor. I don't really see how one can seriously argue how one kind of sex should be legal with a minor and not another, though i note that the age of consent is 16 in Canada but having anal sex with anyone under 18 is a crime making me wonder what their reasoning is.

I think it would do more good than harm if play of the kind listed in the OP had to wait a few more years.

So he should be fined or thrown in jail?

[Cavemonster]

If the lawmakers wanted to do that they should pass specific laws or increase the age of consent. From the, perhaps not impartial, article it looks as though the girl consented. I don't think, legally, age comes into it.

I agree that in this specific case, without specific laws that address it, the state has no place having a say. That said, I don't know the Swedish legal system, so I don't know whether say, child endangerment laws might apply. Just because she is legally able to consent to sex, does not mean she is legally able to consent to all risk and pain.

As*the most extreme example I can think of, there was a case of a german cannibal a few years back who killed and ate a "consenting" victim. If that victim had been 15 years old, I think the law in most places would have something to say about it.

[Cavemonster]

So he should be fined or thrown in jail?

Him specifically? Only if there are already laws in place that address this. People in the future who engage very young teens in power and pain play at extreme levels? Might be a good idea.

[23_Tauri]

That said, although I have nothing against rough sex, I think BDSM often blurs the lines of real informed consent,
Why?

and although it isn't impossible for a 16yo to be absolutely ready and truly willing, on average, the brain chemistry of a 16yo is radically different from an adult in ways that make risk judgement exceedingly difficult. Their culture, going to school every day, living under their parent's roof, makes their relationship to adults inherently inequal.
The law in Sweden says that at 16 she can have sex. Therefore is it not implied in that law that she is old enough to agree with her partner what kind of sex they'll have?

What is important is the 16 year old herself. She's not a child in the eyes of the law. Does she want to press charges? Does she consider that this man assaulted her? I don't think this is an issue for the law, but between the teenage girl and her parents. We all want to know that our loved ones are happy in what they do, and this situation is no different in that respect.

I think it would do more good than harm if play of the kind listed in the OP had to wait a few more years.

How would you enshrine that in Statute and enforce it? Mild spanking ok, a bit of rough and tickle, maybe tying up but we're not quite sure about that yet.... ? :boggled:

ETA: thank you Prof Yaffle for mentioning the Spanner case. Such a controversial ruling, to this day.

[jiggeryqua]

though i note that the age of consent is 16 in Canada but having anal sex with anyone under 18 is a crime making me wonder what their reasoning is.

Because anal sex is the sort of thing those homosexualists do. If 'progress' means we can no longer protect "very young teens" (whatever that means) from sex, we can at least protect them from the homosexualists version. A teenager of legal age for deciding whether to be normal evidently needs a couple more years before they can acknowledge their homosexuality - at that age their brains are soft and pliable and they are easy prey for the gay. Similarly, the person of legal age in the OP is a submissive - a category of person who has to have a bit more time to decide whether she really wants to be who she is or would rather live a life of supressed, secretive desires and a public denial of herself. Consenting to be frowned upon, and worse, by society requires more maturity than a soggy-brained teenage girl can manage. If she really wants to be who she is, she won't mind waiting a couple more years than normal people. [/mockery]

[Cavemonster]

Why?
Because the premise is very often one party having power over the other. One party decides what will happen, even to the extent that it is humiliating, painful, or at least seemingly dangerous to the other. Among consenting adults, this loss of power is a role play, and in most cases, behind the surface the sub has as much or even more real power in the situation as the Dom. This is kind of a complex concept and even most adults who have never been involved find it hard to understand, so it is reasonable to think that young teens who's brains are dramatically physiologically different may not be able to process the necessary two-level reality behind this kind of play, and seeing that they have spent the entirety of their life following directions from most adults they associate with, it may be exceedingly difficult for them to take real agency in such a situation.

This is not to say that no 15 year old would ever be in full comprehension and control, but there's enough reason to believe that consent in a case like this is not what we'd call informed consent.

The law in Sweden says that at 16 she is an adult and can have sex. Therefore it is implied in that law that she is old enough tco agree with her partner what kind of sex they'll have.

No, that's not true. For instance, he couldn't rip a hole in her side and have sex with that. Just because something is a part of sex does not make it immune from other laws.

What is important is the woman herself. She's not a child in the eyes of the law. Does she want to press charges? Does she consider that this man assaulted her? This is nothing to do with her parents because she is old enough to have sex.

Again, old enough to legally have sex does not mean a legal adult for all situations. Again, I don't know about Sweden, but in the US, 16 is the age of consent in more states than not, but you must be over 18 to sign a legally binding contract. I would be very surprised if in Sweden the age of sexual consent marks legal adulthood in all things.

What?
How would you enshrine that in Statute and enforce it? Mild spanking ok, a bit of rough and tickle, maybe tying up but we're not quite sure about that yet.... ? :boggled:

You're invoking Loki's wager here. Since there is a possible gradation, a line can't be drawn? Poppycock! You can say the same thing about child abuse. Tim Minchin makes a joke in a song about being frustrated with his baby. What is the line between patting and hitting? What is the line between bouncing and shaking?

Just because a continuum exists, doesn't mean a useful distinction can't be drawn.

[JJM 777]

I think BDSM often blurs the lines of real informed consent
It would be clever to mutually sign a written consent before engaging in it. If engaging in the said activity is clever in the first place.

[JWideman]

There is a HUGE difference between physical assault and BDSM, and that difference is consent. If the person is old enough to legally consent, then I don't see how it's a legal issue.

[jiggeryqua]

Because the premise is very often one party having power over the other. One party decides what will happen, even to the extent that it is humiliating, painful, or at least seemingly dangerous to the other.

Some people like humiliation, mild pain and the appearance of danger, not to mention the act of submission to anther party. Sexually, too - some people like it sexually. Some people like sex with their own sex. I'm sure you could define that in the same way, you're intelligent and articulate. But that's all you've done - you've defined her sexuality. Do you object to it? In what way do you differentiate between straight sex, gay sex & BDSM? What kinds of sex can a limp-minded dinky wee girlie consent to without outraging you?


Among consenting adults, this loss of power is a role play, and in most cases, behind the surface the sub has as much or even more real power in the situation as the Dom. This is kind of a complex concept

I think we'll manage the complexity. She was a consenting adult, that's not so complex. All relationships involve 'power play', again straightforward stuff. Perhaps we shouldn't let people learn about things until they've learnt about them? The sub has the power, the safe word, the consent - would you rather she was in an abusive relationship to get what she wanted, or in a loving relationship with someone she trusted to deliver what she wanted in a safe, sane, consensual way?

Where's the complexity we were promised?

seeing that they have spent the entirety of their life following directions from most adults they associate with, it may be exceedingly difficult for them to take real agency in such a situation.

Of course. All children always do as they're told, and that goes double for adolescents. By the time they're of an age to give legal consent, they're not actually capable - they're just mindless drones who obey anyone.

At least she chose a mature man with relevant experience with whom to indulge her desires. Who knows what tragedy might have occured if she'd picked a male of her own (legal) age, whose brain is as useless as her own.

This is not to say that no 15 year old would ever be in full comprehension and control, but there's enough reason to believe that consent in a case like this is not what we'd call informed consent.

The law says she can give informed consent. It appears she gave informed consent. What are your reasons for thinking otherwise?

[NewtonTrino]

First off if she's within the age of consent and consented then I don't see the problem.

It's not like the guy actually harmed her. A bit of caning of this type isn't typically dangerous and isn't going to do any real damage. It's not like a singaporean prison cane type thing.

If this guy had ripped a hole in her side or done something truly damaging that took her past the level of reasonable consent then you might have a case. But a little bondage and caning? Happens every day to millions of people behind closed doors, and the squeals of delight would shock the average person. Actually electrical shocking is common too ;)

[Cavemonster]

Some people like humiliation, mild pain and the appearance of danger, not to mention the act of submission to anther party. Sexually, too - some people like it sexually.
Absolutely. The problem is that they can correspond to extreme pain, scarring humiliation and real danger.

I for one think that the ability to understand and intelligently consent to these risks requires more than the ability to consent to the risk of sexual intercourse by itself.

I don't think that's unreasonable. Biological and behavioral study confirms the inability of young teens to process risk at the same level as most adults. We already enshrine that in our society in a million places, from car insurance to contract law.

Just because some risks may be part of someone's sexual enjoyment does not give them special status.

Some people have a sexual fetish for contracting HIV and purposefully spreading it to knowing or unknowing partners. Just because this behavior is part of sex, does not make it free from evaluation in all other terms.


I think we'll manage the complexity. She was a consenting adult, that's not so complex. All relationships involve 'power play', again straightforward stuff. Perhaps we shouldn't let people learn about things until they've learnt about them? The sub has the power, the safe word, the consent - would you rather she was in an abusive relationship to get what she wanted, or in a loving relationship with someone she trusted to deliver what she wanted in a safe, sane, consensual way?

Really, what was her safe word? Do you know she had one? How do you know her lover was safe and sane? Does being into BDSM guarantee those things? I assure you, it does not.

At least she chose a mature man with relevant experience with whom to indulge her desires. Who knows what tragedy might have occured if she'd picked a male of her own (legal) age, whose brain is as useless as her own.

How do you know they're her desires? Has a young woman never done things she didn't enjoy to please an older man?

The law says she can give informed consent. It appears she gave informed consent. What are your reasons for thinking otherwise?

The law says that she can give informed consent to sex. That does not mean that she can give consent to all behaviors that can somehow become a part of sex. Look at the examples I've given before, contract law etc. You're making an incorrect extrapolation.

[23_Tauri]

Because the premise is very often one party having power over the other. One party decides what will happen, even to the extent that it is humiliating, painful, or at least seemingly dangerous to the other. Among consenting adults, this loss of power is a role play, and in most cases, behind the surface the sub has as much or even more real power in the situation as the Dom.
But you just contradicted yourself. First you say that BDSM is about one party having power over the other, then you make the - correct- observation that subs are equal to Doms in terms of the relationship.

This is kind of a complex concept and even most adults who have never been involved find it hard to understand, so it is reasonable to think that young teens who's brains are dramatically physiologically different may not be able to process the necessary two-level reality behind this kind of play, and seeing that they have spent the entirety of their life following directions from most adults they associate with, it may be exceedingly difficult for them to take real agency in such a situation.
You're making an assumption about teenagers that I don't accept. A 16 year old is quite capable of knowing the difference between fantasy role play and reality. If not, we'd have a real problem on our hands with video games, right?

This is not to say that no 15 year old would ever be in full comprehension and control, but there's enough reason to believe that consent in a case like this is not what we'd call informed consent.
How do you know? Sexual proclivities such as submissiveness develop at a very early age. This 16 year old might have just struck lucky and found her ideal partner at an age when most of us are still having to put up with adolescent fumblers.

No, that's not true. For instance, he couldn't rip a hole in her side and have sex with that. Just because something is a part of sex does not make it immune from other laws.
When was ripping a hole in the side of someone and poking your penis in it "part of sex"? Hell, I've been into BDSM for a while and I've never heard of anyone doing that. But then I don't know any necrophiliacs. :D

Again, old enough to legally have sex does not mean a legal adult for all situations. Again, I don't know about Sweden, but in the US, 16 is the age of consent in more states than not, but you must be over 18 to sign a legally binding contract. I would be very surprised if in Sweden the age of sexual consent marks legal adulthood in all things.
What if a teenager had got similar bruising from playing football in the park with a 30 year old? Would that have been assault? Or is the problem because there was sexual pleasure involved? Or do we have to have legally binding contracts if we want a kick-about in the park with someone under 18 now, just in case they get a bruise?

You're invoking Loki's wager here. Since there is a possible gradation, a line can't be drawn? Poppycock! You can say the same thing about child abuse. Tim Minchin makes a joke in a song about being frustrated with his baby. What is the line between patting and hitting? What is the line between bouncing and shaking?
Just because a continuum exists, doesn't mean a useful distinction can't be drawn.
Lemme think about this for a bit.... :)

[23_Tauri]

You're invoking Loki's wager here. Since there is a possible gradation, a line can't be drawn? Poppycock! You can say the same thing about child abuse. Tim Minchin makes a joke in a song about being frustrated with his baby. What is the line between patting and hitting? What is the line between bouncing and shaking?

Just because a continuum exists, doesn't mean a useful distinction can't be drawn.
Ok, I've thunked about this now. It's an appeal to emotion because you're using the term 'child abuse'. This is not child abuse. One, she's not a child in the eyes of the law, and two, she was consenting.

Also, reference to shaking a baby is a strawman because she's far from being a baby.

Now, what's your problem again?

[Bikewer]

I'm a little hesitant because of the age situation; 16 falls into the "iffy" category regarding informed consent regardless of the legality....
However, the practices described are certainly not outside of usual S-M play...

Not that there have not been problems, mostly due to inexperienced players who indulge in dangerous or poorly set-up scenes without really knowing what they're doing. "Breath play" and erotic asphyxiation can go bad in a hurry. Likewise suspension play... Using improvised equipment or applying same improperly can result in severe or even fatal injuries.
There is a general feeling among "vanilla" folks that the S-M scene is one of the cruel, sadistic dominant abusing the emotionally-damaged submissive for his/her pleasure.
They'd likely be shocked to learn that it's almost always the opposite; the scene is designed for the pleasure of the submissive partner, with the "dominant" often supplying only window-dressing.

[Arcade22]

Him specifically? Only if there are already laws in place that address this. People in the future who engage very young teens in power and pain play at extreme levels? Might be a good idea.

Well then we need to know what the "extreme levels" are. Something that's "rough and extreme" to someone is "tame and boring" to someone else.

Is bondage extreme? Is using handcuffs, binding with rope or something like that extreme? Slapping? Cutting? Choking? Holding someones hair tight? Urinating on someone?

Should the "extreme levels" always be legal when we're talking about "adults"?

[Cavemonster]

But you just contradicted yourself. First you say that BDSM is about one party having power over the other, then you make the - correct- observation that subs are equal to Doms in terms of the relationship.

The word I used was "premise" meaning that it's the idea behind the game. When you say that subs being equal to doms is the "correct" observation, you mean that's the ideal situation when both parties are safe sane and intelligent. This is not the case for all.


You're making an assumption about teenagers that I don't accept. A 16 year old is quite capable of knowing the difference between fantasy role play and reality. If not, we'd have a real problem on our hands with video games, right?


In videogames and books, the fantasy takes place on a different media than reality. There is a real physical separation. In this sort of play, you are the medium.

As an example of the porousness of roleplay that involves real people, take a look at the Stanford Prison Experiment. (http://www.prisonexp.org/). And there, we were talking about college students.


When was ripping a hole in the side of someone and poking your penis in it "part of sex"? Hell, I've been into BDSM for a while and I've never heard of anyone doing that. But then I don't know any necrophiliacs. :D
The sticking the penis in there makes it part of sex. It was an extreme example to show that just because people do something behind closed doors and it involves their genitals, and both people say it's ok, it may really not be ok.

What if a teenager had got similar bruising from playing football in the park with a 30 year old? Would that have been assault? Or is the problem because there was sexual pleasure involved?

There are currently many state laws in the works to increase safety regulation on youth sports. Concussions and brain injuries are a big deal, for instance.

We do keep track of the risks adults create for younger people.

In the case of the OP, if she got tired or slipped and ripped of a nipple, would that be acceptable for you? You can say that if he was a good dom, that would be impossible, but we don't know what kind of Dom this guy is. Was he experienced? You seem to have more blind faith in this guy than I would. If my 15 year old was with a gymnastics trainer, I would want to know that the guy was up to regulation, had experience, that his facility was inspected and insured. If my 16 year old were driving a car, I'd want to know that it passed a safety inspection. Why have a blind faith in this unknown sexual partner that I doubt you'd have with any other set of risks?

People keep bringing up youth sports as a comparison. In youth sports, the parents always know where their kids are and what they're doing. Coaches and volunteers are often subject to CORI checks. Practices take place in public.

[23_Tauri]

I'm a little hesitant because of the age situation; 16 falls into the "iffy" category regarding informed consent regardless of the legality....
However, the practices described are certainly not outside of usual S-M play...

Not that there have not been problems, mostly due to inexperienced players who indulge in dangerous or poorly set-up scenes without really knowing what they're doing. "Breath play" and erotic asphyxiation can go bad in a hurry. Likewise suspension play... Using improvised equipment or applying same improperly can result in severe or even fatal injuries.
There is a general feeling among "vanilla" folks that the S-M scene is one of the cruel, sadistic dominant abusing the emotionally-damaged submissive for his/her pleasure.
They'd likely be shocked to learn that it's almost always the opposite; the scene is designed for the pleasure of the submissive partner, with the "dominant" often supplying only window-dressing.
I agree with all the above. I would add a couple of things. First, because she is 16 and still being cared for by her parents, then because her mum has found out about it then it's the parents' responsibility to talk to their daughter and make sure she's ok with the relationship. Again, there's no case for bringing in the authorities.

Second, that she's found an older, experienced partner should reassure anyone who is worried about play going wrong. Better this than than two inexperienced youngsters trying to reconstruct a dungeon in their bedrooms.

[Cavemonster]

Ok, I've thunked about this now. It's an appeal to emotion because you're using the term 'child abuse'. This is not child abuse. One, she's not a child in the eyes of the law, and two, she was consenting.

Also, reference to shaking a baby is a strawman because she's far from being a baby.

Now, what's your problem again?

You apparently didn't read my post before thinking about it.
I was not calling the practice child abuse. I was using child abuse as an example of Loki's Wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki's_Wager), because I had so recently heard Tim Minchin's description and I thought it was a good example of the fallacy.

If you like, I'll say instead "How many hairs in a beard?"

[Information Analyst]

In England (possibly UK?) consent is not a valid defence to actual bodily harm. See this controversial case:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanner_case

ETA: The reasoning for the House of Lords decision:
Although as noted on the Wikipedia page, the above case is somewhat notorious in that it involved the successful prosecution of gay men for acts that previously and subsequently were deemed not illegal for straights (e.g. branding).

[Seismosaurus]

It's difficult to judge the case because we have few details.

Here's one scenario : the guy and girl made contact somehow (internet?) They liked one another. They discussed each others fantasies and found them mutually pleasurable. They discussed what each one would like to happen were they to meet in real life, and how far it might go. They find there is a lot of overlap in their desires, though it's not total (it very rarely is). They negotiate carefully to establish what would and would not be acceptable to each. They discuss safety concerns (what if she's cut? What if it won't stop bleeding? Will medical supplies be available? Is there a hospital nearby?) and establish what will be done if that happens. They discuss what kind of and how much aftercare she may require and how it will be provided. They establish a way for the girl to let the guy know if he strays into territory she's genuinely unhappy with during the scene (what's her safeword? What if she's gagged and can't speak?).

They establish safety routines. Both leave details about the other with a friend who they will call at prearranged times to let them know they are safe. They meet in person in a public place over a coffee and chat. After a couple of such meetings, they have a meeting in some private place where he does the described things to her and she loves it. Noticing the bruises, her mom calls the police.

If - and I know it's a big if - that's what happened, then prosecuting him is utterly absurd.

And if you are thinking "who the hell would go through all that" then you don't know much about BDSM. What I've described is utterly routine within that lifestyle, and many would refuse to lay a hand (or indeed an implement) on anybody or have a hand lain on them without it as a bare minimum.

[Skeptic]

It's odd that folks here think nothing of being on the side of a sexual sadomasochist who grieveously injured a girl half his age.

[23_Tauri]

The word I used was "premise" meaning that it's the idea behind the game. When you say that subs being equal to doms is the "correct" observation, you mean that's the ideal situation when both parties are safe sane and intelligent. This is not the case for all.
On what grounds do you assume that both the teenage girl and the man are not “safe, sane and intelligent”? Seems pretty intelligent to me to choose and older man who knows what he’s doing.

In videogames and books, the fantasy takes place on a different media than reality. There is a real physical separation. In this sort of play, you are the medium.
Ok, maybe I picked a poor analogy. How about paint-balling? Laser Quest? Battle re-enactment societies? Amateur dramatics? I think teenagers do all these things, yes? And adults are pretty ok with it.

As an example of the porousness of roleplay that involves real people, take a look at the Stanford Prison Experiment. (http://www.prisonexp.org/). And there, we were talking about college students.
Yes, we’re all capable of inflicting pain and suffering on others but does that mean we shouldn’t allow consensual pain? You also seem to imply that people who engage in BDSM don’t know when to use the safe word. I don’t remember there being any safe words in Stanford Prison.

The sticking the penis in there makes it part of sex. It was an extreme example to show that just because people do something behind closed doors and it involves their genitals, and both people say it's ok, it may really not be ok.
It’s not an example because it’s not a real world example, you just made it up. Unless you can tell me that you know someone who does this. As I said before, there are a lot of fetishes out there but drilling holes in your partner isn’t one I’m familiar with.

There are currently many state laws in the works to increase safety regulation on youth sports. Concussions and brain injuries are a big deal, for instance.

We do keep track of the risks adults create for younger people.
But would you go to the authorities if your child got some bruises and cuts from playing football, even if your child said “it’s ok, I’m fine, I had fun out there!” ?

ETA: if the teenage girl had suffered concussion or brain injury, then yes it would be a big deal. But she didn't.

In the case of the OP, if she got tired or slipped and ripped of a nipple, would that be acceptable for you? You can say that if he was a good dom, that would be impossible, but we don't know what kind of Dom this guy is. Was he experienced? You seem to have more blind faith in this guy than I would. If my 15 year old was with a gymnastics trainer, I would want to know that the guy was up to regulation, had experience, that his facility was inspected and insured. If my 16 year old were driving a car, I'd want to know that it passed a safety inspection. Why have a blind faith in this unknown sexual partner that I doubt you'd have with any other set of risks?
I would have much faith in my daughter’s choice of partner whether her boyfriend was 18 or 30 years old. It’s not a professional relationship so comparisons with gym teachers aren’t relevant. This is her boyfriend. Is he unknown to the parents? Well, I’d ask to meet my 16 year old daughter’s sexual partner, I think that would be reasonable and if he’s a decent guy he would be quite happy, possible reassured, to meet the parents.

I would trust my daughter to choose someone who treated her well, which in this case would involve asking her if she has agreed a safe word with him, that he uses contraception, always respects her when she says ‘no’. That kind of thing.

People keep bringing up youth sports as a comparison. In youth sports, the parents always know where their kids are and what they're doing. Coaches and volunteers are often subject to CORI checks. Practices take place in public.
Ok, would it make you feel better if she always told her parents when she was going to spend the evening with her boyfriend? They’d know where she was, and what she was up to.

As for checks, I wouldn’t want to have to do some legal check on my daughter’s boyfriend. Why, when she’s not a minor? And it’s not like you get a certificate from the Institute of Fetish Studies when you’ve passed your Dom exams.

[Seismosaurus]

It's odd that folks here think nothing of being on the side of a sexual sadomasochist who grieveously injured a girl half his age.

What on Earth are you on about? The article mentions "bruises". Since when did a bruise become a grievous injury?

[23_Tauri]

You apparently didn't read my post before thinking about it.
I was not calling the practice child abuse. I was using child abuse as an example of Loki's Wager (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loki's_Wager), because I had so recently heard Tim Minchin's description and I thought it was a good example of the fallacy.

If you like, I'll say instead "How many hairs in a beard?"
I did read your post, and understood it.

You said:
You're invoking Loki's wager here. Since there is a possible gradation, a line can't be drawn? Poppycock! You can say the same thing about child abuse. Tim Minchin makes a joke in a song about being frustrated with his baby. What is the line between patting and hitting? What is the line between bouncing and shaking?

Just because a continuum exists, doesn't mean a useful distinction can't be drawn.
The reference to child abuse was an appeal to emotion. Your use of an analogy referring to child abuse implied that the incident in the OP could be construed to be child abuse. You continued "what is the line between patting and hitting?" again implying that patting (slap on the bot that a teenage boy might do to a girl the same age as him when first experimenting in the bedroom) is ok, but that hitting was not (and that this was the equivalent of a caning carried out by an older man).

Sorry if you weren't drawing that parallel by referring to Minchin's joke, but that's how I read it.

[Cavemonster]

On what grounds do you assume that both the teenage girl and the man are not “safe, sane and intelligent”? Seems pretty intelligent to me to choose and older man who knows what he’s doing.


I don't assume they're not "safe sane and intelligent" I acknowledge that we have absolutely no idea how safe sane and intelligent they are. If you think that a 16 year old girl choosing an older sexual partner is convincing evidence of how safe sane and intelligent the two of them are, I don't know what to say to that. I'm not saying it's evidence to the contrary, but it sertainly doesn't tell us anything.


Ok, maybe I picked a poor analogy. How about paint-balling? Laser Quest? Battle re-enactment societies? Amateur dramatics? I think teenagers do all these things, yes? And adults are pretty ok with it.

I don't think I have to keep hammering this home. In BDSM, participants must have a complex system to draw the line between fantasy and reality. all those things you name have built in checks separating them from reality. The bullets are not real in paint ball or laser tag, or civil war reenactment. The alligator clips on this girl's nipples are real.


It’s not an example because it’s not a real world example, you just made it up. Unless you can tell me that you know someone who does this. As I said before, there are a lot of fetishes out there but drilling holes in your partner isn’t one I’m familiar with.

You want a real world example? The german cannibal who killed and ate a "consenting" victim. Do you believe your 16 year old daughter has the right to consent to be killed and eaten, and there should be no liabilty from the much older man who carried it out?


But would you go to the authorities if your child got some bruises and cuts from playing football, even if your child said “it’s ok, I’m fine, I had fun out there!” ?

If my kid got a concussion, or broke her back from a coach pushing them too hard and ignoring safety practices? It wouldn't matter how much my kid said it was ok.

ETA: if the teenage girl had suffered concussion or brain injury, then yes it would be a big deal. But she didn't.

The fact that she wasn't injured may be evidence that they were doing everything right, or it may be that they were lucky. It isn't hard to find examples of injuries, and even death from BDSM play.

I would have much faith in my daughter’s choice of partner whether her boyfriend was 18 or 30 years old. It’s not a professional relationship so comparisons with gym teachers aren’t relevant. This is her boyfriend. Is he unknown to the parents? Well, I’d ask to meet my 16 year old daughter’s sexual partner, I think that would be reasonable and if he’s a decent guy he would be quite happy, possible reassured, to meet the parents.

I would trust my daughter to choose someone who treated her well, which in this case would involve asking her if she has agreed a safe word with him, that he uses contraception, always respects her when she says ‘no’. That kind of thing.


I'm glad that you have such faith. But 16 year olds often make very poor choices, so on a broader scale, it would be unintelligent for all parents to have that same faith. Would you have the same faith if your daughter were 10? And dating a 40 year old? If not, you've drawn a line, as have I.

Ok, would it make you feel better if she always told her parents when she was going to spend the evening with her boyfriend? They’d know where she was, and what she was up to.

It's not about making me feel better, it's about her parents, who are still her legal guardians.

As for checks, I wouldn’t want to have to do some legal check on my daughter’s boyfriend. Why, when she’s not a minor? And it’s not like you get a certificate from the Institute of Fetish Studies when you’ve passed your Dom exams.
Actually, there are quite a few organizations and training for BDSM practices, and if someone were hanging me up by my nipples, I'd feel much better knowing they had passed one of these classes. I don't get on a roller coaster that hasn't passed safety inspection.

[Cavemonster]

I did read your post, and understood it.

You said:

The reference to child abuse was an appeal to emotion. Your use of an analogy referring to child abuse implied that the incident in the OP could be construed to be child abuse. You continued "what is the line between patting and hitting?" again implying that patting (slap on the bot that a teenage boy might do to a girl the same age as him when first experimenting in the bedroom) is ok, but that hitting was not (and that this was the equivalent of a caning carried out by an older man).

Sorry if you weren't drawing that parallel by referring to Minchin's joke, but that's how I read it.

I apologize if that's how it came across. It was not my intention. I trust my meaning is clear now?

[ponderingturtle]

It's odd that folks here think nothing of being on the side of a sexual sadomasochist who grieveously injured a girl half his age.

While it is conceivable he is an abusive jerk, it is also conceivable that she sought him out and got exactly what she wanted in the situation. The thing is that with out more information it is hard to tell if anything wrong happened.

[Arcade22]

...

But Malmö district court does not believe that the beating was serious or that the man shown sufficient ruthlessness and brutality.

The approximately 60 beatings with a wooden stick against the buttocks and thighs had varying strengths and with breaks in between. The same was the around 30 beatings with a ruler against the genital area. The girl and the man had also agreed to "stop words" before, and bruises and lacerations have been accounted for, according to law.

That consent was voluntary and explicit, and the girl took herself initiated the contact. In about ten days, they discussed what she wanted to do when they met, before she came to the man's apartment.

A relative who later saw the girl's bruises alerted the police.

There is no evidence that she based on age, self-harming behaviors, or otherwise does not understand what she agreed to or that consent was not serious. She also had previous experience with BDSM sex and had knowledge of what she agreed.

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.svd.se%2Fnyheter%2Finrikes%2Ffr iande-dom-om-valdssex-overklagas_5414205.svd

It wasn't forced, she contacted him, the consent was obvious and the fact that it wasn't her first time makes it obvious that she wasn't exploited in any way.

[23_Tauri]

I don't think I have to keep hammering this home. In BDSM, participants must have a complex system to draw the line between fantasy and reality. all those things you name have built in checks separating them from reality. The bullets are not real in paint ball or laser tag, or civil war re-enactment. The alligator clips on this girl's nipples are real.
I’ve never played but I believe the bullets in paint ball are real enough to hurt and the pikes and muskets and keg powder used by the Sealed Knot are definitely real.

It’s a bit of a misnomer to talk about fantasy vs reality. It’s real sex play, that the participants are acting out roles doesn’t make it less real. Perhaps I’m splitting hairs here.

And anyway, BDSM has ways to 'draw the line'. Safe word, anyone? Just like when someone’s had enough of being paint-balled or charged by a member of The Sealed Knot (http://www.thesealedknot.org.uk/), you can say “I’ve had enough now, would you be so kind as to remove your pike from my nether regions so I can retire to the pub?”.

You want a real world example? The german cannibal who killed and ate a "consenting" victim. Do you believe your 16 year old daughter has the right to consent to be killed and eaten, and there should be no liabilty from the much older man who carried it out?
Forgive me, I thought we were talking about fetishes. Not murder.

If my kid got a concussion, or broke her back from a coach pushing them too hard and ignoring safety practices? It wouldn't matter how much my kid said it was ok.

The fact that she wasn't injured may be evidence that they were doing everything right, or it may be that they were lucky. It isn't hard to find examples of injuries, and even death from BDSM play.
Poor ol’ Michael Hutchence, eh? And he was on his own at the time! Injuries are common to members of the Sealed Knot too. That’s why they always have a medical tent at their ‘musters’.

I'm glad that you have such faith. But 16 year olds often make very poor choices, so on a broader scale, it would be unintelligent for all parents to have that same faith. Would you have the same faith if your daughter were 10? And dating a 40 year old? If not, you've drawn a line, as have I.
I would respect her right to choose her lover. If I had a 16 year old daughter I would want to meet with the gentleman no matter whether he was the 16 year old boy next door or Hugh Hefner. I accept that 16 year olds aren’t that world wise and that as her guardian I would have a duty to protect her. I would want to know that she is consenting to the sex play and that she wasn’t so afraid of this chap that she wasn’t able to say no. But she’s old enough to have sex and therefore old enough to have the boyfriend of her choosing.

As for daughter of 10. You’re an intelligent debater, cavemonster, why stoop to that strawman?

[23_Tauri]

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.svd.se%2Fnyheter%2Finrikes%2Ffr iande-dom-om-valdssex-overklagas_5414205.svd

It wasn't forced, she contacted him, the consent was obvious and the fact that it wasn't her first time makes it obvious that she wasn't exploited in any way.
Thank you for that much needed clarification, Arcade22.

In which case, it is indefensible that this chap should be prosecuted.

[bookitty]

Personally - this case makes me sad. A 16 year-old who is already into BSDM that leaves marks? Shouldn't you work up to that? Maybe explore less dramatic sexual play for a few years. (I've got John Cleese in my head saying "What's wrong with a kiss, boy?") As a concerned auntie-type, I worry about her safety in the hands of a man who enjoys bruising young girls, even though I have no way of knowing if there was any coercion, or if this man's tastes run to unsafe play.

Legally - The girl is over the age of consent. She contacted him, consent was given, the bruising was within the boundaries of safe play, there was no permanent damage. Neither of them should face legal repercussions.

[Megalodon]

It wasn't forced, she contacted him, the consent was obvious and the fact that it wasn't her first time makes it obvious that she wasn't exploited in any way.

That does it! Hang him!







:D for the humor impaired...

[Professor Yaffle]

Personally - this case makes me sad. A 16 year-old who is already into BSDM that leaves marks? Shouldn't you work up to that? Maybe explore less dramatic sexual play for a few years. (I've got John Cleese in my head saying "What's wrong with a kiss, boy?") As a concerned auntie-type, I worry about her safety in the hands of a man who enjoys bruising young girls, even though I have no way of knowing if there was any coercion, or if this man's tastes run to unsafe play.

Legally - The girl is over the age of consent. She contacted him, consent was given, the bruising was within the boundaries of safe play, there was no permanent damage. Neither of them should face legal repercussions.

I was mentally composing a post very similar to this when yours appeared and saved me the bother. :)

[Cavemonster]

As for daughter of 10. You’re an intelligent debater, cavemonster, why stoop to that strawman?

A strawman would be if I acted as though you'd said it was fine for your 10 year old to engage in BDSM sexual play. I'm assuming the opposite, but I gave you room to correct me.

Pretty much all societies have levels at which we feel comfortable letting young people manage their own risks. In the US, that is managed by parents, by laws, and by businesses they interact with.

We have separate age requirements for drinking, having sex, smoking, enlisting in the military, renting a car, and on and on.
I'd imagine that you might think it was adorable if your 10 year old were kissing her classmate out behind the swings at recess, but that you would be a bit concerned if she were hung up by her nipples in a 40 year old guy's basement dungeon. Please correct me if I'm putting words in your mouth.

It is completely reasonable that there are levels of sexual freedom that parents would be comfortable with their kids having at certain ages. For instance, I see nothing wrong with prostitution in general, I think legalizing it generally has a positive effect for those in the trade. I think if a 15 year old wants to have sex with a peer or even with someone older, they are reasonably prepared to take that risk, but I don't think they are prepared to make the descision to be a prostitute.

We already create levels of risk we allow youth to take on, and unless you're comfortable with your fifth grader in the dungeon, you agree with me that lines can and should be drawn, even if we disagree about where exactly that should be.

[23_Tauri]

I apologize if that's how it came across. It was not my intention. I trust my meaning is clear now?
Yes. Sorry if I got carried away. http://i266.photobucket.com/albums/ii269/theogrit/Large%20Smilies/1lg061shake.gif

[Professor Yaffle]

Having lines that we are comfortable with=/=wanting to make anything over that line illegal.

[JJM 777]

it is indefensible that this chap should be prosecuted.
Anything related to sexuality can be prosecuted in Sweden. For example a wikileaks founder having consensual sex with women can be later prosecuted as "rape".

[bookitty]

Having lines that we are comfortable with=/=wanting to make anything over that line illegal.

And you've returned the favor. :D This was exactly where I was headed.

[Cavemonster]

Having lines that we are comfortable with=/=wanting to make anything over that line illegal.

I absolutely agree.
But I do think it's reasonable for legal protections to be in place.

If there were no such thing as an age of consent, and a 40 year old wanted to hang your 10 year old daughter up in his basement dungeon, and she said yes, what could you as a parent do? Again, I'm using the extreme example for clarity, not to make a direct comparison to the case in the OP.

We do routinely use law to provide these kinds of protections. We also use commerce and social conventions, true.

Remember that in the case of the OP, although 16 is past the age of sexual consent in Sweden, she is still legally a minor until 18. This means that her parents are responsible for her welfare. I repeat, 16 is still a minor in many legal senses. It means, if they don't make sure she has food to eat, a safe place to live etc. they are subject to criminal charges. Again, I'm not intimately familiar with Sweden's system, but this appears to be the case there, as it is here. As long as they are legally responsible for her welfare, I think it makes sense for them to have some legal tools to ensure it.

[Arcade22]

Hey Cavemonster, care to answer?

Well then we need to know what the "extreme levels" are. Something that's "rough and extreme" to someone is "tame and boring" to someone else.

Is bondage extreme? Is using handcuffs, binding with rope or something like that extreme? Slapping? Cutting? Choking? Holding someones hair tight? Urinating on someone?

Should the "extreme levels" always be legal when we're talking about "adults"?

[Seismosaurus]

Personally - this case makes me sad. A 16 year-old who is already into BSDM that leaves marks? Shouldn't you work up to that? Maybe explore less dramatic sexual play for a few years. (I've got John Cleese in my head saying "What's wrong with a kiss, boy?") As a concerned auntie-type, I worry about her safety in the hands of a man who enjoys bruising young girls

Strange as it may seem, it's entirely possible to want to inflict pain on somebody not only whilst you care about them deeply, but because you care about them deeply.

There are many in the BDSM world who wouldn't be slightly interested in inflicting pain on somebody they didn't know and care about.

[Cavemonster]

Hey Cavemonster, care to answer?

Ah, apologies, I started a reponse, but got distracted by something shiny :)

This to me reads as Loki's wager again. Something exists on a continuum, so no distinction can be drawn? If you can't say exactly where my head ends and my neck begins, then you can't chop off my head?

Legally, I'm not familiar with the Swedish system, but I would be surprised if it differed substantially from the US in these realms. Please correct me if I'm too far off.

We have legally recognized ways of charging people with assault and/or battery (The terminology changes from place to place). Normally hitting someone with a stick hard enough to leave bruises would qualify. Now friends can still wrestle, or play touch football, but the law is generally not bad at differentiating. You can question their ability to do this, but most first world law enforcement makes this judgement on a daily basis, and they in general do a decent job of it.

The issue here is of consent as a defense to a charge that already exists on the lawbooks Some jurisdictions allow it, some don't, many just place different levels of value on it, based on things like the extent of harm.

There are also laws against endangering a minor (Remember, even though 16 is the age of consent to sex, it is legally a minor in most other legal realms). Again, I don't know what the specific laws are in Sweden, but in the US they vary by state. I would be surprised if there was no such legislation in your country.

So the issue isn't creating some new crime, but whether or not to allow consent as a defense for existing criminal definitions. I might suggest that anything that could be charged as endangering a minor not have an exception just because they happen to be having sex. I would also think that a consent defense for assault and battery wouldn't be available until the subject is... well a bit older than I'd say.

We're not creating from whole cloth a way to police sexual exploits. We're talking about the ways in which sex and consent effect laws already on the books.

Edit: Apparently, Sweden has a particularly strict anti-spanking law stating "a child may not be subjected to physical punishment or other injurious or humiliating treatment". A "child" is legally defined elsewhere in Swedish law as anyone under 18. So the question again is should sex be an exception to the laws on the books? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure consent isn't an accepted defense for the spanking law in other circumstances.

[23_Tauri]

Ah, apologies, I started a reponse, but got distracted by something shiny :)
Well if you will stare at me in my new rubber dress. :D

[Information Analyst]

The bullets are not real in paint ball
Paintballs are still pretty damn painful, and the bruises last quite a while!

[Information Analyst]

Do you believe your 16 year old daughter has the right to consent to be killed and eaten, and there should be no liabilty from the much older man who carried it out?
The fact that you highlight the man being "much older" is perhaps what lies at the heart of this matter. People are perhaps as uncomfortable with the age difference as the BDSM aspect, and the latter provides the stick to beat the former with (no apologies for the pun there).

[Cavemonster]

Paintballs are still pretty damn painful, and the bruises last quite a while!

Absolutely. But there is a clear line between bullets that bruise and bullets that kill. Paintball has a particular battlefield, a particular time and place, and it's separated from the rest of life by a number of conventions.

BDSM is also protected and separated by a number of conventions, when practiced safely and sanely. But the lines are potentially blurrier. My paintball gun won't suddenly start shooting real bullets, no matter what I decide, but a rope around a neck is dependent on all participants continuing to be really smart and communicate really well.

[Cavemonster]

The fact that you highlight the man being "much older" is perhaps what lies at the heart of this matter. People are perhaps as uncomfortable with the age difference as the BDSM aspect, and the latter provides the stick to beat the former with (no apologies for the pun there).

I think I've stated my concerns clearly in a number of posts. No need to armchair psychoanalyze.

[bookitty]

Absolutely. But there is a clear line between bullets that bruise and bullets that kill. Paintball has a particular battlefield, a particular time and place, and it's separated from the rest of life by a number of conventions.

BDSM is also protected and separated by a number of conventions, when practiced safely and sanely. But the lines are potentially blurrier. My paintball gun won't suddenly start shooting real bullets, no matter what I decide, but a rope around a neck is dependent on all participants continuing to be really smart and communicate really well.

How common is asphyxiation in BDSM? I can understand how the idea of relinquishing control to the point of real danger could be erotic within that context. But that seems as if it would be an extreme. Then again, my knowledge is second-hand and lacking gory details.

[23_Tauri]

How common is asphyxiation in BDSM? I can understand how the idea of relinquishing control to the point of real danger could be erotic within that context. But that seems as if it would be an extreme. Then again, my knowledge is second-hand and lacking gory details.
Not only that (that breath play isn't the most common form of fetish play by any means), the scenario in the OP did not involve anything that could result in death of the participants. So I think it's a strawman.

[Information Analyst]

Absolutely. But there is a clear line between bullets that bruise and bullets that kill. Paintball has a particular battlefield, a particular time and place, and it's separated from the rest of life by a number of conventions.

BDSM is also protected and separated by a number of conventions, when practiced safely and sanely. But the lines are potentially blurrier. My paintball gun won't suddenly start shooting real bullets, no matter what I decide, but a rope around a neck is dependent on all participants continuing to be really smart and communicate really well.

Well, you can stretch the threat in every single paintball game to potential loss of sight, which is also dependent on, "all participants continuing to be really smart and communicate really well." I would imagine that noose-play, on the other hand, isn't essential for every BDSM encounter.

[23_Tauri]

The fact that you highlight the man being "much older" is perhaps what lies at the heart of this matter. People are perhaps as uncomfortable with the age difference as the BDSM aspect, and the latter provides the stick to beat the former with (no apologies for the pun there).
It does make me wonder whether the parents would have been as outraged if their daughter's lover had been ten years' younger.

[Information Analyst]

I think I've stated my concerns clearly in a number of posts. No need to armchair psychoanalyze.
My observation was primarily an explanation of how this case got as far down the the legal route as it did.

[tesscaline]

How common is asphyxiation in BDSM? I can understand how the idea of relinquishing control to the point of real danger could be erotic within that context. But that seems as if it would be an extreme. Then again, my knowledge is second-hand and lacking gory details.It is an extreme. However, someone inexpert at bondage could cause it accidentally by placing ropes in the wrong places... Which, I hope is what Cavemonster is getting at. If he's not, and he's actually talking about breath play as if it's a regular aspect of BDSM, then he's really depicting BDSM inappropriately.

[Information Analyst]

It does make me wonder whether the parents would have been as outraged if their daughter's lover had been ten years' younger.
Exactly. Although historically large age differences between partners is nothing new, it does seem to me that society as a whole is becoming more "suspicious" of them, with an assumption that the older party is inherently "predatory."

[bookitty]

It is an extreme. However, someone inexpert at bondage could cause it accidentally by placing ropes in the wrong places... Which, I hope is what Cavemonster is getting at. If he's not, and he's actually talking about breath play as if it's a regular aspect of BDSM, then he's really depicting BDSM inappropriately.

That is what I would have expected but have no way of discovering. Thank you, it's always so nice when someone provides the E in JREF. ;)

[ponderingturtle]

Personally - this case makes me sad. A 16 year-old who is already into BSDM that leaves marks? Shouldn't you work up to that? Maybe explore less dramatic sexual play for a few years.

If that is what turns her on and if say she bruises easily what is the issue? Body modification is one thing but a few bruises there are loads of activities that can regularly result in bruising. A friend had a welt for months from paintball.

I would find a lot of that more worrisome if she was doing it with a boy her own age. Again it is assumptions but it is not unreasonable to think that the 30 year old will have more forethought and experience than a 16 year old.

This is certainly getting into boundaries that would squick a lot of people and when my nieces are that age and if they were doing that I would want to talk to the guy and her about it.

[ponderingturtle]

It is an extreme. However, someone inexpert at bondage could cause it accidentally by placing ropes in the wrong places... Which, I hope is what Cavemonster is getting at. If he's not, and he's actually talking about breath play as if it's a regular aspect of BDSM, then he's really depicting BDSM inappropriately.

It is interesting to note that it is one of the things that Dan Savage regularly argues against for safety reasons, and there is not much he argues against.

[23_Tauri]

I would find a lot of that more worrisome if she was doing it with a boy her own age.
Yes, me too. Mentioned this in my post #24. In fact, if I were a mum I would be much more concerned if two teenagers were mucking about with ropes.

[Cavemonster]

How common is asphyxiation in BDSM? I can understand how the idea of relinquishing control to the point of real danger could be erotic within that context. But that seems as if it would be an extreme. Then again, my knowledge is second-hand and lacking gory details.

Not only that (that breath play isn't the most common form of fetish play by any means), the scenario in the OP did not involve anything that could result in death of the participants. So I think it's a strawman.

Not a strawman, just a broadening of the example. I assume we're talking about the permissability of adults having BDSM sessions with minors in general, not just what this couple was up to for this particular weekend.

That said, the current rate of accidents isn't really applicable. Partly because it's very difficult to track and difficult to measure by people participating in these activities, which itself is not well enough documented. Partly because the risk level is affected by the abilities of the participants. We understand a certain risk level for driving for instance, and we understand that it's elevated for, say, 12 year olds who don't have the motor skills, attention spans, or risk management skills to drive as safely as their adult counterparts. We don't need a specific study on 12 year old drivers with an accident rate to extrapolate that.

[bookitty]

If that is what turns her on and if say she bruises easily what is the issue? Body modification is one thing but a few bruises there are loads of activities that can regularly result in bruising. A friend had a welt for months from paintball.

I would find a lot of that more worrisome if she was doing it with a boy her own age. Again it is assumptions but it is not unreasonable to think that the 30 year old will have more forethought and experience than a 16 year old.

This is certainly getting into boundaries that would squick a lot of people and when my nieces are that age and if they were doing that I would want to talk to the guy and her about it.

Yep. I am fully ready to admit that this squicks me but that doesn't mean I think the girl in this case needs to be stopped. Yes, I would be more comfortable if my niece (at 16) were to take her sexual exploration a bit slower. That doesn't mean that I have any right to judge her if she doesn't or that I have any right to promote my vanilla/monogamous lifestyle as the best possible option.

It's a bit like religion. I avoid promoting any specific viewpoint with her because faith (or lack) is a personal decision that you need to figure out for yourself.

[Ausmerican]

Voluntary BDSM or Aggravated Assault?



In either case, it is better to give than to receive.

[Cavemonster]

It is an extreme. However, someone inexpert at bondage could cause it accidentally by placing ropes in the wrong places... Which, I hope is what Cavemonster is getting at. If he's not, and he's actually talking about breath play as if it's a regular aspect of BDSM, then he's really depicting BDSM inappropriately.

I am making no negative statements about the BDSM community, which is incredibly dedicated to safety and real informed consent.

But I think many here are making assumptions that anyone whose sex life involves bondage is a part of that community and educated about safe, sane ways to engage in this sort of play.

Breath play exists, whether it's part of what's encouraged by the BDSM community or not, it's common enough.

There are many activities that get people off that carry various levels of risk that a 16 year old is probably not in a position to take on. The fact that there exists a community of smart, kind people who regularly engage in BDSM does not guarantee that a random partner will be one of these educated and thoughtful people.

I don't like the call for an assumption that all pain related play involves educated members of this community anymore than I like the assumption that because her partner is older he must be experienced and know what he's doing.

[ponderingturtle]

I am making no negative statements about the BDSM community, which is incredibly dedicated to safety and real informed consent.

But I think many here are making assumptions that anyone whose sex life involves bondage is a part of that community and educated about safe, sane ways to engage in this sort of play.

There seems to be a real lack of information about the reality of their relationship

Breath play exists, whether it's part of what's encouraged by the BDSM community or not, it's common enough.

Documentation of this claim?

There are many activities that get people off that carry various levels of risk that a 16 year old is probably not in a position to take on. The fact that there exists a community of smart, kind people who regularly engage in BDSM does not guarantee that a random partner will be one of these educated and thoughtful people.

What real risks did she take on? IT seems to be a bit of bruising.

[Senex]

We have an interesting law case here in Sweden. A 16 year old had sex with a 30 year old. Now this in by itself is 100% legal since the age of consent is 15, except in special circumstances. The problem was that the sex was violent. He apparently "locked the girl in a dog crate, how he put crocodile clips on her breasts and fastened them to the wall so she had to stand on her toes and that he repeatedly struck the girl's naked body with a cane". The girls mother apparently saw the bruising and contacted the authorities.


Holy smokes I can't believe how many people think this is OK. I'm impressed with the non knee jerk reaction about older men exploiting younger women but the guy is 30 and she is 16. Sometimes what you feel in your gut is right. This is wrong.

And I'll admit I wouldn't be as angry if the woman was 30 and the boy was 16 -- but I would hope the boy should know the male does the spanking.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Let's say there was a video of the sex which shows the young woman "going along" with it and not attempting to stop it at any point by using the safe word.

Would anyone change their mind about the prosecution of the man if the young woman had complained that she felt coerced to continue to engage in the sex and was too frightened to use the safe word?

[Professor Yaffle]

Holy smokes I can't believe how many people think this is OK. I'm impressed with the non knee jerk reaction about older men exploiting younger women but the guy is 30 and she is 16. Sometimes what you feel in your gut is right. This is wrong.

In what way was she exploited?

[Cavemonster]

There seems to be a real lack of information about the reality of their relationship

Absolutely, but again, this conversation isn't just about this relationship. We're talking about what appropriate laws might be, and you don't make laws for each individual human.

The fact is that this particular relationship could very well be healthy and mutually beneficial, but we don't know. Similarly, an individual might be really able to process alcohol well and drive absolutely safely well over the legal limit. The way we work risk management into law is not by legislating around idiosyncrasies, but by drawing clear lines.


Documentation of this claim?


Documentation that breath play exists and that people are into it? Do a simple google search.


What real risks did she take on? IT seems to be a bit of bruising.
That was the injury that she took on, which is not the extent of the risk.
She was supported by clamps from her nipples such that she had to stand on her tiptoes. I don't know how strong those clamps were, and neither to you. If she had gotten spooked by a door suddenly opening, or exhausted if he got distracted and left, or slipped if the floor had an overwaxed spot, it could have ripped her nipple off. It absolutely depended on his skill, knowledge and concentration to keep that from happening. Outside of sex, we don't allow minors to take on that level of risk.

Again, these are just the activities we know they engaged in. Other activities carry other risks.

Over and above that, there are real emotional risks. I didn't want to bring them up because they are incredibly tricky to define, to track, and to prove. But I think being ordered to write this statement and post it online:
"I am a slave, a filthy dirty whore and want to be treated like that, I want to be exploited, harassed and thoroughly humiliated until I can barely hold back the tears and silent cries who suffocated inside "

While it may be an excitingly lovely dirty fantasy fulfillment for some, is also pushing a lot of buttons in a teenage mind that biologically processes both risk and emotion differently from an adult brain.

Again, Sweden has a law preventing inflicting pain and humiliation on a minor. The question at hand is whether sex is a valid exception.

[Professor Yaffle]

Let's say there was a video of the sex which shows the young woman "going along" with it and not attempting to stop it at any point by using the safe word.

Would anyone change their mind about the prosecution of the man if the young woman had complained that she felt coerced to continue to engage in the sex and was too frightened to use the safe word?

Yes if there was evidence of coercion or behaviour by the man which would cause her to feel frightened.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Holy smokes I can't believe how many people think this is OK. I'm impressed with the non knee jerk reaction about older men exploiting younger women but the guy is 30 and she is 16. Sometimes what you feel in your gut is right. This is wrong.

I find it hard to believe the amount of power and influence is even close to being equal between 16 and 30 year olds in *any* situation.

Also, it does make me wonder what she'd been doing as a child to be into BDSM at the age of 16.

[Arcade22]

Ah, apologies, I started a reponse, but got distracted by something shiny :)

This to me reads as Loki's wager again. Something exists on a continuum, so no distinction can be drawn? If you can't say exactly where my head ends and my neck begins, then you can't chop off my head?

If you want to make something illegal and punishable by law you should make it obvious to people who can read and comprehend written text that the act is illegal so you can avoid uncertainties. The law should be as concrete as possible.

We have legally recognized ways of charging people with assault and/or battery (The terminology changes from place to place). Normally hitting someone with a stick hard enough to leave bruises would qualify. Now friends can still wrestle, or play touch football, but the law is generally not bad at differentiating. You can question their ability to do this, but most first world law enforcement makes this judgement on a daily basis, and they in general do a decent job of it.

The issue here is of consent as a defense to a charge that already exists on the lawbooks Some jurisdictions allow it, some don't, many just place different levels of value on it, based on things like the extent of harm.

As far as i understand one can consent to minor assault and assault of the normal degree but not to aggravated assault.

There are also laws against endangering a minor (Remember, even though 16 is the age of consent to sex, it is legally a minor in most other legal realms). Again, I don't know what the specific laws are in Sweden, but in the US they vary by state. I would be surprised if there was no such legislation in your country.

The only specific "child endangerment law" i could find was this:

"If a parent in the exercise of custody of a child is guilty of abuse or neglect or other deficiencies in care for the child in a manner resulting in permanent danger to the child's health or development, the court shall decide on the change in custody."

However this law is probably much more restrictive and specific than yours and i don't think that it's even remotely relevant in this case.

So the issue isn't creating some new crime, but whether or not to allow consent as a defense for existing criminal definitions. I might suggest that anything that could be charged as endangering a minor not have an exception just because they happen to be having sex. I would also think that a consent defense for assault and battery wouldn't be available until the subject is... well a bit older than I'd say.

So doing these "extreme acts" should be legal for "adults" but not "minors"? In all cases?

We're not creating from whole cloth a way to police sexual exploits. We're talking about the ways in which sex and consent effect laws already on the books.

So then again i must request that you're more specific in what you think should and shouldn't be legal. Apparently having sex with a 16 year old girl in the missionary position would be legal but what else? Anal sex can be pretty painful and risky if you do it wrong.

Edit: Apparently, Sweden has a particularly strict anti-spanking law stating "a child may not be subjected to physical punishment or other injurious or humiliating treatment". A "child" is legally defined elsewhere in Swedish law as anyone under 18.

A child is defined differently depending on which laws we're talking about. Having sex with anyone under 15 is legally "rape against a child", or "sexual exploitation of a child" in less sever cases, yet if one were to produce pornography with a 15-17 year old one would be guilty of producing child pornography.

The age of majority is at 18 and that's when most laws restricting behavior because of ones age disappear, the age when one can buy stronger alcoholic beverages being a noticeable exception.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm fairly sure consent isn't an accepted defense for the spanking law in other circumstances.

I don't think so but I'm not a legal expert, though i don't think this law is relevant in the slightest since it is targeted specifically against parents, guardians, teachers and the like.

[ponderingturtle]

That was the injury that she took on, which is not the extent of the risk.
She was supported by clamps from her nipples such that she had to stand on her tiptoes. I don't know how strong those clamps were, and neither to you. If she had gotten spooked by a door suddenly opening, or exhausted if he got distracted and left, or slipped if the floor had an overwaxed spot, it could have ripped her nipple off. It absolutely depended on his skill, knowledge and concentration to keep that from happening. Outside of sex, we don't allow minors to take on that level of risk.

Really? That is your argument.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Yes if there was evidence of coercion or behaviour by the man which would cause her to feel frightened.

To many people what occurs in BDSM would be thought of as coercive behaviour which would make them feel frightened if they were in the role of the sub who had less power and influence than the dom in virtually every other situation outside the bedroom as well as in it.

[Professor Yaffle]

To many people what occurs in BDSM would be thought of as coercive behaviour which would make them feel frightened if they were in the role of the sub who had less power and influence than the dom in virtually every other situation outside the bedroom as well as in it.

Yes, but "most people" don't voluntarily enter into such an arrangement... I meant evidence of coercive behaviour prior to the sex.

[tesscaline]

I am making no negative statements about the BDSM community, which is incredibly dedicated to safety and real informed consent.Negative is not the same as inaccurate. The way you're wording your statements, it makes it out as if breath play is an intrinsic part of BDSM and something commonly done by all those in the lifestyle. The reality of the situation is that breath play is not intrinsic in BDSM, and there are just as many people outside the BDSM community who enjoy it as there are inside. It's not a "BDSM" staple the way that bondage or Dominance is. So, I'm objecting to your inappropriate insinuation. Don't like that? Stop making the insinuation.

But I think many here are making assumptions that anyone whose sex life involves bondage is a part of that community and educated about safe, sane ways to engage in this sort of play.Yes, they are making that assumption. And I'll agree that it is not a good assumption to make. There are many "wannabes" in the lifestyle who have no idea what the right, safe, way to go about some of these activities are.

Breath play exists, whether it's part of what's encouraged by the BDSM community or not, it's common enough.I'm not denying that it exists. I do, however, question your definition of "common" and the degree to which you are relating it specifically to BDSM.

There are many activities that get people off that carry various levels of risk that a 16 year old is probably not in a position to take on. The fact that there exists a community of smart, kind people who regularly engage in BDSM does not guarantee that a random partner will be one of these educated and thoughtful people.

I don't like the call for an assumption that all pain related play involves educated members of this community anymore than I like the assumption that because her partner is older he must be experienced and know what he's doing.This I agree with you on.

Age says nothing about one's degree of expertise on a subject. For all we know he's brand new to the lifestyle, and this was his first encounter. Likewise, a younger person (in their teens) may have been experimenting with the lifestyle for a while, and done research and thus know how to do certain things safely.

As part of the BDSM community, I see these things on a regular basis. The college kid 10 years younger than me who's pushed limits farther and with more serious practice than the 50 year old married guy looking for anything and everything his wife won't give him at home who hasn't done any research and is just going by what he's seen in the movies.

Judging someone's knowledge and skill in BDSM based on age alone... Is a really stupid thing to do, and is the exact sort of behavior that gets people seriously hurt.

[Arcade22]

In what way was she exploited?

She was 16 and he was in his thirties! That's enough evidence we need to see that he's immoral, disgusting, evil and that he should be dragged out his house and have his brains splattered across the sidewalk for being a sick ****.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/188094b2d52bc5d842.gif

[23_Tauri]

Holy smokes I can't believe how many people think this is OK. I'm impressed with the non knee jerk reaction about older men exploiting younger women but the guy is 30 and she is 16. Sometimes what you feel in your gut is right. This is wrong.
Sorry, I don't follow. So, it this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/26/hugh-hefner) not ok too? Because the age difference in that relationship is 60 years. In the OP it's 14.

And I'll admit I wouldn't be as angry if the woman was 30 and the boy was 16 -- but I would hope the boy should know the male does the spanking.
Double standards, much?

[Cavemonster]

Really? That is your argument.

That is a part of my argument that I've been explaining for quite a while now. Could you be as clear in your objection as I've tried to be?

In my opinion, a statement of sarcastic disbelief isn't a part of friendly, honest discussion.

[Ausmerican]

... Outside of sex, we don't allow minors to take on that level of risk.....

Ouside of sex we allow minors to box, practice martial arts, ride skateboards, ski, ride dirtbikes and ATVs, shoot guns and bows, hunt animals, climb trees and cliffs, go caving, swim in oceans and rivers and a host of other things involving just as much risk. Many of these we even allow them to do unsupervised.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Sorry, I don't follow. So, it this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/26/hugh-hefner) not ok too? Because the age difference in that relationship is 60 years. In the OP it's 14.

<snip>

There's both the absolute and relative ages to consider.

In my opinion a better system would be based on both an age threshold and a ratio of the ages between the partners. E.g., a threshold of 16 years and a ratio that increases with the age of the youngest partner.

[Cavemonster]

Negative is not the same as inaccurate. The way you're wording your statements, it makes it out as if breath play is an intrinsic part of BDSM and something commonly done by all those in the lifestyle.

I made one off handed comment about one potential risk of one fetish activity. I did not mean to characterize the BDSM community in any way.
The fact is that there are many types of fetish both embraced and not embraced by the "mainstream" BDSM community. Many of these fetishes include levels of risk that we don't take on in our daily life, from playfull choking to restraints to nipple clamps, isolation, scat, whatever.

My central point in this whole thread is that these are levels of risk that we don't let minors (under 18) take on without strict regulations, inspected equipment, liscenced adults, parents knowing where they are at all times etc etc. And I don't think it's reasonable to make sex an exception.

As you note, a random individual practicing BDSM or any related kink may be safe and sane and well trained, but could also be a newbie, an incompetent or any number of other things that would make them a poor guide for this experience. Think even for adults new to the lifestyle it may be difficult to be sure you have a safe partner, and for minors, I think they don't necessarily have the faculties to choose and understand what a safe partner needs. Again, we generally don't let them take on the level of risk that some kinks involve without oversight.

So can people over the age of consent, but still legal minors get handcuffed, spanked, made to scrub the floor and say "master" by the partner of their choosing? Why not! Is it wise to make breath play, cutting, elaborate suspension from nipple clamps, or caning with unknown adults legal? I don't think so. I think it's reasonable that some fetish play that is legal with consenting adults should not be legal with minors who are otherwise over the age of consent in their area. That's my entire argument- That being able to handle the general risks of sex does not mean you are generally able to handle the risks of every fetish, and an age of consent for those risks can reasonably be set at the age of majority, even if the age for sexual consent is lower.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Yes, but "most people" don't voluntarily enter into such an arrangement... I meant evidence of coercive behaviour prior to the sex.

Where do women who claim they have been raped after consenting to engage in sexual behaviour and men who claim it was a misunderstanding fit into this?

[Cavemonster]

Ouside of sex we allow minors to box, practice martial arts, ride skateboards, ski, ride dirtbikes and ATVs, shoot guns and bows, hunt animals, climb trees and cliffs, go caving, swim in oceans and rivers and a host of other things involving just as much risk. Many of these we even allow them to do unsupervised.

Look up the laws in your Juristiction, but many of those activities absolutely require special safety precautions. If you knowingly allowed your 15 year old child to go caving alone and untrained and they got in an accident, you could be arrested for criminal negligence. Likewise if you allowed your child down a ski trail they were unprepared for.

Ski slopes, dojos etc. have safety regulations, liability insurance, licensing. You're not the first to compare this incident to sports, and I've addressed it. If your BDSM partner is willing to undergo a CORI check, make available to the parents what they will be doing at all times, get liability insurance, CPR and first aid training, state certification in what they're doing etc. then we're starting to get comparable.

[bookitty]

Where do women who claim they have been raped after consenting to engage in sexual behaviour and men who claim it was a misunderstanding fit into this?

That fits entirely outside a relationship in which both parties thoroughly discussed which activities were to take place, met up and engaged in those specific activities.

The emotional impact of consensual BDSM is in no way related to rape.

[tesscaline]

I made one off handed concept about one potential risk.
The fact is that there are many types of fetish both embraced and not embraced by the "mainstream" BDSM community. Many of these fetishes include levels of risk that we don't take on in our daily life, from playfull choking to restraints to nipple clamps, isolation, scat, whatever.You seem to have missed the point that you are causing confusion about what is and isn't extreme amongst people who are less educated on the matter. Thus my objection to your statements.

My central point in this whole thread is that these are levels of risk that we don't let minors (under 18) take on without strict regulations, inspected equipment, liscenced adults, parents knowing where they are at all times etc etc. And I don't think it's reasonable to make sex an exception.And here's where your argument falls apart. Minors do any variety of things that are just as dangerous as BDSM, if not moreso, physically, with little to no supervision at all. As a teen, I regularly went out free climbing with no adult supervision, no inspected equipment (hell, often no equipment at all), no regulations, no parents knowing where I was. I could have easily gotten myself killed, and no one would have been the wiser.

As you note, a random individual practicing BDSM or any related kink may be safe and sane and well trained, but could also be a newbie, an incompetent or any number of other things that would make them a poor guide for this experience. Think even for adults new to the lifestyle it may be difficult to be sure you have a safe partner, and for minors, I think they don't necessarily have the faculties to choose and understand what a safe partner needs. Again, we generally don't let them take on the level of risk that some kinks involve without oversight.And I think that for the most part you're doing just what you've complained of others doing. You are judging someone's ability based on age alone. I've known teens who were stupid and wouldn't know "safe" if it bit them on the nose. I've known other teens who weren't stupid and went about things by researching them thoroughly first, and then entering into an endeavor with calculated planned steps.

By the same token, I know adults of both genres as well. Age tells us nothing, especially if we're talking about the difference between a 17 year old and an 18 year old.

So can people over the age of consent, but still legal minors get handcuffed, spanked, made to scrub the floor and say "master" by the partner of their choosing? Why not! Is it wise to make breath play, cutting, elaborate suspension from nipple clamps, or caning with unknown adults legal? I don't think so. I think it's reasonable that some fetish play that is legal with consenting adults should not be legal with minors who are otherwise over the age of consent in their area. That's my entire argument- That being able to handle the general risks of sex does not mean you are generally able to handle the risks of every fetish, and an age of consent for those risks can reasonably be set at the age of majority, even if the age for sexual consent is lower.And I obviously disagree.

You are advocating that the government decide when someone is ready to explore or experience an extreme. And that level of "maturity" is simply not something that can be determined by age alone. There comes a time when we, as a community, have to let go and stop nannying our children to death. We have to draw a line somewhere. I have no problem with 16 being that line in the sand.

You're also acting as if these "extremes" have the potential to be more damaging to a person than the other more generally accepted acts of sex. I question that. Sure, there are "risks" to one physically with BDSM. But there are other huge risks that just come along normally with sex. The risk of HIV infection, for example. If a 16 year old is "mature" enough to handle the risk of a death sentence by way of sexually transmitted disease, why are they suddenly not mature enough to risk death by choking, or bleeding out, or not even death but the risk of a bruise or two?

[Information Analyst]

She was supported by clamps from her nipples such that she had to stand on her tiptoes. I don't know how strong those clamps were, and neither to you. If she had gotten spooked by a door suddenly opening, or exhausted if he got distracted and left, or slipped if the floor had an overwaxed spot, it could have ripped her nipple off. It absolutely depended on his skill, knowledge and concentration to keep that from happening. Outside of sex, we don't allow minors to take on that level of risk.
Given that horse riding can and does carry the risk of serious injury and/or death dependent on, "skill, knowledge and concentration," clearly "we" do allow minors to take on "that level of risk."

[Ausmerican]

Look up the laws in your Juristiction, but many of those activities absolutely require special safety precautions. If you knowingly allowed your 15 year old child to go caving alone and untrained and they got in an accident, you could be arrested for criminal negligence. Likewise if you allowed your child down a ski trail they were unprepared for.

Ski slopes, dojos etc. have safety regulations, liability insurance, licensing. You're not the first to compare this incident to sports, and I've addressed it. If your BDSM partner is willing to undergo a CORI check, make available to the parents what they will be doing at all times, get liability insurance, CPR and first aid training, state certification in what they're doing etc. then we're starting to get comparable.

I dont know where you grew up but in Australia where I grew up you didn't have any of those requirements to swim in the surf, complete with riptides and sharks or play in the bush with cliffs and our many forms of poinonous snakes. Ski slopes? Kids ski anywhere there is a hill with white stuff on it. And sled too. Climbing trees never required a class or a certification.

Also, "knowingly allowed your child" kind of puts a hole in your case. To make it equivalent to this case you would have no say and no knowledge because the 16 year old involved in this was old enough for the particular passtime she was engaged in.

[Professor Yaffle]

Some stats here on children's sporting injuries:

http://www.childrenshospital.org/az/Site1112/mainpageS1112P0.html

[Information Analyst]

She was 16 and he was in his thirties! That's enough evidence we need to see that he's immoral, disgusting, evil and that he should be dragged out his house and have his brains splattered across the sidewalk for being a sick ****.
Damn! I lost my virginity the day after my 18th birthday to a 38 year-old. For years I seen it as an immensely enoyable and formative experience, but now I see that she was an evil monster and that I'm actually scarred for life!

Oh, hang on, I was legal +1/732 day/s*, and there was no spanking....

* Depending on standard accepted.

[Cavemonster]

And here's where your argument falls apart. Minors do any variety of things that are just as dangerous as BDSM, if not moreso, physically, with little to no supervision at all. As a teen, I regularly went out free climbing with no adult supervision, no inspected equipment (hell, often no equipment at all), no regulations, no parents knowing where I was. I could have easily gotten myself killed, and no one would have been the wiser.

While that may be true, every first world government frowns upon adults encouraging and facilitating minors to take on that kind of risk without oversight. We can't eliminate risk in any way, but we do see a duty to help minimize it. If you disagree with this, your argument is not with me, but with every first-world government.


And I think that for the most part you're doing just what you've complained of others doing. You are judging someone's ability based on age alone. I've known teens who were stupid and wouldn't know "safe" if it bit them on the nose. I've known other teens who weren't stupid and went about things by researching them thoroughly first, and then entering into an endeavor with calculated planned steps.

No. And it's a very important point here that I've mentioned multiple times in this thread that has consistently been ignored. 16 year old brains, are as a rule biologically different from adult brains. There are exceptions, yes, but being 16 makes it very easy to guess something about your ability to understand risk, just like being 5 years old allows me to make assumptions about your height. If you have a problem with that, take it up with developmental biologists. There may very well be exceptions. But as I've said before, we can't legislate to the exact mental abilities of every individual on earth. We have to play the odds.

You are advocating that the government decide when someone is ready to explore or experience an extreme. And that level of "maturity" is simply not something that can be determined by age alone. There comes a time when we, as a community, have to let go and stop nannying our children to death. We have to draw a line somewhere. I have no problem with 16 being that line in the sand.

Why 16? Again, you're not arguing against me here, but against every first world government. They all have staggered ages for signing a legal contract, joining military service, drinking. All first world governements acknowledge different age limits for different levels of responsibility.

Hell, in sweden, the country in the OP where 15 is the age of sexual consent, you still need to be 18 to be considered old enough to get married.

Of course we can't measure maturity by age alone, but we also want laws to be clear and easy to follow and relatively inexpensive to enforce, so age is really the tool we have. Again, if you accept an age of sexual consent, and you've said you do, what is wrong for another line in the sand for additional risks. Your post doesn't meaningfully differentiate.

You're also acting as if these "extremes" have the potential to be more damaging to a person than the other more generally accepted acts of sex. I question that. Sure, there are "risks" to one physically with BDSM. But there are other huge risks that just come along normally with sex. The risk of HIV infection, for example. If a 16 year old is "mature" enough to handle the risk of a death sentence by way of sexually transmitted disease, why are they suddenly not mature enough to risk death by choking, or bleeding out, or not even death but the risk of a bruise or two?

Because information on how to avoid unwanted pregnancy and STDs is widely, widely circulated. it is taught in schools (where they are not insane abstinence only) It is the common knowledge of every adult you meet. If you reach 16 and you don't know how to use a condom and why you should, you're a moron. While information on how to safely engage in BDSM and related fetishes is not so widely circulated at all.

And teens still manage to **** plain old sex up in alarming numbers, showing that they're not even really ready for those risks. The only reason the age of consent is reasonable as low as it is in regards to the risks of regular sex is that you can't really stop them, and making it illegal just drives it deeper underground and makes it more unsafe. Just like alcohol prohibition.

[Cavemonster]

Given that horse riding can and does carry the risk of serious injury and/or death dependent on, "skill, knowledge and concentration," clearly "we" do allow minors to take on "that level of risk."

Again, as I've pointed out so many times before. Show me the horse ranch that puts kids up on horses without training or safety equipment. Without a trained instructor and first aid kits nearby, and I'll show you a lawsuit.

[tesscaline]

While that may be true, every first world government frowns upon adults encouraging and facilitating minors to take on that kind of risk without oversight. We can't eliminate risk in any way, but we do see a duty to help minimize it. If you disagree with this, your argument is not with me, but with every first-world government.Um... I'm sorry, but you need to start providing some evidence for these claims, as they're starting to become rather extraordinary.

No. And it's a very important point here that I've mentioned multiple times in this thread that has consistently been ignored. 16 year old brains, are as a rule biologically different from adult brains. There are exceptions, yes, but being 16 makes it very easy to guess something about your ability to understand risk, just like being 5 years old allows me to make assumptions about your height. If you have a problem with that, take it up with developmental biologists. There may very well be exceptions. But as I've said before, we can't legislate to the exact mental abilities of every individual on earth. We have to play the odds.Please provide evidence of this drastic difference between a 16 year old's brain and an 18 year old's brain.

Why 16? Again, you're not arguing against me here, but against every first world government. They all have staggered ages for signing a legal contract, joining military service, drinking. All first world governements acknowledge different age limits for different levels of responsibility.These age limits are, largely arbitrary and arrived upon by social consensus as opposed to scientific evidence. In fact, when one looks at the risks involved, the arbitrary nature of them becomes patently obvious, if not entirely contradictory to logic.

Hell, in sweden, the country in the OP where 15 is the age of sexual consent, you still need to be 18 to be considered old enough to get married.Mmmhmm... Why is that?

Of course we can't measure maturity by age alone, but we also want laws to be clear and easy to follow and relatively inexpensive to enforce, so age is really the tool we have. Again, if you accept an age of sexual consent, and you've said you do, what is wrong for another line in the sand for additional risks. Your post doesn't meaningfully differentiate.As I've stated, I don't see there being additional risks.

Because information on how to avoid unwanted pregnancy and STDs is widely, widely circulated. it is taught in schools (where they are not insane abstinence only) It is the common knowledge of every adult you meet. If you reach 16 and you don't know how to use a condom and why you should, you're a moron. While information on how to safely engage in BDSM and related fetishes is not so widely circulated at all.

And teens still manage to **** plain old sex up in alarming numbers, showing that they're not even really ready for those risks. The only reason the age of consent is reasonable as low as it is in regards to the risks of regular sex is that you can't really stop them, and making it illegal just drives it deeper underground and makes it more unsafe. Just like alcohol prohibition.Adults still managed to **** up plain old sex in alarming numbers too. Which is what tears your argument to shreds.

[Cavemonster]

Please provide evidence of this drastic difference between a 16 year old's brain and an 18 year old's brain.


I'm sorry, I thought this was common knowledge.
http://teenagebrain.blogspot.com/

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/teenage-brain-a-work-in-progress-fact-sheet/index.shtml

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080328112127.htm

[Information Analyst]

Again, as I've pointed out so many times before. Show me the horse ranch that puts kids up on horses without training or safety equipment. Without a trained instructor and first aid kits nearby, and I'll show you a lawsuit.
No, you made an observation about one thing the couple in question are reported to have done, and that it carried the risk of her nipple/s being ripped off that was dependent on, "skill, knowledge and concentration to keep that from happening," and that, "Outside of sex, we don't allow minors to take on that level of risk." You did not add any qualifier of the sort you are now introducing, so my observation about the equal or greater risk inherent in horse riding is perfectly valid (quite apart from the fact that in my country, someone learning to ride a horse may very well not be in the sort of environment you regard as mandatory).

You want to put those goal-posts back where they were?

[tesscaline]

I'm sorry, I thought this was common knowledge.
http://teenagebrain.blogspot.com/

http://www.nimh.nih.gov/health/publications/teenage-brain-a-work-in-progress-fact-sheet/index.shtml

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080328112127.htm
Using those resources, we can't guarantee adulthood until 23-25 years of age...

Also using those resources, the rate of change after 12 years of age is significantly slower than before 12.

So, I'll ask again: Please provide evidence of the drastic difference between a 16 year old's brain and an 18 year old's brain.

Emphasis there on drastic. Minor subtle differences don't count.

[Senex]

Sorry, I don't follow. So, it this (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/26/hugh-hefner) not ok too? Because the age difference in that relationship is 60 years. In the OP it's 14.
You don't think I would have married Sophia Loren, Brigitte Bardot, or Rachael Welch when I was 24? hehehe...Angie Dickinson, Jenny Agutter, Diana Rigg. (I have a long list of super hot older women.)


Double standards, much?

I'm a guy. We have double standards and if a female college professor took me under her wing it would not have been as evil as a male professor taking a female student under his wing. It's just the way the world is.

[Cavemonster]

Using those resources, we can't guarantee adulthood until 23-25 years of age...

Also using those resources, the rate of change after 12 years of age is significantly slower than before 12.

So, I'll ask again: Please provide evidence of the drastic difference between a 16 year old's brain and an 18 year old's brain.

Emphasis there on drastic. Minor subtle differences don't count.

I'm not sure what would convince you here. Up until 23-25 the brain is still undergoing significant change. I don't think any biologist would call the difference of a two year span in the mid teenage years "minor". I don't think a youth psychologist would call the differences in accumulated experience "minor" either.

If you're looking for something magic and a little light to go off when you hit 18, then you'll be disappointed. There is no magic threshold when development is suddenly done, but like so many here, you're back to Loki's wager. While I can't say the exact course of brain formation and risk evaluation, in almost every case, going from 16-18 is going to be a hell of a lot better.

[Professor Yaffle]

You don't think I would have married Sophia Loren, Brigitte Bardot, or Rachael Welch when I was 24? hehehe...Angie Dickinson, Jenny Agutter, Diana Rigg. (I have a long list of super hot older women.)



I'm a guy. We have double standards and if a female college professor took me under her wing it would not have been as evil as a male professor taking a female student under his wing. It's just the way the world is.

"I'm sexist" does not an argument make.

[Cavemonster]

No, you made an observation about one thing the couple in question are reported to have done, and that it carried the risk of her nipple/s being ripped off that was dependent on, "skill, knowledge and concentration to keep that from happening," and that, "Outside of sex, we don't allow minors to take on that level of risk." You did not add any qualifier of the sort you are now introducing, so my observation about the equal or greater risk inherent in horse riding is perfectly valid (quite apart from the fact that in my country, someone learning to ride a horse may very well not be in the sort of environment you regard as mandatory).

You want to put those goal-posts back where they were?

Read the thread, I've posted about other youth activities with risk levels and the responsibilities that come with them numerous times. People have asked about skiing, martial arts, swimming.

I've already answered your question numerous times.

[Senex]

"I'm sexist" does not an argument make.
You can be sexist and right (unfortunately).

[tesscaline]

I'm not sure what would convince you here. Up until 23-25 the brain is still undergoing significant change. I don't think any biologist would call the difference of a two year span in the mid teenage years "minor". I don't think a youth psychologist would call the differences in accumulated experience "minor" either.

If you're looking for something magic and a little light to go off when you hit 18, then you'll be disappointed. There is no magic threshold when development is suddenly done, but like so many here, you're back to Loki's wager. While I can't say the exact course of brain formation and risk evaluation, in almost every case, going from 16-18 is going to be a hell of a lot better.*sighs*

You're actually proving my point, and I don't even think you realize it.

There is no magic threshold when development is suddenly done. None. These age limits are largely arbitrary. 18 being the "magic number" for voting, getting married, signing contracts, being "an adult" is arbitrary, and not based on science.

Most of what you've said in this thread has made the distinction between "being an adult" and "not being an adult" as if "being an adult" is some magic threshold which automatically makes someone more responsible. This is simply not the case, and you've just proved it for me.

Going from 17 and 364 days old to 18 years old does not miraculously make someone more responsible, or better able to handle risk. Why on earth are you approaching this argument from a standpoint that assumes it does?

[Cavemonster]

*sighs*

You're actually proving my point, and I don't even think you realize it.

There is no magic threshold when development is suddenly done. None. These age limits are largely arbitrary. 18 being the "magic number" for voting, getting married, signing contracts, being "an adult" is arbitrary, and not based on science.

Most of what you've said in this thread has made the distinction between "being an adult" and "not being an adult" as if "being an adult" is some magic threshold which automatically makes someone more responsible. This is simply not the case, and you've just proved it for me.

Going from 17 and 364 days old to 18 years old does not miraculously make someone more responsible, or better able to handle risk. Why on earth are you approaching this argument from a standpoint that assumes it does?

You keep on riding that Loki's wager like it owes you lunch money!

There is a firm distinction between being an adult and being a teenager. It doesn't happen suddenly, but it does happen, just like white can fade by tiny steps into black. Even though there's a lot of gray in between, there is a definite change, and a definite difference between the two extremes.

Yep, any cutoff point you choose is going to have an element of arbitrary in it. When you argue, like you do above, as though I've said at any point that there is some magical line that people cross and become adults, it's insulting, it's a straw argument, and it shows you haven't read my posts in this thread.

Law, and everything else we try to do to make this world a better place is all about risk management. With incomplete information, we try to make the best rules we can.

I've made the argument that we already societally stagger our acceptance of risks to youth, that different risks can be taken on at different times. It's a profoundly imperfect system, but it I don't see the alternatives working any better. In our last few posts, I discussed why it's reasonable for the sexual age of consent to be fairly low even though there are substantial risks, and I've pointed out what differentiates those risks from those that are part of some kinks.

If you'd like to argue any of those points, I'm happy to discuss them, but please, no sarcastic *sighs* and misstatements of my position.

[Professor Yaffle]

And there is already a cut off point - the age of consent. If you want to argue for a change in the cut off point for this particular activity, you are going to need something more concrete than older is better.

[Professor Yaffle]

You can be sexist and right (unfortunately).

But if the only argument you are willing to present is based entirely on your sexism, you are not going to win many arguments. I'm open to being convinced - I'm probably as "vanilla" as they come - but you are going to have to find something a little more persuasive...

[tesscaline]

I've made the argument that we already societally stagger our acceptance of risks to youth, that different risks can be taken on at different times. It's a profoundly imperfect system, but it I don't see the alternatives working any better. In our last few posts, I discussed why it's reasonable for the sexual age of consent to be fairly low even though there are substantial risks, and I've pointed out what differentiates those risks from those that are part of some kinks.Except that you haven't.

You've pointed out differences in attempting to mitigate those risks, but not the differences in the risks themselves.

I see no difference in the risks.

As to societally staggering our acceptance of risks... I still say that those "staggerings" are largely arbitrary. How, exactly, is swimming in shark infested waters (which one can do with no regulation or adult present) any less dangerous than using a nipple clamp (which one needs to be 18 to even buy, as minors aren't allowed into sex shops despite ages of consent to sex being lower... see what I mean about arbitrary and contrary to logic)? Please, please do explain that one...

[Cavemonster]

Well, you can stretch the threat in every single paintball game to potential loss of sight, which is also dependent on, "all participants continuing to be really smart and communicate really well." I would imagine that noose-play, on the other hand, isn't essential for every BDSM encounter.

That's just dependent on wearing your goggles. It doesn't take much skill, and it's pretty common sense.

I'm not saying the noose play is essential to BDSM, and I hope I'm being clear that I'm not advocating any blanket prohibition on BDSM. All I'm saying is that activities that in isolation would be regarded as assault aren't subject to a consent defense when one participant is a minor. In some places, consent isn't a defense already, especially if real injury is sustained, regardless of age. If it were up to me, (and much of the BDSM community) informed documented consent would always be a defense between adults. I personally think it would be prudent to exclude minors.

[NewtonTrino]

I continue to be amazed at how prudish this community is. A 16 year old girl making her own sexual decisions is just too darn liberal for ya'll? Are you freaking kidding me? I well and truly remember what it was like to be 16 and I have zero doubt in my mind that this girl can make her own decisions. This is exactly the kind of thing you learn from to become an adult.

Prudes one and all. Sometimes I feel like this is the church social forum and not the forum filled with the most hard core skeptics on the internet who are supposed to use things like logic.

I must go pick up my indian food now. Masala of Chicken Tikka delicious.

[Professor Yaffle]

I continue to be amazed at how prudish this community is. A 16 year old girl making her own sexual decisions is just too darn liberal for ya'll? Are you freaking kidding me? I well and truly remember what it was like to be 16 and I have zero doubt in my mind that this girl can make her own decisions. This is exactly the kind of thing you learn from to become an adult.

Prudes one and all. Sometimes I feel like this is the church social forum and not the forum filled with the most hard core skeptics on the internet who are supposed to use things like logic.

I must go pick up my indian food now. Masala of Chicken Tikka delicious.

I assume you have only been reading half the posts in this thread?

[tesscaline]

I continue to be amazed at how prudish this community is. A 16 year old girl making her own sexual decisions is just too darn liberal for ya'll? Are you freaking kidding me? I well and truly remember what it was like to be 16 and I have zero doubt in my mind that this girl can make her own decisions. This is exactly the kind of thing you learn from to become an adult.

Prudes one and all. Sometimes I feel like this is the church social forum and not the forum filled with the most hard core skeptics on the internet who are supposed to use things like logic.

I must go pick up my indian food now. Masala of Chicken Tikka delicious.You must have me on ignore...

[NewtonTrino]

I'm only talking about the prudes, not every single person. Sorry I wasn't clear.

[Cavemonster]

You've asked questions that I'd group into two categories, and that both deserve substantial answers. if you don't mind, I'll answer the second one first, and the other when I find a moment.


As to societally staggering our acceptance of risks... I still say that those "staggerings" are largely arbitrary. How, exactly, is swimming in shark infested waters (which one can do with no regulation or adult present) any less dangerous than using a nipple clamp (which one needs to be 18 to even buy, as minors aren't allowed into sex shops despite ages of consent to sex being lower... see what I mean about arbitrary and contrary to logic)? Please, please do explain that one...

I'm not sure where you live, but where I live, beaches are closed if there's a particular hazard and swimming is prohibited. If a parent knowingly let their child swim in shark infested waters, then they could be prosecuted for child endangerment.

That said, not all risks are made illegal because there is a general reluctance to criminalize children as an attempt to manage their risks, because criminalizing them creates a negative effect by itself. So there really isn't an effective way to stop children from engaging in some dangerous acts without criminalizing them.

What we tend to be able to do though, is to minimize risks by putting limits on how adults interact with them. For instance, in the US, it is not illegal for underaged persons to drink alcohol (in most states) There is a comparatively small fine for them if they buy alcohol, or are found in public possession, but the weight of the law comes down on those over 21 who would buy alcohol for minors, or bars who would serve them.

In your example, for instance, I don't know your exact jurisdiction, but I'd wager that the law has a relatively low, or non-existent penalty for minors entering a sex shop, and a fairly heavy one for sex shops allowing minors in or making sales to them.

I can't say I agree with the prohibition on minors in sex shops, especially those who are above the age of sexual consent. But that's a "risk" that certain populations have decided to act on.

But I'm sure you see the general basis behind the policies, that acting to minimize risks to minors, it is fairly effective to regulate adults, who can be expected to understand and attempt to minimize risks to themselves, and it would be fairly ineffective and likely counterproductive to try to directly regulate the actions of minors. "You're under arrest for your own good" is only useful in very extreme cases.

[Alan]

deleted

[tesscaline]

That didn't really address my question. You are again talking about differences in ways to mitigate risks, instead of addressing differences in the risks themselves.

[bookitty]

You don't think I would have married Sophia Loren, Brigitte Bardot, or Rachael Welch when I was 24? hehehe...Angie Dickinson, Jenny Agutter, Diana Rigg. (I have a long list of super hot older women.)



I'm a guy. We have double standards and if a female college professor took me under her wing it would not have been as evil as a male professor taking a female student under his wing. It's just the way the world is.

I'd rather you didn't paint all men with the same brush. Not all men think that women should not be allowed the same level of sexual exploration. If a college professor is not exploiting their position of authority, there is nothing "evil" about a relationship with a student, although it may be ill-advised.

[Cavemonster]

That didn't really address my question. You are again talking about differences in ways to mitigate risks, instead of addressing differences in the risks themselves.

Our ability to mitigate it is a facet of the risk itself. Sometimes the most important one when you're designing a system to mitigate risk.

If two risks offer relatively equal levels of harm, enough for us to worry about, one is responsive to laws and the other is not, we'll create the law for the one that's responsive.

You seem to be demanding that what we make laws against must be demonstrably greater as a risk, ignoring effectiveness completely.

Alcohol tears families apart. Alcoholism is a terrible disease. It leads to car accidents, and violence. Comparably, seatbelts just change whether you are thrown from a car or not.

When we tried a blanket ban on alcohol, it was unenforceable, people ended up just drinking less safe bootleg liquor, organized crime flourished. When we tried enforcing seatbelt laws, it worked. traffic fatalities decreased.

The difference between these two risks is the way they respond to legal avenues of mitigation, and that's the key difference that determines how we deal with them.

[tesscaline]

Our ability to mitigate it is a facet of the risk itself.I disagree.
Sometimes the most important one when you're designing a system to mitigate risk.Risk management systems do weigh how effective mitigation of a risk may be. However, they do not treat potential mitigation of the risk as part of the risk itself.

ETA: I'd just like to elaborate, for clarity, that saying potential mitigation of a risk is part of a risk is really rather circular. r=r+x is not a sound equation. And that's exactly what you're proposing. It's not logically sound. Risk, from a risk management point of view is made up of severity x likelihood.

[BenBurch]

http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.svd.se%2Fnyheter%2Finrikes%2Ffr iande-dom-om-valdssex-overklagas_5414205.svd

It wasn't forced, she contacted him, the consent was obvious and the fact that it wasn't her first time makes it obvious that she wasn't exploited in any way.

Where were the girls like this when I was 16?

[Cavemonster]

I disagree.
Risk management systems do weigh how effective mitigation of a risk may be. However, they do not treat potential mitigation of the risk as part of the risk itself.

Now you're just arguing semantics.

We're discussing why different risks are addressed in different ways. I answered that the reason is the effectiveness of different ways of addressing them. You seem to be going off onto some weird tangent that it somehow doesn't count.

If I'm walking along and really need to get somewhere in a hurry, I come to a puddle, I can jump over that, so I do, then I come to a flooded parking lot. My car is just on the other side and there's no way around in time, so I wade through the water.

What qualities of the puddle or the flooded lot made me choose to jump over one and not the other? One was jumpable, the other was not. If you don't see the effectiveness of certain action in a given situation being a reasonable basis for deciding whether to use that action, then how the hell do you make decisions on a daily basis? A magic Eight ball?

[tesscaline]

Now you're just arguing semantics.
No. I'm not. Your logic is flawed.

You're arguing that the risks involved in "kinky sex" are worse, in some way, than those involved in regular sex. I disagree with that assessment. So, I'm asking you to define what exactly about the risks involved in "kinky sex" are more inherently dangerous than the other risks 16 year olds are allowed to take already. You've been refusing to do that, and are instead focusing on how we can mitigate a particular risk. Mitigation of a risk is not part of the risk, and therefore does not answer my question at all.

[Cavemonster]

ETA: I'd just like to elaborate, for clarity, that saying potential mitigation of a risk is part of a risk is really rather circular. r=r+x is not a sound equation. And that's exactly what you're proposing. It's not logically sound. Risk, from a risk management point of view is made up of severity x likelihood.

Only when you're measuring just the level of risk. And that's a fairly one dimensional approach.

In reality, we use many tools to manage risk, and the level of effectiveness of a given tool can, should and does determine which tool we use.

Law is one tool. Education is another. Social convention is one. The marketplace is one etc. etc.

The aspect of risk you seem to be demanding has very little to do with what we're talking about, which is whether a particular tool should be used.

[tesscaline]

Only when you're measuring just the level of risk. And that's a fairly one dimensional approach.

In reality, we use many tools to manage risk, and the level of effectiveness of a given tool can, should and does determine which tool we use.

Law is one tool. Education is another. Social convention is one. The marketplace is one etc. etc.

The aspect of risk you seem to be demanding has very little to do with what we're talking about, which is whether a particular tool should be used.Whether a particular tool should be used is dependent pretty heavily upon what the level of risk is... But, you know, if you don't actually want to defend your own assertions (that we need to make legal rules about what levels of risk teenagers should be allowed to consent to) by answering the relevant questions... Say so, and I'll back off.

[Cavemonster]

No. I'm not. Your logic is flawed.

You're arguing that the risks involved in "kinky sex" are worse, in some way, than those involved in regular sex.

I'm afraid you're mistaken. I'm arguing that some particular kinks carry particular risks in addition to those involved in vanilla sex.

You've been refusing to do that, and are instead focusing on how we can mitigate a particular risk. Mitigation of a risk is not part of the risk, and therefore does not answer my question at all.

This is just maddening. Being antibiotic resistant is a quality of an infection. Noble gases have little tendency to participate in chemical reactions. that's a quality that they have. Bulletproof glass is glass that a bullet won't go through. That's a quality of the glass. And yes, the way certain risks react to attempts to mitigate them is a quality of that risk.

The way things interact with other thing is one of the essential ways that we describe them. No matter how many times you say otherwise, it's true. My microwavable pizza rolls are described by the fact that they can be heated up in the microwave. My non-microwavable plate has the quality that I can't put it in there. When I'm deciding what to have for dinner, I know I can put my pizza rolls in the microwave, but not on that plate!

How situations react to our actions on them is absolutely and essentially a quality they possess. It is in fact, among the most important qualities to consider when taking actions with them. I have no idea how to make it any clearer.

[tesscaline]

I'm afraid you're mistaken. I'm arguing that some particular kinks carry particular risks in addition to those involved in vanilla sex.I'm sorry, yes, you feel that kinky sex has MORE risk (not necessarily worse risk) than regular sex.

Still, you have yet to demonstrate a solid way to quantitatively measure this. How are you coming up with your conclusion? Especially when fetish play may not actually involve any actual intercourse?

Does fetish play have MORE risk than swimming at the beach in Australia where sharks are a very real issue (and there aren't laws against doing)? Does it have MORE risk than other "risky" things 16 year olds are allowed to do on their own? Mountain biking, for example? Rock climbing? Walking down the sidewalk? (Buses are pretty darned dangerous if they run over a curb and hit ya...)

You've basically said that it does... Prove it.


This is just maddening. Being antibiotic resistant is a quality of an infection. Noble gases have little tendency to participate in chemical reactions. that's a quality that they have. Bulletproof glass is glass that a bullet won't go through. That's a quality of the glass. And yes, the way certain risks react to attempts to mitigate them is a quality of that risk.More of R=R+X. Flawed logic. Invalid arguments.


The way things interact with other thing is one of the essential ways that we describe them. No matter how many times you say otherwise, it's true. My microwavable pizza rolls are described by the fact that they can be heated up in the microwave. My non-microwavable plate has the quality that I can't put it in there. When I'm deciding what to have for dinner, I know I can put my pizza rolls in the microwave, but not on that plate!

How situations react to our actions on them is absolutely and essentially a quality they possess. It is in fact, among the most important qualities to consider when taking actions with them. I have no idea how to make it any clearer.When taking actions, sure. But that's not the same as defining the risk itself. The risk itself is separate from how that risk is mitigated. I'm asking you to define the risks.

[Ryokan]

Where were the girls like this when I was 16?

At their 30 year old sado-masochist boyfriend's place? :D

[Cavemonster]

Does fetish play have MORE risk than swimming at the beach in Australia where sharks are a very real issue (and there aren't laws against doing)?

You keep throwing this out there. Are you aware that Australia does regularly shut down beaches when there are shark attacks?

http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/news/247990,australian-beaches-closed-after-shark-attack.html

http://sydneyemeraldcity.blogspot.com/2011/03/beach-closed.html

Are you aware that nets and massive educational outreach programs are also deployed? When risks exist, we initiate mitigation techniques that may include legal avenues as well as non legal avenues. You have been continually reasserting an incorrect premise.

That said, you want me to tell you what risks exist in locking someone in a cage? What risks exist in attaching nipple clamps at a level of tension that a person must stand on tiptoes? What risks come from choking play? What level of risk derives from scat play? Or rope bondage, or breath play? Every one of those risks is unique to the act. I can't give you numbers because:
a) Enough of it has been historically underground to be unreported
b) The variations are so numerous that they can't be all gone through
c) There is no agency keeping track

But a tiny amount of biology and physics makes clear that many fetishes, if practiced without proper safety measures, carry risks.

Here's a very pro BDSM site that outlines the risks of a number of kinds of play. (Of course, not safe for work)

http://www.frugaldomme.com/dangers/default.htm

Even something so simple as face slapping comes with risk:
"Faces are a different matter. They are NOT designed to tolerate trauma. The facial organs and tissues of the face are delicate and easily damaged. Innocent child's play commonly results in serious facial injuries. In even the skilled trained hands of a practiced "slapper", the chance of a minimally misplaced blow causing damage to the eyes or facial nerves is significant. Heavy facial slaps could indeed damage eyes, nerves, joints, neck, and even brain. Lips are particularly susceptible to damage: they split easily. The skin over the cheekbone is easily torn. In my days as an ER doc I sewed up many a slapped induced facial laceration."
(Quote from Dr. Joe in HSX 200 on CompuServe in a message thread on face slapping.)


Here's a page on caning, one of the games, mentioned in the OP.
http://www.frugaldomme.com/dangers/dangers7.htm#canes%20and

Did the 16 year old girl know where her Sciatic nerve was? Did her dom? can you expect that she knew enough to research what nerves might be near her butt and make sure her dom knew about them? Or how the cane was disninfected and stored?

Any kind of clip or clamp cuts off the blood to the clamped area. If is lasts too long, it could result in tissue damage.

Go down the list and most major kinks carry risks of serious health damage. More importantly, these risks are often not intuitive, and the procedure to minimize these risks is not intuitive either. Access to proper safety information isn't available through mainstream channels, and really only the internet is available, or information imparted directly through a play partner.

Meanwhile, the most basic risks for regular sex, while more lifechanging, unquestionably, we hammer them into kids heads and make the tools and knowledge to have safe sex available everywhere.

I'm sure you're going to insist again on the strawman that I must show all BDSM practices to be more dangerous than vanilla sex, even though I've already stated that I simply think they are dangerous enough to be mitigated.

I don't expect a 16 year old to know where her sciatic nerve is, or to know that her partner should know as well. I do think it's reasonable for her to know that they should use a rubber. That's the difference. I don't think an 18 year old is magically guaranteed to handle it well either, but an 18 year old is generally ready to live away from home and make higher level decisions. They've been able to be in the works force for a few years. they've been driving for a few years etc etc.

[23_Tauri]

Again, as I've pointed out so many times before. Show me the horse ranch that puts kids up on horses without training or safety equipment. Without a trained instructor and first aid kits nearby, and I'll show you a lawsuit.
But we're not talking horse ranches. Parents buy ponies for their kids all the time. My folks put me on top of an absolute tearaway of a Shetland pony for the first time when I was just 6 years old. I fell off my pony constantly from that age onwards. I learnt that the ground was hard, particularly in winter, but that you don't make fuss but pick yourself up and get straight back on again. A great lesson in life.

We're too soft on kids these days.

ETA: Just read IA's response:
No, you made an observation about one thing the couple in question are reported to have done, and that it carried the risk of her nipple/s being ripped off that was dependent on, "skill, knowledge and concentration to keep that from happening," and that, "Outside of sex, we don't allow minors to take on that level of risk." You did not add any qualifier of the sort you are now introducing, so my observation about the equal or greater risk inherent in horse riding is perfectly valid (quite apart from the fact that in my country, someone learning to ride a horse may very well not be in the sort of environment you regard as mandatory).

You want to put those goal-posts back where they were?
Here yer go, IA, this thread needs pix: http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p133/debs711/goalposts.gif

As in England, I'm pretty sure you don't need a licence to put your child on a pony in Sweden either. ;)

[Cavemonster]

But we're not talking horse ranches. Parents buy ponies for their kids all the time. My folks put me on top of an absolute tearaway of a Shetland pony for the first time when I was just 6 years old. I fell off my pony constantly from that age onwards. I learnt that the ground was hard, particularly in winter, but that you don't make fuss but pick yourself up and get straight back on again. A great lesson in life.

We're too soft on kids these days.

No offense, but a pony is not a horse.
Edit: Talk about moving goal posts! You lowered it by three feet!


The speed and distance from the ground on a shetland pony isn't significantly different from a bicycle. The pony is probably safer, since you're not riding in the road (if you care about it's hooves) As hard as the winter ground is, I'm sure you preferred it to asphalt. And there aren't cars going past.

And even with all that, I highly doubt your parents just pointed you at the pony and set you off. I'll bet that either one of them had some experience with ponies and gave you a lesson, or they had someone who did know about ponies out there to do the same.

[23_Tauri]

No offense, but a pony is not a horse.
Edit: Talk about moving goal posts! You lowered it by three feet!

That really is splitting hairs. A pony is a horse. A small horse suitable for a six year old. You wouldn't put a 6 year old on hunter, but when you're six it's a long way down from the top of a Shetland to a frozen ploughed field.

The speed and distance from the ground on a shetland pony isn't significantly different from a bicycle. The pony is probably safer, since you're not riding in the road (if you care about it's hooves) As hard as the winter ground is, I'm sure you preferred it to asphalt. And there aren't cars going past.
IIRC, my Shetland was between 10 and 11 hands high (40 - 44"). That's a lot higher than a bike. And he went a lot faster than a bike. He had a nasty nip too.

When I was - ooh - 12? - I graduated to a 14.2 (58") bay hunter. That's a lot higher than a 12 year old's bicycle.

The point is, we allow parents to care for their children and raise them without state interference, except in the most extreme circumstances when it's obvious the child is in serious danger. At least we do in the UK. That is something I welcome.

And even with all that, I highly doubt your parents just pointed you at the pony and set you off. I'll bet that either one of them had some experience with ponies and gave you a lesson, or they had someone who did know about ponies out there to do the same.
That's a fair point. But we still don't know how experienced the guy in the OP was at the time of the incident. That's where we're struggling a bit.

[JWideman]

Quick, everyone: list all your kinks, whether or not you see them as kinks, and be prepared to defend them. Yes, "large breasts" count as a kink.
Seriously, human sexuality is so varied that everyone has a kink. Everyone. There are no exceptions, unless you don't have a sex drive, which is itself a sexual deviation. You might think 16 is a bit young to be into BDSM, but I've known women (in their 20s and 30s) who said they wanted to be subs since they discovered boys. It takes time for some folks to get up the courage, but that doesn't mean it's only something that people get into well into adulthood.

[Ryokan]

I don't expect a 16 year old to know where her sciatic nerve is, or to know that her partner should know as well.

In that case, I guess your position should be that no one should take part in such activities..

[tesscaline]

I dont know where you grew up but in Australia where I grew up you didn't have any of those requirements to swim in the surf, complete with riptides and sharks or play in the bush with cliffs and our many forms of poinonous snakes. Ski slopes? Kids ski anywhere there is a hill with white stuff on it. And sled too. Climbing trees never required a class or a certification.


You keep throwing this out there. Are you aware that Australia does regularly shut down beaches when there are shark attacks?
<snip> You have been continually reasserting an incorrect premise.No, I haven't.
I dont know where you grew up but in Australia where I grew up you didn't have any of those requirements to swim in the surf, complete with riptides and sharks or play in the bush with cliffs and our many forms of poinonous snakes. Ski slopes? Kids ski anywhere there is a hill with white stuff on it. And sled too. Climbing trees never required a class or a certification.



That said, you want me to tell you what risks exist in locking someone in a cage? What risks exist in attaching nipple clamps at a level of tension that a person must stand on tiptoes? What risks come from choking play? What level of risk derives from scat play? Or rope bondage, or breath play? No... That's not the question I asked. How are these things MORE dangerous, MORE risky, than other risks we already take every day?

Meanwhile, the most basic risks for regular sex, while more lifechanging, unquestionably, Death is most certainly life changing... And that's a most basic risk for regular sex. So... How is any of the kinky stuff more risky than death? Hm?

we hammer them into kids heads and make the tools and knowledge to have safe sex available everywhere.And by your own statements, that still doesn't work. It doesn't even work for adults. So, again, how is any of the kinky stuff more risky? So much more risky that we have to outlaw it for "less mature" people?

I'm sure you're going to insist again on the strawman that I must show all BDSM practices to be more dangerous than vanilla sex, even though I've already stated that I simply think they are dangerous enough to be mitigated.Thing is, what do you think they should be mitigated by? You've mentioned previously that you don't think minors should be able to consent to the more extreme stuff. Can you provide a rational risk management analysis to support that position?

I don't expect a 16 year old to know where her sciatic nerve is, or to know that her partner should know as well. I do think it's reasonable for her to know that they should use a rubber. That's the difference. I don't think an 18 year old is magically guaranteed to handle it well either, but an 18 year old is generally ready to live away from home and make higher level decisions. They've been able to be in the works force for a few years. they've been driving for a few years etc etc.Wow... You have a lot more faith in 18 year olds than I do... All that, based on the magic number 18. Why not 17 and 3/4? Or 17 and 7/8? Or 17 and 11/12? Given the issues we've seen with college alcoholism, and college age abortion/pregnancy rates, and college age STD rates... Yeah they're not much more responsible at 18 than they are at 16.

You've still failed to provide any evidence that 18 is even anything other than some arbitrary mark dictated by societal norms (and not even global ones, at that). Heck, the science you yourself cited states the brain is not fully matured until the mid 20's. So why 18? What's so special about 18? Other than that it's already used as a cut off for so many things and makes a convenient catch all?

[Cavemonster]

No, I haven't.

How, exactly, is swimming in shark infested waters (which one can do with no regulation or adult present) any less dangerous

Does fetish play have MORE risk than swimming at the beach in Australia where sharks are a very real issue (and there aren't laws against doing)?

Yes, you have. And I'm absolutely done with you.

[tesscaline]

Yes, you have. And I'm absolutely done with you.You seem to think your examples of gov't controlled beaches are the end all be all of swimming in the ocean, and that closing a beach after a shark attack is preventing people from swimming alongside sharks... Which, if that were the case, how did the shark attack happen?

Your logic is flawed. You're failing to take into account anything outside your own personal immediate view and are, as such, cutting yourself off at the knees.

[23_Tauri]

Quick, everyone: list all your kinks, whether or not you see them as kinks, and be prepared to defend them.
Ponies.

And withstanding hard knocks.




I blame my parents.... ;)

[Cavemonster]

In that case, I guess your position should be that no one should take part in such activities..

One way to learn about proper safety procedure is to attend a munch, a meeting of like-minded individuals.
People over 18 can go to a munch, to meet others in a friendly, non-charged atmosphere. Most of these meetings have an age limit of 18 (in some cases 21).

This is just one of the advantages that a legal adult has over a 16 year old.

[not daSkeptic]

Yes, you have. And I'm absolutely done with you.

Tesscaline has put forth a decent question. How are these things more risky than other activities in which 16-year-olds are permitted to engage?

[23_Tauri]

Wow... You have a lot more faith in 18 year olds than I do... All that, based on the magic number 18. Why not 17 and 3/4? Or 17 and 7/8? Or 17 and 11/12? Given the issues we've seen with college alcoholism, and college age abortion/pregnancy rates, and college age STD rates... Yeah they're not much more responsible at 18 than they are at 16.

You've still failed to provide any evidence that 18 is even anything other than some arbitrary mark dictated by societal norms (and not even global ones, at that). Heck, the science you yourself cited states the brain is not fully matured until the mid 20's. So why 18? What's so special about 18? Other than that it's already used as a cut off for so many things and makes a convenient catch all?
Yes, and I think this is the point. I think that one of the fews things that you and cavemonster would agree on is that teenagers mature at decidedly different rates. One 16 year old might be very capable of making rational decisions with big implications, whilst there might be some 18 year olds I wouldn't trust to make me a cup of coffee.

And this is exactly why scenarios like that in the OP are not a matter for the law but for parents. No one knows their kids like parents do. The 30 year old man did nothing wrong by having consensual kinky sex with this 16 year old girl. Going to the authorities is absolutely the wrong reaction for a parent to make, IMO. It suggests to me that it's the parents that can't handle the situation, not the girl and her (older) lover, who seem to me to be the "sane and intelligent" ones in this story.

I don't have any children but do have teenage nephews and know them and their girlfriends. For sure 16 year olds aren't fully fledged adults, but nor are they children. Therefore they deserve to have responsibilities but could still benefit from some guidance where needed. If I'd been the mother in the OP then yeah I would have had a eye-brow raising moment too (who wouldn't?), but once I'd taken a deep breath I would not have called the police but said "Uh huh, ok honey, well let's invite him round for a coffee so we can all meet each other, then everything will be fine".

[tesscaline]

Yes, and I think this is the point. I think that one of the fews things that you and cavemonster would agree on is that teenagers mature at decidedly different rates. One 16 year old might be very capable of making rational decisions with big implications, whilst there might be some 18 year olds I wouldn't trust to make me a cup of coffee.Yup. I would agree with that entirely. I might even broaden it to extend to those well past the cusp of adulthood -- there are 45 year olds I wouldn't trust to make me coffee.

And this is exactly why scenarios like that in the OP are not a matter for the law but for parents. No one knows their kids like parents do. The 30 year old man did nothing wrong by having consensual kinky sex with this 16 year old girl. Going to the authorities is absolutely the wrong reaction for a parent to make, IMO. It suggests to me that it's the parents that can't handle the situation, not the girl and her (older) lover, who seem to me to be the "sane and intelligent" ones in this story.

I don't have any children but do have teenage nephews and know them and their girlfriends. For sure 16 year olds aren't fully fledged adults, but nor are they children. Therefore they deserve to have responsibilities but could still benefit from some guidance where needed. If I'd been the mother in the OP then yeah I would have had a eye-brow raising moment too (who wouldn't?), but once I'd taken a deep breath I would not have called the police but said "Uh huh, ok honey, well let's invite him round for a coffee so we can all meet each other, then everything will be fine".More agreement. I don't feel the law needs to be involved here at all. That the law was involved screams of bad parenting. The whole thing could likely have been resolved over a quiet cup of tea, with minimal discomfort for all parties involved, and should have been too.

[Cavemonster]

Tesscaline has put forth a decent question. How are these things more risky than other activities in which 16-year-olds are permitted to engage?

Tescaline has also refuse to argue honestly.

We can't regulate away every risk a kid might take, and we can't criminalize kids themselves for most actions. What we do is put the burden on the adults in their life. If their parents knowingly let them engage in high risk behaviors, they can face legal troubles.

If they are with any other adult who is facilitating what they're doing we tend to hold them responsible.

As for other risky behaviors,
Hunting
http://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,1607,7-153-10363_14518-32244--,00.html

Soccer
http://sudburysoccer.org/First_Aid

Bike riding
http://www.helmets.org/mandator.htm

Or for anything else, just look at state level child endangerment law.
http://www.shouselaw.com/domestic-violence273a.html

And so on. Whenever a minor takes risks with an adult, generally some level of law is in place to minimize those risks, whether it's national, state or local.

The question isn't about these risks being necessarily greater, but being unmanaged. If your kid is training to be a gymnast, her coach is trained in first aid, by regulation. A first aid kit is on hand. They'll have liability insurance that covers her medical bills if something goes wrong. Their equipment will have been inspected. Your kid will be trained in proper safe use of this equipment, and if not, then the teacher may be guilty of criminal negligence. There are all these regulations in place to prevent injury, and to make sure that if an accident does happen, it's handled in a way that minimizes damage as much as possible.

So I'm not saying that BDSM is some great exception. I'm saying that some BDSM practices that carry risks for minors should be regulated, just like we regulate all those other practices. And those regulations often include prohibitions when adequate safety measures aren't viable. In Michigan, a kid under 17 can't go off hunting by himself.

[23_Tauri]

Yup. I would agree with that entirely. I might even broaden it to extend to those well past the cusp of adulthood -- there are 45 year olds I wouldn't trust to make me coffee.

More agreement. I don't feel the law needs to be involved here at all. That the law was involved screams of bad parenting. The whole thing could likely have been resolved over a quiet cup of tea, with minimal discomfort for all parties involved, and should have been too.
One final point. I would have invited my daughter's new friend around for tea but if he'd turned out to be a good Dom there's a strong chance I would have stolen him, if he'd been willing to take on cougars. Now that my daughter might have something to say about! :eek:

As it is, I think any parent who couldn't deal with the scenario in the OP without resorting to the law demonstrates a lack of capability in carrying out their parental responsibilities.

[JFrankA]

Sorry I'm late to the party. Had to take care of some personal stuff. I hate it when a good BDSM thread is going on and I don't have time to participate or read the entire thing. Did read the OP and skimmed through it though.


<snip> Whenever a minor takes risks with an adult, generally some level of law is in place to minimize those risks, whether it's national, state or local.

The question isn't about these risks being necessarily greater, but being unmanaged. If your kid is training to be a gymnast, her coach is trained in first aid, by regulation. A first aid kit is on hand. They'll have liability insurance that covers her medical bills if something goes wrong. Their equipment will have been inspected. Your kid will be trained in proper safe use of this equipment, and if not, then the teacher may be guilty of criminal negligence. There are all these regulations in place to prevent injury, and to make sure that if an accident does happen, it's handled in a way that minimizes damage as much as possible.

So I'm not saying that BDSM is some great exception. I'm saying that some BDSM practices that carry risks for minors should be regulated, just like we regulate all those other practices. And those regulations often include prohibitions when adequate safety measures aren't viable. In Michigan, a kid under 17 can't go off hunting by himself.

Funny BDSM usually can't be done by oneself, either.

The legal question in this case doesn't matter because both parties were of consensual age. IMHO, if the age of consent was 15 here, and my son or daughter wanted to explore their BDSM side, I'd much rather prefer them to go to a more experienced Dom or sub, i.e. older.

[Information Analyst]

That's just dependent on wearing your goggles. It doesn't take much skill, and it's pretty common sense.
Sure, but it's also dependent on other players being aware if someone has - for whatever reason - removed their face mask/goggles.

[Information Analyst]

But we're not talking horse ranches. Parents buy ponies for their kids all the time. My folks put me on top of an absolute tearaway of a Shetland pony for the first time when I was just 6 years old. I fell off my pony constantly from that age onwards. I learnt that the ground was hard, particularly in winter, but that you don't make fuss but pick yourself up and get straight back on again. A great lesson in life.
I just wasn't keen on the mucking out, and missing Saturday morning kids' TV.

ETA: Just read IA's response:

Here yer go, IA, this thread needs pix: http://i127.photobucket.com/albums/p133/debs711/goalposts.gif

LOL! In a nutshell....

[23_Tauri]

I just wasn't keen on the mucking out, and missing Saturday morning kids' TV.
I hated mucking out. :mad: Yeah, and Tiswas was on at that time, too. :(

[Ivor the Engineer]

That fits entirely outside a relationship in which both parties thoroughly discussed which activities were to take place, met up and engaged in those specific activities.

The emotional impact of consensual BDSM is in no way related to rape.

I completely agree, and I was not trying to equate consensual BDSM with rape. I was thinking more from the point of view of a person asked to judge whether a crime had been committed if the only thing different was that the young woman had complained about her treatment after the fact. How much physical abuse should a 16 year old person be able to sign up for?

Has anyone brought up the Stanford Prison Experiment (http://www.prisonexp.org/)? That was role play, everyone signed up to take part and the prisoners and guards were of a similar age to each other. It got totally out of control even though the prisoners could ask to leave at any time. Would such an experiment be considered ethical today?

[Information Analyst]

I hated mucking out. :mad: Yeah, and Tiswas was on at that time, too. :(
Indeed, watching someone getting gunked was a lot better than shovelling it!

[jiggeryqua]

Has anyone brought up the Stanford Prison Experiment (http://www.prisonexp.org/)? That was role play, everyone signed up to take part and the prisoners and guards were of a similar age to each other. It got totally out of control even though the prisoners could ask to leave at any time. Would such an experiment be considered ethical today?

I suppose nobody brought up Stanford because it isn't really applicable. Does BDSM play get 'totally out of control' in that way on a regular basis? Not in my experience, nor that of the other experienced posters here. Nor in the gutter press, where you'd perhaps expect to see the occasional anomaly inflated to become an epidemic of deadly perverts.

She gave legal consent, she is of legal age - perhaps you think the bar should be set higher, for specific sorts of sexuality. That was legally the case for homosexuality in the UK for a while, and may still be elsewhere. Of course, I'm not arguing for a blanket acceptance of all forms of sexuality - proponents of bestiality can fight their own battle - but I am curious how you feel about homosexuality. At the risk of sparking an entirely different debate, I understand man-on-man action is inherently riskier than straight sex. Even more, I'd wager, than the kinky stuff. Perhaps we need a sliding scale - at what age are homosexual submissive males able to consent to a sound thrashing, would you say?

I was thinking more from the point of view of a person asked to judge whether a crime had been committed if the only thing different was that the young woman had complained about her treatment after the fact.

Her mother complained. Or did I miss the post where we moved from discussing the OP to just inventing scenarios we can object to and implying they have some relevance to the OP?


How much physical abuse should a 16 year old person be able to sign up for?

As soon as they sign up for it, it isn't abuse.

[Arcade22]

Damn! I lost my virginity the day after my 18th birthday to a 38 year-old. For years I seen it as an immensely enoyable and formative experience, but now I see that she was an evil monster and that I'm actually scarred for life!

Oh, hang on, I was legal +1/732 day/s*, and there was no spanking....

* Depending on standard accepted.

See, when it's a older woman on a younger guy then i cannot be wrong! It only becomes wrong when someone noticeable older penetrates someone younger, and since women generally don't have penises it can't be immoral and it's actually quite hot!

The older woman would only be showing the guy the way of the world but if an older man had sex with someone younger they would always be using them for their own selfish sexual desires without caring about the younger partners emotions!

Such cases.

I'm a guy. We have double standards and if a female college professor took me under her wing it would not have been as evil as a male professor taking a female student under his wing. It's just the way the world is.

Shouldn't you edit this last bit so that it correctly reads: "This is my own personal, biased and irrational view about age-differences in relationships"?

I'm still waiting on an explanation on how one would make a meaningful distinction between anal sex, which can be very painful and risky depending on how rough and/or inexperienced one is, and normal BDSM. If anal sex with someone under 18 would be prohibited then any guy-on-guy action would be terribly lame...

[BenBurch]

At their 30 year old sado-masochist boyfriend's place? :D

Bastards!

[Jekyll's Guest]

The term 'ignorance breeds fear' certainly seems to apply to several posters here.

There are women who are only sexually satisfied when dominated/and or in some degree of pain. I know it blows some people's gaskets, and the first thought is "Why they MUST be confused or in the grip of an evil Svengali type", but that's just projection.

I don't care if your kink is smearing poop on a nazi uniform, I don't care if it makes me personally sick to my stomach, if there is no victim then have at it. Oh and for there to be a victim someone has to feel victimized, no victims by proxy.

[JWideman]

So I'm not saying that BDSM is some great exception. I'm saying that some BDSM practices that carry risks for minors should be regulated, just like we regulate all those other practices. And those regulations often include prohibitions when adequate safety measures aren't viable. In Michigan, a kid under 17 can't go off hunting by himself.

But he can operate a heavy piece of machinery that is known to be dangerous to himself and others without adult supervision. Yes, we regulate driving, but we still allow 16 year olds to drive by themselves despite knowing that they lack the experience and decision-making ability of adults. We don't even freak out about the idea when a kid gets in an accident.


The legal question in this case doesn't matter because both parties were of consensual age. IMHO, if the age of consent was 15 here, and my son or daughter wanted to explore their BDSM side, I'd much rather prefer them to go to a more experienced Dom or sub, i.e. older.

Indeed. If she was doing this with another teenager, I'd feel very different about it.

I completely agree, and I was not trying to equate consensual BDSM with rape. I was thinking more from the point of view of a person asked to judge whether a crime had been committed if the only thing different was that the young woman had complained about her treatment after the fact. How much physical abuse should a 16 year old person be able to sign up for?


I'd say as much as an experienced dom thinks she can handle. And that's the thing: we're not talking about a 16 year old that went skydiving with other brainless teenagers.

[Ivor the Engineer]

But he can operate a heavy piece of machinery that is known to be dangerous to himself and others without adult supervision. Yes, we regulate driving, but we still allow 16 year olds to drive by themselves despite knowing that they lack the experience and decision-making ability of adults. We don't even freak out about the idea when a kid gets in an accident.

You may not. The older I get the more I like the idea of GPS/location-based speed limiters being mandatory.

Indeed. If she was doing this with another teenager, I'd feel very different about it.

Why?

I'd say as much as an experienced dom thinks she can handle. And that's the thing: we're not talking about a 16 year old that went skydiving with other brainless teenagers.

I guess you have more faith in human nature than I do.

[tesscaline]

One final point. I would have invited my daughter's new friend around for tea but if he'd turned out to be a good Dom there's a strong chance I would have stolen him, if he'd been willing to take on cougars. Now that my daughter might have something to say about! :eek:LOL

As it is, I think any parent who couldn't deal with the scenario in the OP without resorting to the law demonstrates a lack of capability in carrying out their parental responsibilities.I quite agree.

[tesscaline]

Tescaline has also refuse to argue honestly.You're the one refusing to answer straight forward questions, and moving goal posts instead...

But hey, if calling you out on faulty logic is "dishonest" so be it.

Your post STILL fails to answer the question posed.

[JWideman]

You may not. The older I get the more I like the idea of GPS/location-based speed limiters being mandatory.



Why? (feel different if the dom was a teenager)



I guess you have more faith in human nature than I do.

1. But do you think we should raise the driving age, or require under-18 drivers to be with an adult? More importantly, do most people think this? It would seem otherwise.

2. Being a dom requires a lot of maturity. It's not about beating someone up to get off, it's about pushing someone to their limits. It's rare than a young man in his 20s can handle it. A teenaged boy would be rarer still.

3. Nonsequitor. What does human nature or my faith in it have to do with it? This dom hung her from her nipples and she didn't suffer serious injury. Either he knows what he's doing, or she's lucky as hell.

[Ivor the Engineer]

I suppose nobody brought up Stanford because it isn't really applicable. Does BDSM play get 'totally out of control' in that way on a regular basis? Not in my experience, nor that of the other experienced posters here. Nor in the gutter press, where you'd perhaps expect to see the occasional anomaly inflated to become an epidemic of deadly perverts.

Most child abuse and rape isn't reported either. I don't think we can conclude that just because our personal experiences do not include unfortunate events and/or such events are not reported in the press very often that such events don't occur far more frequently.

Having no direct experience of BDSM I have some questions:

Do safe words get used much?

How does the dom know how far and long to go?

Is the dom just carrying out the pre-specified orders of the sub, or does the dom have flexibility in the type and degree of punishments he or she inflicts?

She gave legal consent, she is of legal age - perhaps you think the bar should be set higher, for specific sorts of sexuality. That was legally the case for homosexuality in the UK for a while, and may still be elsewhere. Of course, I'm not arguing for a blanket acceptance of all forms of sexuality - proponents of bestiality can fight their own battle - but I am curious how you feel about homosexuality. At the risk of sparking an entirely different debate, I understand man-on-man action is inherently riskier than straight sex. Even more, I'd wager, than the kinky stuff. Perhaps we need a sliding scale - at what age are homosexual submissive males able to consent to a sound thrashing, would you say?

I posted earlier that I think that both the absolute and relative ages of both partners should be taken into account, with the relative age becoming less important as the age of the youngest partner increases. I also think sexual behaviour could be split up into broad categories with different repercussions for the older partner if a complaint is made by either the younger partner or their legal guardian.

Her mother complained. Or did I miss the post where we moved from discussing the OP to just inventing scenarios we can object to and implying they have some relevance to the OP?

The relevance is the belief that "she was asking for it" many people hold when women complain after the fact that a partner went too far. If another 16 year old engaged in exactly the same behaviour as this woman did but complained afterwards about the bruising and/or any other injuries, should she just chalk it up to experience?

As soon as they sign up for it, it isn't abuse.

I don't think it's as simple as that.

[Jekyll's Guest]

This dom hung her from her nipples and she didn't suffer serious injury. Either he knows what he's doing, or she's lucky as hell.

Actually she's had tin nipples ever since Korea.

/Lloyd Bridges.

[tesscaline]

3. Nonsequitor. What does human nature or my faith in it have to do with it? This dom hung her from her nipples and she didn't suffer serious injury. Either he knows what he's doing, or she's lucky as hell.Point of clarification, he didn't hang her from her nipples. He simply restrained her by her nipples in an uncomfortable tip-toe position. That's not quite hanging, as she could still touch the floor. Still dangerous, if there were not safeties in place for if she lost her footing, but not quite the same as being hung by one's nipples :)

[Ivor the Engineer]

1. But do you think we should raise the driving age, or require under-18 drivers to be with an adult? More importantly, do most people think this? It would seem otherwise.

I think a reasonable case could be made for the legal driving age to be raised, or for other measures to mange the risks associated with human factors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_factors).

2. Being a dom requires a lot of maturity. It's not about beating someone up to get off, it's about pushing someone to their limits. It's rare than a young man in his 20s can handle it. A teenaged boy would be rarer still.

Yet a teenage girl can handle being a sub? It would seem reasonable to assume a similar level of maturity would be required from both participants in a role-playing sexual fantasy.

3. Nonsequitor. What does human nature or my faith in it have to do with it? This dom hung her from her nipples and she didn't suffer serious injury. Either he knows what he's doing, or she's lucky as hell.

If the role-play is "on the edge" then I think it's only a matter of time before the line is crossed.

[tesscaline]

Yet a teenage girl can handle being a sub? It would seem reasonable to assume a similar level of maturity would be required from both participants in a role-playing sexual fantasy.You assume it's role-play. Why?

If the role-play is "on the edge" then I think it's only a matter of time before the line is crossed.Why? What line, exactly? What evidence do you have of the inevitability of it's being crossed?

[Jekyll's Guest]

If the role-play is "on the edge" then I think it's only a matter of time before the line is crossed.

Warning: slipper slope ahead!

[JFrankA]

Yet a teenage girl can handle being a sub? It would seem reasonable to assume a similar level of maturity would be required from both participants in a role-playing sexual fantasy.

Could a teen-age boy handle being a football hero? Could a sixteen year old handle driving a sports car? Could a teenager handle an "R" rated movie? Could a teen-ager handle one beer? Could a teen-ager handle a violent video game?

All these answers are the same: depends on the teen-ager, their experiences and guide in life and their guides through the particular thing they are exploring.

Having no direct experience of BDSM I have some questions:

I'll be happy to answer these questions based on my experiences as a Dom.

Do safe words get used much?

At first, when the relationship is being built, and as a couple get to know one another, the answer is yes. But it is a learning process. It would be the same thing as when a couple has vanilla sex with each other for the first few times and one person says "No, I don't like my ear being licked", for example.

As the couple get to know one another and understand each other and how they "tick" the safe word is used less and less.
How does the dom know how far and long to go?

Is the dom just carrying out the pre-specified orders of the sub, or does the dom have flexibility in the type and degree of punishments he or she inflicts?

Hey!!!! Capitalize that "D" when you say "Dom"!!!!!! :D

That would depend on the sub, the situation, the limits, the fantasy involved.

For example, my girlfriend loves being spanked, but hates any kind of foot play. So no matter how much I "punish" her, I would never ever ever touch her feet. Even if we have vanilla sex, even though I am the Dom, I wouldn't even come close to touching her feet, ever.

I explain the Dom/sub relationship like this:

We are both in a car, both going to the same location together. I am driving but she holds the map. I know the route and she guides me what streets to take. However, I have the power to drive off the map and follow a road she doesn't expect. The trade off having this ability to drive off the map is that she trusts me that I know where I am going, I know the streets I'm going down, I am still heading in the right direction and most of all, I am still able to get us to our destination safely.

Because if I do anything that hurts the car, or I get lost, etc, neither one of us gets to our destination and we both suffer.

[bookitty]

One final point. I would have invited my daughter's new friend around for tea but if he'd turned out to be a good Dom there's a strong chance I would have stolen him, if he'd been willing to take on cougars. Now that my daughter might have something to say about! :eek:

As it is, I think any parent who couldn't deal with the scenario in the OP without resorting to the law demonstrates a lack of capability in carrying out their parental responsibilities.

I think that might mess up a 16 year old more than acting out a well-planned and scripted sexual fantasy. :D

If I were to find out that my niece had engaged in BDSM sex that left bruises and welts, my first reaction would be extremely emotional. Someone physically harmed her, it would take a few moments for the "because she wanted them to" aspects to sink in.

After I calmed down, we could go forward with damage control, making sure she was informed, making sure she fully understood consent, and making sure that she was finding partners who would respect her boundaries, etc. At that point it's just advanced sex ed.

But, I have the advantage of knowing several pro doms. It's not my scene but it's not particularly scary. A parent who doesn't have this info could fill in the blanks with some pretty terrifying mental imagery. Calling the police would be a natural reaction to thinking your daughter had been harmed by a violent predator. Until they understand what the relationship involved, it would be difficult for them to understand that this wasn't the case.

[bookitty]

I completely agree, and I was not trying to equate consensual BDSM with rape. I was thinking more from the point of view of a person asked to judge whether a crime had been committed if the only thing different was that the young woman had complained about her treatment after the fact. How much physical abuse should a 16 year old person be able to sign up for?

Has anyone brought up the Stanford Prison Experiment (http://www.prisonexp.org/)? That was role play, everyone signed up to take part and the prisoners and guards were of a similar age to each other. It got totally out of control even though the prisoners could ask to leave at any time. Would such an experiment be considered ethical today?

If the young girl had complained after the fact, this would be an entirely different news story. It would also mean that the Dom had done something wrong. Either by pushing her boundaries too far or not recognizing unspoken reluctance. Since the girl did not complain, we can assume this was not the case.

If you're trying to say that the girl was in danger of acts beyond her boundaries, I will agree. Contacting a BDSM partner through the internet is risky behavior. I'd really rather that 16 year-olds didn't make a habit of that. But, in this specific case, the risk was rewarded with satisfactory sex play. It may not be what I would want for my kid but no one needs to be punished for it.

[Ivor the Engineer]

You assume it's role-play. Why?

My conversation with a prostitute who offers BDSM services.

For example, she was once asked by a client to kick him in the head. She (sensibly) refused. If she had agreed to kick him in the head and it resulted in his death or serious injury, is the fact he asked her to do it a valid defence?

Why? What line, exactly? What evidence do you have of the inevitability of it's being crossed?

In general pain is a warning signal that physical damage is close to or actually being inflicted on the body. Those that get pleasure from experiencing pain are playing at the edge where a little bit more force or an unexpected movement could result in greater injury than one or both parties wanted to inflict. I don't think human judgement is so fine that the line between pleasurable pain and unpleasant pain is never crossed.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Warning: slipper slope ahead!

Well at least we know what your kink is now.

:)

[Kilgore Trout]

How does the dom know how far and long to go?Some use a system of something akin to traffic lights. Saying "green" means the situation or sensation is very much wanted. "Yellow" may indicate it's not going in the right direction, but don't stop. "Red" being a safeword and stop now, something's gone wrong; we need to talk.
I'll be happy to answer these questions based on my experiences as a Dom.Well said and I wanted to chime in but the length of this thread got a bit long for my time available so I was glad to see I didn't have to add much.

But I will expound a little to others that limits could even be presented as a list, with things someone enjoys, will do it but not particularly interested, things someone really doesn't want to but will, and things that are just off-limits, etc etc.

Actual contracts may be a part of it, too. In a way, this may have legal ramifications or at least put a bruise in context if the bruised has signed something that states they're aware and consenting.

I'd maybe like to add that the passenger in your car has the safety of being able to say "This is my stop, I'll get out now, thanks."

[tesscaline]

My conversation with a prostitute who offers BDSM services.

Are you extrapolating that single conversation to extend to the entirety of the BDSM community?

[Ivor the Engineer]

Are you extrapolating that single conversation to extend to the entirety of the BDSM community?

No and I see no reason for your question other than to delay or avoid answering mine.

[23_Tauri]

Indeed. If she was doing this with another teenager, I'd feel very different about it.

Why?
See my post #65. Because as a 30 year old he's more likely than a 16 year old boy to have experience of rope play etc. and know what he's doing. With the caveat that I would want to meet the man myself to find out for myself his experience as a Dom. No, not the way you're thinking, Tesscaline! :D

[23_Tauri]

I would have invited my daughter's new friend around for tea but if he'd turned out to be a good Dom there's a strong chance I would have stolen him
I think that might mess up a 16 year old more than acting out a well-planned and scripted sexual fantasy. :D
I agree. I was tongue in cheek, I promise. I wouldn't steal my daughter's boyfriend.

Or at least, I damn well hope I wouldn't!

But, I have the advantage of knowing several pro doms.
Yes, it does help in having a more level headed response and deeper understanding of the issue. :)

It's not my scene but it's not particularly scary. A parent who doesn't have this info could fill in the blanks with some pretty terrifying mental imagery. Calling the police would be a natural reaction to thinking your daughter had been harmed by a violent predator. Until they understand what the relationship involved, it would be difficult for them to understand that this wasn't the case.
Yes, I agree with this. But surely the mother taking the decision not to understand means she shirks her responsibility as a good parent? She clearly doesn't trust her daughter enough to believe her when she said that it was consensual and she was happy. Nor did she take this opportunity to face her own ignorance and prejudice and "learn something today". That's the tragedy IMO.

[bookitty]

I agree. I was tongue in cheek, I promise. I wouldn't steal my daughter's boyfriend.

Or at least, I damn well hope I wouldn't!


Yes, it does help in having a more level headed response and deeper understanding of the issue. :)


Sad, but true. But surely the mother taking the decision not to understand means she shirks her responsibility as a good parent? She clearly doesn't trust her daughter enough to believe her when she said that it was consensual and she was happy. Nor did she take this opportunity to face her own ignorance and prejudice and "learn something today". That's the tragedy IMO.

Maybe not. All we know is that in the moment she called the police. What conversations she has had with her daughter since are unknown. She may very well have gotten over the initial shock and is now more accepting.

[23_Tauri]

No and I see no reason for your question other than to delay or avoid answering mine.
So it's a single anecdote?

[23_Tauri]

Maybe not. All we know is that in the moment she called the police. What conversations she has had with her daughter since are unknown. She may very well have gotten over the initial shock and is now more accepting.
True. But it's too late for the guy. :( Perhaps the mother will stand up in the Hovrätt and tell the prosecutor that she now supports the defendant and doesn't want to see him punished. Perhaps....

[23_Tauri]

I posted earlier that I think that both the absolute and relative ages of both partners should be taken into account, with the relative age becoming less important as the age of the youngest partner increases.
Are you saying that age difference should be a barrier to who we choose as a sexual partner? I think that's unethical. Personally speaking, I think I would have had a much better start to adult life if I had a met and older, experienced man when I was a teenager.

I think your statement is culturally biased too. Some cultures introduce their young men to manhood by an uncle or the father taking them to a much older prostitute. Also, historically, many cultures had no problem pairing up a teenage girl with a much older man. Heck, look at the marriages of the kings of England. It seems to me that as a society we've become a bit prudish about inter-generational sex.

[Jekyll's Guest]

In general pain is a warning signal that physical damage is close to or actually being inflicted on the body. Those that get pleasure from experiencing pain are playing at the edge where a little bit more force or an unexpected movement could result in greater injury than one or both parties wanted to inflict. I don't think human judgment is so fine that the line between pleasurable pain and unpleasant pain is never crossed.

While I think you're way, way overestimating the actual dangers of BDSM; isn't it up to the participants to do the risk assessment?

People rock climb without ropes, parachute out of perfectly good planes, surf in shark infested water, every day, perfectly legally. Why is it when sex comes in to play everyone wants to play judge (and not just those that really like to play judge sex)?

Leave people alone as long as it's consensual, that shouldn't be too hard a rule to live by.

[tesscaline]

No and I see no reason for your question other than to delay or avoid answering mine.Because you seem to be assuming that the situation in the OP was a role-play, or at least implying that all BDSM interactions with a Dom/sub dynamic are role-plays. If that's not what you're attempting to imply, alright fine. But that is how your posts are coming across.


For example, she was once asked by a client to kick him in the head. She (sensibly) refused. If she had agreed to kick him in the head and it resulted in his death or serious injury, is the fact he asked her to do it a valid defence?There are safe ways to "kick" someone in the head, and unsafe ways to do same. Just as there are safe ways to tie someone up, and unsafe ways to do it.

Whether or not "he told me to" is a valid defense if something goes wrong depends entirely upon the situational details involved. I simply cannot make a blanket statement on the subject.

Are there situations in which I think "he told me to" is not a valid defense? Yes. Are there situations in which I think it is a valid defense? Yes.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Are you saying that age difference should be a barrier to who we choose as a sexual partner?

<snip>

I thought it was clear what I was saying. After a certain age a person could have sex with whoever he or she liked, irrespective of how much older that person was. Below that age there would be the potential for prosecution of a person's sexual partner if the partner was significantly older.

More succinctly: For the last ~75% of a person's life, no. Before then, yes.

[23_Tauri]

I thought it was clear what I was saying. After a certain age a person could have sex with whoever he or she liked, irrespective of how much older that person was. Below that age there would be the potential for prosecution of a person's sexual partner if the partner was significantly older.

More succinctly: For the last ~75% of a person's life, no. Before then, yes.
Ah ok, thank you for the clarification. Still not sure what I think of that (thinking how much an older lover would have been just the ticket when I was 16....)

[Ivor the Engineer]

<snip>

There are safe ways to "kick" someone in the head, and unsafe ways to do same.

<snip>

I'm startled by this claim. How do you safely kick someone in the head?

[Ivor the Engineer]

While I think you're way, way overestimating the actual dangers of BDSM; isn't it up to the participants to do the risk assessment?

The problem with young people is they tend to think they're immortal.

People rock climb without ropes, parachute out of perfectly good planes, surf in shark infested water, every day, perfectly legally. Why is it when sex comes in to play everyone wants to play judge (and not just those that really like to play judge sex)?

I believe a young woman was stopped from sailing round the world solo because someone thought it was too dangerous.

The reason people get concerned about young people having sex with much older men or women is because of the potential for exploitation. This is because in general young people are less experienced at handling the emotions that arise from romantic and sexual relationships (and life in general) than 30+ year old men or women, who also typically have more resources available to draw on.

Leave people alone as long as it's consensual, that shouldn't be too hard a rule to live by.

Fortunately for the families of employees who've been seriously injured or died at work the health and safety executive doesn't feel the same way.

[Professor Yaffle]

I'm startled by this claim. How do you safely kick someone in the head?

With enormous fluffy slippers?:p

[Professor Yaffle]

Fortunately for the families of employees who've been seriously injured or died at work the health and safety executive doesn't feel the same way.

Not a very good analogy/example. Because the the intervening variable of "might get sacked if I don't agree to these lax rules", I would consider this to be a coercive situation and not truly consensual.

[tesscaline]

I'm startled by this claim. How do you safely kick someone in the head?The same way stunt men get "kicked" in the head. There are tricks you can do to make someone think they have been kicked, hit, slapped, when they haven't, or at least haven't been as hard as they think they've been.

Now, I don't advise this sort of thing. It takes someone very skilled to do it properly (and I am not, I've just seen it done). But there are definitely ways to do it without causing harm, if one is really interested in pushing that particular extreme (I'm not).

[Ivor the Engineer]

Not a very good analogy/example. Because the the intervening variable of "might get sacked if I don't agree to these lax rules", I would consider this to be a coercive situation and not truly consensual.

In many cases the reverse is true. I.e. a company has to make an effort to get its employees to comply with health and safety legislation who moan that every change to the work environment, procedures or clothing is "health and safety gone mad!". So the correspondence would be company <=> older partner and employee <=> younger partner.

But let's not push the analogy much further than that.;)

[Ivor the Engineer]

The same way stunt men get "kicked" in the head. There are tricks you can do to make someone think they have been kicked, hit, slapped, when they haven't, or at least haven't been as hard as they think they've been.

Now, I don't advise this sort of thing. It takes someone very skilled to do it properly (and I am not, I've just seen it done). But there are definitely ways to do it without causing harm, if one is really interested in pushing that particular extreme (I'm not).

I think anyone kicking people in the head and not causing harm is lucky rather than skilled.

[JFrankA]

In many cases the reverse is true. I.e. a company has to make an effort to get its employees to comply with health and safety legislation who moan that every change to the work environment, procedures or clothing is "health and safety gone mad!". So the correspondence would be company <=> older partner and employee <=> younger partner.

But let's not push the analogy much further than that.;)

Well, I can say that I've had former jobs when the company screwed me. :D

[JFrankA]

Ah ok, thank you for the clarification. Still not sure what I think of that (thinking how much an older lover would have been just the ticket when I was 16....)

I honestly think a lot of people at that age fantasize about an older lover, more so than someone their own age. I know I did.

But there's a stigma still with age. For example, my girlfriend is 14 years younger than I am. And although she is an adult, I still get looks and comments about how I really should find someone my own age.

[Cavemonster]

But he can operate a heavy piece of machinery that is known to be dangerous to himself and others without adult supervision. Yes, we regulate driving, but we still allow 16 year olds to drive by themselves despite knowing that they lack the experience and decision-making ability of adults. We don't even freak out about the idea when a kid gets in an accident.


And the moment we have a comparable testing and licensing situation-
As soon as we have required government inspection of bondage gear-
As soon as high schools offer bondage ed courses-

Then I won't say a peep about the risks.

We regulate the crap out of driving, so it was a poor example for you to pick. People in this thread keep accusing me of asking for special treatment of BDSM, but it's really the opposite. They're calling for it to be immune from the regulations we already apply to other risks, like driving

[JFrankA]

And the moment we have a comparable testing and licensing situation-
As soon as we have required government inspection of bondage gear-
As soon as high schools offer bondage ed courses-

Then I won't say a peep about the risks.

We regulate the crap out of driving, so it was a poor example for you to pick. People in this thread keep accusing me of asking for special treatment of BDSM, but it's really the opposite. They're calling for it to be immune from the regulations we already apply to other risks, like driving

Good idea!

Also, to make sure that no one gets an STD, let's make the government regulations so that every man wears a condom. And have everyone tested for STDs at least two weeks before having sex with a new partner.

After all, if we're going to regulate BDSM sex to make it government safe, we should regulate ALL sex to make it government safe!

.....:rolleyes:

[jiggeryqua]

Most child abuse and rape isn't reported either. I don't think we can conclude that just because our personal experiences do not include unfortunate events and/or such events are not reported in the press very often that such events don't occur far more frequently.

But child abuse and rape are reported often. Of course, they have nothing to do with the OP or the wider topic, but they do make for provocative pseudo-arguments. I don't think we can conclude that just because we don't encounter, hear about or read of something in the press that it occurs a lot. Do you? Really? Why? Wishful thinking? Because it would suit your position?


Having no direct experience of BDSM I have some questions:

Do safe words get used much?

How does the dom know how far and long to go?

Is the dom just carrying out the pre-specified orders of the sub, or does the dom have flexibility in the type and degree of punishments he or she inflicts?

BDSM is a sexuality, just as is homosexuality. There aren't any universal dos and donts for either.

Safe words get used a lot, it's how we can ensure something is consensual while still allowing role play and so on. The traffic light system is widely used - "red" meaning 'stop now' and 'amber' meaning 'oh, I wasn't expecting that, I'm not sure, slow down, let me get used to the idea' (or words to that effect...)

The dom would hopefully know how far to go from discussion prior to the 'scene', though most every sub I've known wants to have their limits pushed. How long to go might also be included in that discussion, though of course a safe word would leave the matter in the hands of the sub (if he or she had had enough). 'More' or 'again' would no doubt serve if he or she hadn't had enough.

I'm assuming you have some (vanilla) sexual experience? How long and how much foreplay, or penetration, or such, do vanilla couples engage in? How do you know how much and how long? Is it through verbal and non-verbal communication with your partner/s? Why do you suppose it would be any different for, eg, a caning?

Your final question is case dependent, but any Dom/me worth their salt establishes boundaries and so on before engaging in anything.


I posted earlier that I think that both the absolute and relative ages of both partners should be taken into account, with the relative age becoming less important as the age of the youngest partner increases. I also think sexual behaviour could be split up into broad categories with different repercussions for the older partner if a complaint is made by either the younger partner or their legal guardian.

If someone has a 'legal gaurdian', they shouldn't be having sex at all - whether straight, gay, vanilla or kinky. Can you elaborate on your plan? At what age can someone decide to have sex with someone twice their age? What categories of sexuality require people to older before they can express them as their straight vanilla counterparts did at an earlier age? And why?



The relevance is the belief that "she was asking for it" many people hold when women complain after the fact that a partner went too far. If another 16 year old engaged in exactly the same behaviour as this woman did but complained afterwards about the bruising and/or any other injuries, should she just chalk it up to experience?

'Many' people hold that strange belief, do they? You know the drill round here...

Yes, she should just chalk it up to experience. That's how people learn and grow and mature. Or we could have a system where everything is someone else's fault and nobody is responsible for their own choices I suppose.



I don't think it's as simple as that.

It is as simple as that. Abuse is something you didn't ask for. If you want it, if it's an expression of your sexuality, if you ask for it, it isn't abuse. Being punched in the face by an angry lover or teacher or family member or stranger or police officer is abuse. Being punched in the face by an opponent in a boxing ring is not abuse. Simple.

[Senex]

Originally Posted by Senex
You don't think I would have married Sophia Loren, Brigitte Bardot, or Rachael Welch when I was 24? hehehe...Angie Dickinson, Jenny Agutter, Diana Rigg. (I have a long list of super hot older women.)

I'm a guy. We have double standards and if a female college professor took me under her wing it would not have been as evil as a male professor taking a female student under his wing. It's just the way the world is.[/QUOTE]

Bookitty:I'd rather you didn't paint all men with the same brush. Not all men think that women should not be allowed the same level of sexual exploration. If a college professor is not exploiting their position of authority, there is nothing "evil" about a relationship with a student, although it may be ill-advised.

Woman are more vulnerable at an earlier age. Maybe I'm wrong. More discussion is needed. I used to and can again teach a class at the local community college ;)
Wise Senex said:I'm a guy. We have double standards and if a female college professor took me under her wing it would not have been as evil as a male professor taking a female student under his wing. It's just the way the world is.
Arcade22 replied:Shouldn't you edit this last bit so that it correctly reads: "This is my own personal, biased and irrational view about age-differences in relationships"?

I'm still waiting on an explanation on how one would make a meaningful distinction between anal sex, which can be very painful and risky depending on how rough and/or inexperienced one is, and normal BDSM. If anal sex with someone under 18 would be prohibited then any guy-on-guy action would be terribly lame...

If you want to make this about anal sex I will unequivocally state when I was in college anal sex was not an expectation of the undergraduate male. I had a wonderful girlfriend when I was an undergraduate who I had the best vanilla sex of all-time with who offered me anal sex but in a "if you want it, I'll do it" kind of way -- and I refused her offer. Today after seeing all this pornography on the internet maybe even a gentleman like myself would have ridiculous expectations. I wouldn't want to be advising a daughter today.

I believe in kink -- I just believe women are pressured at too young an age today because of immature young mens expectations from internet porn.


Bookitty says(with a smile):But, I have the advantage of knowing several pro doms. It's not my scene but it's not particularly scary.
hehehe... Once you go amateur spanker you never go back ;)

[bookitty]

Bookitty:

Woman are more vulnerable at an earlier age. Maybe I'm wrong. More discussion is needed. I used to and can again teach a class at the local community college ;)


Dude, I see the smiley and all but how about, just once, we have a discussion where women are something slightly more than a place to rest your penis for a few seconds.

Both sexes can be frighteningly naive and terribly fragile when they are young. At the same age, both sexes can also be complete unrepentant horn-dogs. Sometimes on the same day.

The goal of a mutually respectful and sexually accommodating society is that everyone has the ability to set their own boundaries not those of out-dated social constructs. The girl in the OP was actually better at this than many 16 year olds. She know what experience she wanted, went out and found someone willing to give it to her and took the time to spell out exactly what her needs and boundaries were.

While I would not be immediately comfortable with my niece/nephew acting out that specific scenario, I would be very proud of them if they had the foresight to manage their sex lives that well. To go into it expecting a positive result for both parties but be smart enough to know what they want out of it. It seems far more healthy than the traditional patterns which force my niece to be the guardian of the gates, give her full responsibility for pace and/or saying no. Or for my nephew to try to push for sex with every female he meets regardless of her feelings.

[Senex]

Dude, I see the smiley and all but how about, just once, we have a discussion where women are something slightly more than a place to rest your penis for a few seconds.
Those women who said that shouldn't be trusted -- it was at least a few minutes:rolleyes:
OK, it is all seriousness from here on out.

Both sexes can be frighteningly naive and terribly fragile when they are young. At the same age, both sexes can also be complete unrepentant horn-dogs. Sometimes on the same day.

The goal of a mutually respectful and sexually accommodating society is that everyone has the ability to set their own boundaries not those of out-dated social constructs. The girl in the OP was actually better at this than many 16 year olds. She know what experience she wanted, went out and found someone willing to give it to her and took the time to spell out exactly what her needs and boundaries were.
I understand what you are saying.
However, in many cases young women can be exploited by older boys/men.
A few young women might know what they want -- but, unfortunately, many other young women are in vulnerable positions and right and wrong is hard to determine and let's err on the side of letting them turn 18.

While I would not be immediately comfortable with my niece/nephew acting out that specific scenario, I would be very proud of them if they had the foresight to manage their sex lives that well. To go into it expecting a positive result for both parties but be smart enough to know what they want out of it. It seems far more healthy than the traditional patterns which force my niece to be the guardian of the gates, give her full responsibility for pace and/or saying no. Or for my nephew to try to push for sex with every female he meets regardless of her feelings.
Wow, I was immature at 16 and and I couldn't push or guard anything. (and that's not saying anything because I wasn't mature at 16.
Here is a picture of me at my school play at 16...http://img.photobucket.com/albums/1003/Senex/Brigadoon.jpg

The girl under my left arm was my girl friend and she was the prettiest girl in the school (in my eyes) and we never had sex. Look at my hair. I was an idiot. 16 year olds are idiots (at least I was).

However, I am no longer 16 now ;)

[Cavemonster]

Good idea!

Also, to make sure that no one gets an STD, let's make the government regulations so that every man wears a condom. And have everyone tested for STDs at least two weeks before having sex with a new partner.

After all, if we're going to regulate BDSM sex to make it government safe, we should regulate ALL sex to make it government safe!

.....:rolleyes:

Or, y'know we could make safe sex part of public education, have a commercial and social culture where condoms are available for free and are easy to find in any store. That works too.

[JFrankA]

Or, y'know we could make safe sex part of public education, have a commercial and social culture where condoms are available for free and are easy to find in any store. That works too.

I agree completely with sexual education. In fact, that's why I said that if I had a daughter or son who wanted to explore BDSM, I'd much rather have her or him go to an experienced adult Dom or sub to learn about it.

Two teenagers fumbling in the dark doesn't teach either one about sex very well even when it's vanilla sex. BDSM is much more complex.

What I commenting on, however, was this statement:

People in this thread keep accusing me of asking for special treatment of BDSM, but it's really the opposite. They're calling for it to be immune from the regulations we already apply to other risks, like driving.

Now I know I compared a BDSM relationship to driving, but that was merely an illustration on how the relationship works. Regulating BDSM specifically is not like regulating driving. There are regulations to sex in general (mostly age related and consensual issues, etc) and that is fine, but to regulate a sexual preference is kind getting too far, IMHO. In fact, we in the US already do regulate a sexual preference and it's being fought to be treated like any other kind of general sex.

[Stray Cat]

Now I know I compared a BDSM relationship to driving, but that was merely an illustration on how the relationship works. Regulating BDSM specifically is not like regulating driving.
Indeed, what seems to being suggested by Cavemonster is that the regulations should be different depending upon which type of car you drive.

[23_Tauri]

The problem with young people is they tend to think they're immortal.
They do tend to think that they're going to live forever, but their fearlessness teaches them boundaries too.

My adolescent nephews took to leaping out of a first floor bedroom window onto their trampoline in the garden whilst the grown ups were away. :covereyes Boing. Another broken arm but hey, my sister's so used to turning up at A&E with one of her three sons in tow that the staff there greet her like an old friend. :D

I believe a young woman was stopped from sailing round the world solo because someone thought it was too dangerous.
Bet that pissed her off mightily. How much was this to do with the fact that had she died the parents/guardians may have been liable? They were covering their own back, so to speak.

The reason people get concerned about young people having sex with much older men or women is because of the potential for exploitation. This is because in general young people are less experienced at handling the emotions that arise from romantic and sexual relationships (and life in general) than 30+ year old men or women, who also typically have more resources available to draw on.
You see, this is where I have to disagree. We think that there will be exploitation becuase culturally we've become much more prudish about sex between people of wildly different ages. If we look back in history this was not the case. Why do we now consider what would once upon a time been considered an instructive and nurturing relationship between an older mentor and a younger person to now be 'exploitation'?

Ok, I'm going to throw something really rad into the conversation now, because I was thinking about this the other night after reading this thread.

Imagine if it was socially acceptable (the social norm) for an older person to 'take on' a teenager once they reach the age of consent, if the teenager wanted a sexual mentor for the first few years of their sexually active life? The mentor's role would be to show them how to make love like an adult and get max enjoyment from one's sexuality, and maybe verse them in other aspects of the adult world.

It wouldn't preclude the youngster from having a regular teen boyfriend or girlfriend as well. The older mentor would be approved by the parents/guardians of the teenager so that they knew they trusted them to care for their son/daughter.

What harm would come about if society was more accepting of sex between teenagers and older men and women and there was a social acceptance of such relationships, as I describe above?

Discuss! :D

[Cavemonster]

I agree completely with sexual education. In fact, that's why I said that if I had a daughter or son who wanted to explore BDSM, I'd much rather have her or him go to an experienced adult Dom or sub to learn about it.

Two teenagers fumbling in the dark doesn't teach either one about sex very well even when it's vanilla sex. BDSM is much more complex.

What I commenting on, however, was this statement:



Now I know I compared a BDSM relationship to driving, but that was merely an illustration on how the relationship works. Regulating BDSM specifically is not like regulating driving. There are regulations to sex in general (mostly age related and consensual issues, etc) and that is fine, but to regulate a sexual preference is kind getting too far, IMHO. In fact, we in the US already do regulate a sexual preference and it's being fought to be treated like any other kind of general sex.

Are you saying that something being a sexual preference puts it above regulation it would otherwise be subject to? Because people get off on something, it's suddenly immune to regulation?

I don't see sex as deserving of special consideration.

Bringing up the persecution of gays is just you coming from left field again, there really is no meaningful connection.

[Cavemonster]

You see, this is where I have to disagree. We think that there will be exploitation becuase culturally we've become much more prudish about sex between people of wildly different ages. If we look back in history this was not the case. Why do we now consider what would once upon a time been considered an instructive and nurturing relationship between an older mentor and a younger person to now be 'exploitation'?


Yes, and that history included a culture around those relationships that most of us today wouldn't very much approve of. Thirteen year old girls being married off to old men against their will and so on.

There was no question of exploitation because there was no expectation that women could or should be sexual equals. Nothing was seen as wrong with the power balance because it was assumed that men held the power within any relationship.

They also saw nothing wrong in owning other humans, conquering native "savage" peoples and taking their land and reserving political power for male land owners.

[jiggeryqua]

Yes, and that history included a culture around those relationships that most of us today wouldn't very much approve of. Thirteen year old girls being married off to old men against their will and so on.

There was no question of exploitation because there was no expectation that women could or should be sexual equals. Nothing was seen as wrong with the power balance because it was assumed that men held the power within any relationship.

They also saw nothing wrong in owning other humans, conquering native "savage" peoples and taking their land and reserving political power for male land owners.

It's somewhat disingenuous to cast yourself as a defender of women's rights when you're also casting them as muddle-headed wee girlies who will be taken advantage of by ...you? Or is it only 'all other men'?

We've done well, as a species, in dealing with the injustices you list. They have no relevance to the debate at hand. So, what about the idea that young women are capable of being sexual, will have their own sexuality, should be free to express it and are best placed to make decisions about their own sex lives?

[Arcade22]

If you want to make this about anal sex I will unequivocally state when I was in college anal sex was not an expectation of the undergraduate male.

Oh, a gay male is not expected to have anal sex? That was certainly news to me. I guess we should put the homosexual age of consent at 18 instead then, and leave the heterosexual one at 15. Obviously leaving lesbians on the same level as before because, you know, LESBIANS! I mean women can't be abusive and exploitive.

I had a wonderful girlfriend when I was an undergraduate who I had the best vanilla sex of all-time with who offered me anal sex but in a "if you want it, I'll do it" kind of way -- and I refused her offer.

How very boring of you.

I wouldn't want to be advising a daughter today.

Thank god for everyones sake that you're not.

I believe in kink -- I just believe women are pressured at too young an age today because of immature young mens expectations from internet porn.

Oh yes i forgot that women have no sex drive and can't have weird sexual fetishes and desires! Women never start talking about strap-ons and what THEY want. The man always uses the young woman, like some sex toy, for his disgusting sexual desires while she just lies there like a dead fish, getting no enjoyment and just waiting for the horrible experience to be over! How silly for anyone to assume otherwise.

However, in many cases young women can be exploited by older boys/men. A few young women might know what they want -- but, unfortunately, many other young women are in vulnerable positions and right and wrong is hard to determine and let's err on the side of letting them turn 18.

Why wait until they are 18? Why not wait until they are 25, or better yet 40? I'm pretty sure most people have matured enough to be come incapable of being exploited by then. You don't want to risk all of those poor young women being exploited, don't you?

[Cavemonster]

It's somewhat disingenuous to cast yourself as a defender of women's rights when you're also casting them as muddle-headed wee girlies who will be taken advantage of by ...you? Or is it only 'all other men'?

I don't believe I've made a single assertion about any decision making capabilities varying by gender at all. Please feel free to link to any you find.


We've done well, as a species, in dealing with the injustices you list. They have no relevance to the debate at hand. So, what about the idea that young women are capable of being sexual, will have their own sexuality, should be free to express it and are best placed to make decisions about their own sex lives?

As I've posted about a million times so far, we curtail young people's decision making as a society at a great number of levels.

Unless you think that a seven year old is capable of signing legally binding contracts, driving a car and consenting to sex with a fifty year old, then you only disagree about where the lines should be drawn.

[jiggeryqua]

What harm would come about if society was more accepting of sex between teenagers and older men and women and there was a social acceptance of such relationships, as I describe above?

Discuss! :D

I've about given up raising this idea in polite society - it never went down well, and now I'm of an age where the immediate assumption is that I just want sex with teenage girls. Funnily enough, it's much more acceptable for the cougars of my acquaintance to express their desire for teenage boys.

Can anyone argue that we ought not to be teaching (in some form) young people about all the important parts of life? Some of that can be done in a classroom, with diagrams and texts and discussion, but you wouldn't learn tai chi or ballroom dancing or self-defence or a musical instrument that way.

[Eddie Dane]

I have not actually read the thread.

Regardless, I would like the record to show that the OP gave me a boner.

[Andrew Wiggin]

I have not actually read the thread.

Regardless, I would like the record to show that the OP gave me a boner.

TL;DR;GH

Too long, didn't read, got hard

[jiggeryqua]

I don't believe I've made a single assertion about any decision making capabilities varying by gender at all. Please feel free to link to any you find.


You're right, I appear to have conflated your objections with those of more openly sexist posters. If you've been as vocal elsewhere about the sexual activities of males over the age of consent, please link to them, because it looks like you object to old men corrupting young women.

I've reviewed all your posts in this thread, and clearly your main thrust is in the area of risk - and to support your argument you refer to the muddle-headednes of young people (with particular reference to the young person in the OP, who, let us say, is only coincidentally female). I noted you discussed the case of this 16yo woman by referring to potential risk situations involving 15 year olds...and 12 year olds...and then I got back here and you've excelled yourself:


Unless you think that a seven year old is...

If you have an argument with where the law draws the line, take it up with the law. In the OP, no law was broken. However you explain your objections (and however often)...


As I've posted about a million times so far

...they were prompted by the story of a young woman who made her own decisions about her own sexuality. Or a muddle-headed girlie being taken advantage of by an older man.

[23_Tauri]

Is the dom just carrying out the pre-specified orders of the sub, or does the dom have flexibility in the type and degree of punishments he or she inflicts?
I think this demonstrates a belief in one of the big misconceptions that people have about BDSM: that it is about 'punishing' the other person. Far from it.

I'm not just playing at semantics here, because use of words like "degree of punishments" and "inflicts" betrays a lack of understanding about a form of human sexuality and are overly emotive, IMO.

[Senex]

Oh, a gay male is not expected to have anal sex? That was certainly news to me. I guess we should put the homosexual age of consent at 18 instead then, and leave the heterosexual one at 15. Obviously leaving lesbians on the same level as before because, you know, LESBIANS! I mean women can't be abusive and exploitive.
Ok, you got me on gay men. Understand that in this country where news is important, we recently have had undergraduates from Yale University chanting in public...

No means Yes
Yes means Anal!
No means Yes
Yes means Anal!....

I'm scratching my chin and realize these heterosexual guys are watching too much internet porn. They go to Yale and should have a lot going for them and not need to resort to sexist chanting to support whatever sexuality they have.


How very boring of you.
it wasn't boring if you were there:rolleyes:


Thank god for everyones sake that you're not.
Maybe, maybe not.


Oh yes i forgot that women have no sex drive and can't have weird sexual fetishes and desires! Women never start talking about strap-ons and what THEY want. The man always uses the young woman, like some sex toy, for his disgusting sexual desires while she just lies there like a dead fish, getting no enjoyment and just waiting for the horrible experience to be over! How silly for anyone to assume otherwise.
Wow, I never mentioned any of this. You are projecting your stuff at me...

You weren't a naughty girl at a young age were you;)

Why wait until they are 18? Why not wait until they are 25, or better yet 40? I'm pretty sure most people have matured enough to be come incapable of being exploited by then. You don't want to risk all of those poor young women being exploited, don't you?
You haven't been monitoring the current state of internet porn. Fortunately for everyone I have been, for scientific curiosity, and the B&D scenes you can easily find for free are something you don't want your 15, 16 or even 17 year old to play with. I thought I was a savvy teen about porn because my dad had a Playboy subscription. I was as naive as could be compared with what todays children have access to. I believe that is wrong. Boys today see crazy sex that isn't necessary to have a wonderful sex life.

Maybe porn is ruining it for the people hard wired to S&M (who am I kidding - it gives them more potential partners). I'm not inexperienced with such things but a 20 something with a 15 year old girl may be right for one in five hundred situations - but it is exploitive in the other four hundred and ninety-nine situations. Men prey on vulnerable 15 year old girls. Sad but true.

[JFrankA]

Are you saying that something being a sexual preference puts it above regulation it would otherwise be subject to? Because people get off on something, it's suddenly immune to regulation?

I'm saying it already is.

Sex is sex. And sex IS regulated. Those regulations do restrict other preferences.

I don't see sex as deserving of special consideration. [/qutoe]

Let me explain it for you:

Pedophilia is NOT illegal. Child molestation is.

Exhibitionism and voyeurism is not illegal, but having a child under the age of eighteen perform a sexual act is.

The idea is you regulate sex in general so that people can have the freedom to explore their sexuality without interfering with other people's sexuality. To take your example, you regulate driving so that everyone can drive what car they want and get to their destination without interfering with other people's cars and destination.

The way you are talking, to carry your example further, you are looking to tell people what kind of car to drive, when to drive, how far and by your route.

[quote]Bringing up the persecution of gays is just you coming from left field again, there really is no meaningful connection.

I was general and I was on purpose. Because there are other sexual preferences that are being regulated other than homosexuality already.

However, you have proven my point.

Please read what you said:
Because people get off on something, it's suddenly immune to regulation? I don't see sex as deserving of special consideration.

Now read what I said:

There are regulations to sex in general (mostly age related and consensual issues, etc) and that is fine, but to regulate a sexual preference is kind getting too far, IMHO. In fact, we in the US already do regulate a sexual preference and it's being fought to be treated like any other kind of general sex.

Funny, I didn't mention either the word "persecution" nor the word "gays". YOU made the connection, my friend, not I. So apparently, there is a connection. There are other preferences that is correct for the statement I made. In fact, some of them are posted right on this thread.

Since you, yourself has stated that "Because people get off on something, it's suddenly immune to regulation? I don't see sex as deserving of special consideration." Why should a homosexuality preference NOT get regulation and BDSM should? Why is it from "left field"? Why should your preference outweigh mine?

Further, what part of BDSM would you regulate? Do you realize that BDSM is not just "tieing up and spanking your girlfriend's butt"? BDSM encompasses THOUSANDS of fetishes and preference. Go ahead and pick and choose which ones you think need to be regulated. Go ahead and tell me the why for example, would spanking not be regulated but caning would be.

[23_Tauri]

Yes, and that history included a culture around those relationships that most of us today wouldn't very much approve of. Thirteen year old girls being married off to old men against their will and so on.

There was no question of exploitation because there was no expectation that women could or should be sexual equals. Nothing was seen as wrong with the power balance because it was assumed that men held the power within any relationship.

They also saw nothing wrong in owning other humans, conquering native "savage" peoples and taking their land and reserving political power for male land owners.
If you read the rest of my post, I clearly suggested that such relationships these days would not be coerced.

Also, you make the mistake of assuming all younger - older sexual partnerings in history were young girl with older man. In Roman society, grown women would take younger men, as well as vice versa. The Romans were a pretty sexually liberated bunch, with sex rarely being in short supply and it being socially acceptable for older married men to take young male lovers.

So I am advocating sexual slavery, but a more open and liberated view of sexual relationships in general.

[JFrankA]

Ok, I'm going to throw something really rad into the conversation now, because I was thinking about this the other night after reading this thread.

Imagine if it was socially acceptable (the social norm) for an older person to 'take on' a teenager once they reach the age of consent, if the teenager wanted a sexual mentor for the first few years of their sexually active life? The mentor's role would be to show them how to make love like an adult and get max enjoyment from one's sexuality, and maybe verse them in other aspects of the adult world.

It wouldn't preclude the youngster from having a regular teen boyfriend or girlfriend as well. The older mentor would be approved by the parents/guardians of the teenager so that they knew they trusted them to care for their son/daughter.

What harm would come about if society was more accepting of sex between teenagers and older men and women and there was a social acceptance of such relationships, as I describe above?

Discuss! :D

I seriously think you should start a thread on this!!!! :)

[Ivor the Engineer]

A question for those that think young people should be allowed to engage in BDSM with much older partners:

What should be the minimum age of, say, a 30 year old's sexual partner?

[23_Tauri]

A question for those that think young people should be allowed to engage in BDSM with much older partners:

What should be the minimum age of, say, a 30 year old's sexual partner?
The age of consent. Go figure.

Hey Ivor, what do you think the maximum age of a 30 year old's sexual partner should be? :D 80? 90? 101?

[Ivor the Engineer]

The age of consent. Go figure.

What should the age of consent be?

Hey Ivor, what do you think the maximum age of a 30 year old's sexual partner should be? :D 80? 90? 101?

I've already stated my point of view on the age differential between sexual partners. For your specific example I don't think it would be an issue so long as both parties were considered mentally competent.

[jiggeryqua]

Men prey on vulnerable 15 year old girls. Sad but true.

Do you? Count me out. Do any women prey on vulnerable 15 yo boys? Can women prey? Can boys be vulnerable?

[jiggeryqua]

What should the age of consent be?

Whatever the lawmakers decide. Start a new thread, though I'm sure it's been discussed before. In the meanwhile, the activity in the OP was legal, both partners consented.

[Mark6]

Further, what part of BDSM would you regulate? Do you realize that BDSM is not just "tieing up and spanking your girlfriend's butt"? BDSM encompasses THOUSANDS of fetishes and preference. Go ahead and pick and choose which ones you think need to be regulated. Go ahead and tell me the why for example, would spanking not be regulated but caning would be.
At a guess, I would say because it is physically impossible to inflict serious bodily harm with spanking. Whereas with caning it is entirely possible. With asphyxiation, even more so.

Mind you, I am not actually advocating laws regulating BDSM. But the idea is not as stupid as you seen to think.

[Arcade22]

Ok, you got me on gay men. Understand that in this country where news is important, we recently have had undergraduates from Yale University chanting in public...

No means Yes
Yes means Anal!
No means Yes
Yes means Anal!....

I'm scratching my chin and realize these heterosexual guys are watching too much internet porn.

Weird. All my friends and their friends watch porn all the time yet none of them do things like that. Maybe Americans are different.

You haven't been monitoring the current state of internet porn. Fortunately for everyone I have been, for scientific curiosity, and the B&D scenes you can easily find for free are something you don't want your 15, 16 or even 17 year old to play with.

Such as? Why wouldn't i want my 17 year old daughter to do "that" but am i supposed to approve the second she turns 18?

I thought I was a savvy teen about porn because my dad had a Playboy subscription. I was as naive as could be compared with what todays children have access to. I believe that is wrong. Boys today see crazy sex that isn't necessary to have a wonderful sex life.

I'm pretty sure that what's a "wonderful sex life" is up to the individuals in question to determine. Oh wait, then we can't judge other peoples private lives.

I'm not inexperienced with such things but a 20 something with a 15 year old girl may be right for one in five hundred situations - but it is exploitive in the other four hundred and ninety-nine situations.

Evidence please.

Men prey on vulnerable 15 year old girls. Sad but true.

Just like women pray on 15 year old boys. We once had a case here where a female teacher made a 15 year old student have sex with her, despite the fact that he didn't want to. Why are women so evil and heartless?

[BenBurch]

At a guess, I would say because it is physically impossible to inflict serious bodily harm with spanking. ...

Bingo Sierra.

[Ivor the Engineer]

Whatever the lawmakers decide. Start a new thread, though I'm sure it's been discussed before. In the meanwhile, the activity in the OP was legal, both partners consented.

There's not much point having a discussion with people who are only interested in giving glib answers to difficult and relevant questions.

I'll leave you to it.

[jiggeryqua]

There's not much point having a discussion with people who are only interested in giving glib answers to difficult and relevant questions.

I'll leave you to it.

I welcome difficult and relevant questions. But if you want to discuss the legal actions of the OP by initiating a debate on why the law should be adjusted every time someone capable of making their own decisions makes a decision you don't like, I repeat my suggestion that you start a new thread for it. I'll leave you to it.

[Mark6]

Bingo Sierra.
Not only I have no idea what it means, google search on "Bingo Sierra" and "spanking" turned up nothing. At least, nothing meaningful. Which strogly implies you are referring to something WAY in left field.

[BenBurch]

Not only I have no idea what it means, google search on "Bingo Sierra" and "spanking" turned up nothing. At least, nothing meaningful. Which strogly implies you are referring to something WAY in left field.

A wordy way of saying "B.S." In other words, you can cause grievous bodily harm (and worse) with a vicious spanking. It is simply a bit harder to do it that way.

[jiggeryqua]

A wordy way of saying "B.S." In other words, you can cause grievous bodily harm (and worse) with a vicious spanking. It is simply a bit harder to do it that way.

In the interests of full disclosure, may I relate an anecdote? While giving my current bedwarmer the hearty slaps to her posterior that she was requesting, I was also engaging in a more commonly accepted vanilla heterosexual practise which restricted both my view of the target and my access to it. All was going well until I missed... I hit the next nearest target, which happened to be a part of me particularly sensitive to such an assault, albeit self-inflicted.

So yes, you can do a lot of damage with even a playful pat. No lasting harm in this event, but there is a risk inherent in all human activity.

[23_Tauri]

Bringing up the persecution of gays is just you coming from left field again, there really is no meaningful connection.
Wrong. There are many gay sex practises that are as dangerous, or more dangerous, than BDSM. How about cruising in public toilets? You want that regulated too? I'd like to see two gentlemen carrying out a full risk assessment of their environment and the activity in which they are about to indulge in before they - ahem - have a shared experience. :eye-poppi

[Ron_Tomkins]

We have an interesting law case here in Sweden. A 16 year old had sex with a 30 year old. Now this in by itself is 100% legal since the age of consent is 15, except in special circumstances. The problem was that the sex was violent. He apparently "locked the girl in a dog crate, how he put crocodile clips on her breasts and fastened them to the wall so she had to stand on her toes and that he repeatedly struck the girl's naked body with a cane". The girls mother apparently saw the bruising and contacted the authorities.

He was cleared in the Tingsrätt but the prosecutor decided to appeal to the Hovrätt. I heard someone said that they would hear the case in may but i haven't heard anything new about the case.

This obviously begs the question on what kind of things one should be allowed to do to another person. Personally i feel that as long as the risk of long term injury, death or etc is minimal then it should be legal.

Here's the story btw (yeah it's goggle translate but you get the gist of it, våldssex = violent sex): http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=sv&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=sv&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.sydsvenskan.se%2Fmalmo%2Farticl e893657%2FGrans-for-valdssex-provas-Expert-Man-kan-inte-samtycka-till-grov-misshandel.html

She didn't do it the right way.

[23_Tauri]

What should the age of consent be?
As tesscaline said in an earlier post, there's no magic cut off point where a child suddenly becomes an adult. But for the purposes of the law a line has to be drawn. 16 is pretty universal across the Western world and I think we've got it about right. But then I'm a product of my cultural background, so I'm going to be biased towards my own country.

Here's (http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm) a table with ages of consent around the world.

I've already stated my point of view on the age differential between sexual partners. For your specific example I don't think it would be an issue so long as both parties were considered mentally competent.
Oh that's cool then. So old wrinklies having sex is not "ewwww!" :rolleyes:

Mentally competent? So someone with a touch of Alzheimers? How does that figure in your scale of mental competence? Or is sexual exploitation of OAPs not common enough to raise any concern?

[Ryokan]

You haven't been monitoring the current state of internet porn. Fortunately for everyone I have been, for scientific curiosity...

:rolleyes:

Boys today see crazy sex that isn't necessary to have a wonderful sex life.

Do you really believe only boys watch porn?

[Mark6]

A wordy way of saying "B.S." In other words, you can cause grievous bodily harm (and worse) with a vicious spanking. It is simply a bit harder to do it that way.
True, but by that logic forks and Q-tips should also be regulated.

Not that I imply you want spanking regulated! (And I certainly do not)

[qayak]

True, but by that logic forks and Q-tips should also be regulated.

Technically they are. If you stab someone with a fork, it's assault with a weapon and all weapons are regulated in that you can't use them against other people except in limited, and specific, situations.

[23_Tauri]

Do you really believe only boys watch porn?
Can't wait for Senex to answer this one!

:popcorn1

[JFrankA]

Technically they are. If you stab someone with a fork, it's assault with a weapon and all weapons are regulated in that you can't use them against other people except in limited, and specific, situations.

That's not regulation of a Q-tip or a fork. That's "don't assault someone".

I can use a Q-Tip to tickle my partner's bare feet or use a fork lightly scrape my girlfriend's inner thigh if I want to give her some tingling chills.

....or should THAT be regulated....? :rolleyes:

[Ivor the Engineer]

As tesscaline said in an earlier post, there's no magic cut off point where a child suddenly becomes an adult. But for the purposes of the law a line has to be drawn. 16 is pretty universal across the Western world and I think we've got it about right. But then I'm a product of my cultural background, so I'm going to be biased towards my own country.

Okay. From what little I've read of the case it appears the young woman was aware of what she wanted to do. Do you think that is the case for the majority of 16 year olds having "vanilla" sex with much older men or women, let alone BDSM involving bondage, stress positions and spanking/caning?

For example, this recent case (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-12137400) shows the other extreme, with girls and young women being exploited by older men.

If we were more accepting of the type of relationship in the OP, would we become less sensitive to cases where abuse and/or exploitation has taken place?

<snip>

Mentally competent? So someone with a touch of Alzheimers? How does that figure in your scale of mental competence? Or is sexual exploitation of OAPs not common enough to raise any concern?

All kinds of physical and psychological abuse of OAPs and other vulnerable groups is unfortunately common.

[Ryokan]

For example, this recent case (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-12137400) shows the other extreme, with girls and young women being exploited by older men.

Reading the article, it's about people who sexually abused children and raped girls. I don't know how that relates at all to someone above the age of consent having consensual sex.

[JWideman]

Ok, you got me on gay men. Understand that in this country where news is important, we recently have had undergraduates from Yale University chanting in public...

No means Yes
Yes means Anal!
No means Yes
Yes means Anal!....

I'm scratching my chin and realize these heterosexual guys are watching too much internet porn. They go to Yale and should have a lot going for them and not need to resort to sexist chanting to support whatever sexuality they have.


it wasn't boring if you were there:rolleyes:


Maybe, maybe not.


Wow, I never mentioned any of this. You are projecting your stuff at me...

You weren't a naughty girl at a young age were you;)

You haven't been monitoring the current state of internet porn. Fortunately for everyone I have been, for scientific curiosity, and the B&D scenes you can easily find for free are something you don't want your 15, 16 or even 17 year old to play with. I thought I was a savvy teen about porn because my dad had a Playboy subscription. I was as naive as could be compared with what todays children have access to. I believe that is wrong. Boys today see crazy sex that isn't necessary to have a wonderful sex life.

Maybe porn is ruining it for the people hard wired to S&M (who am I kidding - it gives them more potential partners). I'm not inexperienced with such things but a 20 something with a 15 year old girl may be right for one in five hundred situations - but it is exploitive in the other four hundred and ninety-nine situations. Men prey on vulnerable 15 year old girls. Sad but true.

It's funny that you on one hand state that boys today are seeing "crazy sex", but on the other state that you think what you see in B&D porn is an accurate depiction of B&D.
You can't say I wouldn't want my daughter doing "those things". My concern about my daughter's sex life only goes as far as knowing she practices safe sex and isn't being forced to do anything she doesn't want to do. The details are not something I want to even think about. As far as I want to know, she doesn't have sex.
I will say that much of "those things" aren't something I want to be involved in myself. On the other hand, I know some people who would. BDSM covers a wide range of activities and you can't pick one activity to say "this is what people into BDSM do".
Anyway, I don't know why you're talking about 15 year olds. The young woman referenced in the OP is 16. Also, men prey on vulnerable 30+ year old women. Age and vulnerability aren't as related as you may think.

[bookitty]

They do tend to think that they're going to live forever, but their fearlessness teaches them boundaries too.

My adolescent nephews took to leaping out of a first floor bedroom window onto their trampoline in the garden whilst the grown ups were away. :covereyes Boing. Another broken arm but hey, my sister's so used to turning up at A&E with one of her three sons in tow that the staff there greet her like an old friend. :D


Bet that pissed her off mightily. How much was this to do with the fact that had she died the parents/guardians may have been liable? They were covering their own back, so to speak.


You see, this is where I have to disagree. We think that there will be exploitation becuase culturally we've become much more prudish about sex between people of wildly different ages. If we look back in history this was not the case. Why do we now consider what would once upon a time been considered an instructive and nurturing relationship between an older mentor and a younger person to now be 'exploitation'?

Ok, I'm going to throw something really rad into the conversation now, because I was thinking about this the other night after reading this thread.

Imagine if it was socially acceptable (the social norm) for an older person to 'take on' a teenager once they reach the age of consent, if the teenager wanted a sexual mentor for the first few years of their sexually active life? The mentor's role would be to show them how to make love like an adult and get max enjoyment from one's sexuality, and maybe verse them in other aspects of the adult world.

It wouldn't preclude the youngster from having a regular teen boyfriend or girlfriend as well. The older mentor would be approved by the parents/guardians of the teenager so that they knew they trusted them to care for their son/daughter.

What harm would come about if society was more accepting of sex between teenagers and older men and women and there was a social acceptance of such relationships, as I describe above?

Discuss! :D

It's a matter of trust and bridging the knowledge gap. In order to take on a sexual apprentice, the older person would have to be respectful of the younger person boundaries, go at the pace best suited to the younger and have some mechanism in place to protect the younger from something they weren't ready for. So it would start off with the same sort of conversation and mutual understanding that you find in BDSM sex between strangers.* The people involved would be more careful of their partner's needs.

It might be better to work this idea of trust and responsibility for your own sexual experience into sex ed, than to assume that adults are the only ones who could provide it.


* Note: I'm not saying that all BDSM sex has an elaborate conversation as foreplay. It's done by humans, and humans can be impulsive. However, it is more acceptable in the BDSM world to set your boundaries ahead of time, instead of just figuring it out as you go along.

[Senex]

Weird. All my friends and their friends watch porn all the time yet none of them do things like that. Maybe Americans are different.
Maybe Americans kept you from speaking German.


Such as? Why wouldn't i want my 17 year old daughter to do "that" but am i supposed to approve the second she turns 18?
You mocked the idea of me having a daughter and I triple mock the idea of you having one.

Evidence please.
I can't produce statistics but I can bully you into non-response if I just spilled links to 15 year olds who were molested.



Just like women pray on 15 year old boys. We once had a case here where a female teacher made a 15 year old student have sex with her, despite the fact that he didn't want to. Why are women so evil and heartless?
It's foolish to equate the two.
:rolleyes:

Do you really believe only boys watch porn?
I believe less than 5% of the internet porn traffic is for the welfare of women. I have had sexually active girlfriends and they did not consume porn unless asked to watch, they never precipitated it.
Can't wait for Senex to answer this one!

:popcorn1
Where are these porn watching women -- and I suspect it isn't male dominated S&M if they are watching.

[JWideman]

I believe less than 5% of the internet porn traffic is for the welfare of women. I have had sexually active girlfriends and they did not consume porn unless asked to watch, they never precipitated it.

Where are these porn watching women -- and I suspect it isn't male dominated S&M if they are watching.

I'll address your anecdote with an anecdote:
My wife asks me to watch porn with her, and another woman I know who watches porn - by herself - will only watch male dominated S&M porn.
Your limited world experience isn't the only possible one.

[Mark6]

Where are these porn watching women -- and I suspect it isn't male dominated S&M if they are watching.
My wife watches porn. So do both my teenage daughters -- although they try to hide that fact.

None of them care for male dominated S&M. As far as I know.

[bookitty]

For example, this recent case (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-derbyshire-12137400) shows the other extreme, with girls and young women being exploited by older men.

If we were more accepting of the type of relationship in the OP, would we become less sensitive to cases where abuse and/or exploitation has taken place?


I see your point. With today's views of women, it is more difficult for a teen girl who is already sexually active to claim that she was raped. The f'd up logic of virginity and female chastity says that if she wanted it once, she will want it again. Once she's been breached, it's open season.

(With teen boys, there is the expectation that they would welcome any sexual encounter. If they are sexually exploited, people are more likely to say that they got lucky instead of raped.)

If we allow girls to be in control of their sexuality and focus on respect between sexual partners, we take away this ridiculous idea that women must guard themselves against any sexual encounter so that they are not seen as 'easy." It would be simpler to tell when rape or exploitation has occurred because the focus would be on whether or not an already expected consent was given.

[bookitty]

Maybe Americans kept you from speaking German.


You mocked the idea of me having a daughter and I triple mock the idea of you having one.

I can't produce statistics but I can bully you into non-response if I just spilled links to 15 year olds who were molested.



It's foolish to equate the two.

I believe less than 5% of the internet porn traffic is for the welfare of women. I have had sexually active girlfriends and they did not consume porn unless asked to watch, they never precipitated it.

Where are these porn watching women -- and I suspect it isn't male dominated S&M if they are watching.

Anecdote time! Every woman I know either currently watches porn on the net, or was surprised and delighted when they first discovered just how much was out there. Porn is fascinating.

[Senex]

I'll address your anecdote with an anecdote:
My wife asks me to watch porn with her, and another woman I know who watches porn - by herself - will only watch male dominated S&M porn.
Your limited world experience isn't the only possible one.

You got me. My world view is rattled. If I could only meet this lady maybe I could get my life back together. I'm rattled. It's bleak. Could you possibly IM me her email address? I know my life isn't important to you and if I die in the street it is no skin off your nose, but if you have any human emotion can you send me her e-mail.

hehehe..don't worry - just practicing ;)

[Ryokan]

Maybe Americans kept you from speaking German.

And maybe not, since he's Swedish and Sweden wasn't even involved in WW2.

I'm not Swedish, though, and technically it was the Russians who kept me from speaking German.

I also have no idea what that has anything to do with the topic at hand, except allow you to beat your chest for something that happened almost 70 years ago.