Voluntary BDSM or Aggravated Assault?

[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/transla...riande-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?

 

[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 and

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:

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....