Voluntary BDSM or Aggravated Assault?

[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 ****.

 

[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 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 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?