Voluntary BDSM or Aggravated Assault?

[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!

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:

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. 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? 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. 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? 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?

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!

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.