Voluntary BDSM or Aggravated Assault?

[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!

.....

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. 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.

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!

 

[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!

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

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.

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!

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? 80? 90? 101?