Sex Slave or Consenting Adult?

[Madeline]

Humans can sexualize darned near anything. ANYTHING. When you legislate sexuality, you leave some without lawful access to what they want or need for pleasure. If there is no compelling state reason for the prohibition, doing so is just puritanical.

 

[Cecilie1200]

All sexual behavior is inherently ridiculous, Missourian, even the missionary position. The fact that YOU would not find the doggie-play sexually enjoyable cannot be the test used to determine whether such conduct should be illegal or considered medically abberant enough to call a "symptom of mental illness".

I suggest the test we should use, instead, is does the conduct in any way create an undue risk of physical harm? The answer is clearly "no", and so in my view, anyone who wants to play dress up after shopping at Pets R Us is perfectly free to enjoy.

Caning and being nailed to a board fails the undue risk test.

I'd put the bar far further out, Missourian. Risk of death would be my benchmark; I would be willing to criminalize very few consensual behaviors between adults that do not involve this. Take scarification and blood play; the fact is, without one party being infected, blood play can be quite safe. I doubt you'd find any reported death in the US attributable to it. Does that mean I approve? Of course not...but neither do I approve of any other extreme body modification and the whole vampire thingie leaves me cold.

I just don't see why my personal sexual appetites should dictate the outer limits of anyone else's behavior.

Most people in the community draw the line at "lasting physical harm". Basically, if it's going to involve a trip to the doctor, they avoid it. Scarification doesn't qualify - although it's viewed as extreme - because it doesn't actually inhibit your body's ability to function. Really, it's not any different from getting a tattoo. Amputation or bone-breaking or such would get one blacklisted in most BDSM communities, because you are not a "safe player".

 

[Madeline]

Caning and being nailed to a board fails the undue risk test.

I'd put the bar far further out, Missourian. Risk of death would be my benchmark; I would be willing to criminalize very few consensual behaviors between adults that do not involve this. Take scarification and blood play; the fact is, without one party being infected, blood play can be quite safe. I doubt you'd find any reported death in the US attributable to it. Does that mean I approve? Of course not...but neither do I approve of any other extreme body modification and the whole vampire thingie leaves me cold.

I just don't see why my personal sexual appetites should dictate the outer limits of anyone else's behavior.

Most people in the community draw the line at "lasting physical harm". Basically, if it's going to involve a trip to the doctor, they avoid it. Scarification doesn't qualify - although it's viewed as extreme - because it doesn't actually inhibit your body's ability to function. Really, it's not any different from getting a tattoo. Amputation or bone-breaking or such would get one blacklisted in most BDSM communities, because you are not a "safe player".

I'd be okay with outlawing amputation and bone breaking. I'm not sure you can do either one without a grave risk of death...but even if, I still think they are so outre', 99% of all other adult consensual sexual behavior would be legal.

The one that gives me the most pause is breath play. Any cop and most military types prolly know how to cause unconsciousness but not death -- I'd imagine they all know at least how to do a choke hold. Most BDSM-related deaths resulting in homicide charges arise from breath play of one sort or another....and I hear teens are getting into this as well.

I think people should have to demonstrate aptitude at both the breath play and the revival, if one is needed, or else face homicide charges if the bottom dies, regardless of the bottom's consent.

And I dun think minors should be doing this AT ALL.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I'd put the bar far further out, Missourian. Risk of death would be my benchmark; I would be willing to criminalize very few consensual behaviors between adults that do not involve this. Take scarification and blood play; the fact is, without one party being infected, blood play can be quite safe. I doubt you'd find any reported death in the US attributable to it. Does that mean I approve? Of course not...but neither do I approve of any other extreme body modification and the whole vampire thingie leaves me cold.

I just don't see why my personal sexual appetites should dictate the outer limits of anyone else's behavior.

Most people in the community draw the line at "lasting physical harm". Basically, if it's going to involve a trip to the doctor, they avoid it. Scarification doesn't qualify - although it's viewed as extreme - because it doesn't actually inhibit your body's ability to function. Really, it's not any different from getting a tattoo. Amputation or bone-breaking or such would get one blacklisted in most BDSM communities, because you are not a "safe player".

I'd be okay with outlawing amputation and bone breaking. I'm not sure you can do either one without a grave risk of death...but even if, I still think they are so outre', 99% of all other adult consensual sexual behavior would be legal.

The one that gives me the most pause is breath play. Any cop and most military types prolly know how to cause unconsciousness but not death -- I'd imagine they all know at least how to do a choke hold. Most BDSM-related deaths resulting in homicide charges arise from breath play of one sort or another....and I hear teens are getting into this as well.

I think people should have to demonstrate aptitude at both the breath play and the revival, if one is needed, or else face homicide charges if the bottom dies, regardless of the bottom's consent.

And I dun think minors should be doing this AT ALL.

I agree on breath play, actually. My club recently had a debate about whether or not to allow it on the premises, and came down on the side of a rule prohibiting "any play to intentionally cause unconsciousness" and "no carotid artery play". Even if you don't hold it long enough to strangle someone, there's still the possibility of causing a stroke or heart attack.

We also have people on hand at all times with "first responder" CPR certifications.

 

[chanel]

Legality aside - my definition of perverted sickoness may be different than others. I can't even watch violence on TV or movies.

Hey. Maddie - if I felt nervous sitting next to a man with a mask and a metal studded dilldo and expressed such anxiety on TV, would I be guilty of hate speech? After all, it s perfectly "nornal" right?

 

[Missourian]

Do you feel the same way about virtual kiddie porn?

 

[Madeline]

Do you feel the same way about virtual kiddie porn?

Are you talking about porn made with real actors and age-regression software? It is VERY problematic, Missourian. If no child was harmed in creating the image, what we are really criminalizing is the appetite for sexual images of (what appear to be but aren't) children. Some say such images create an unreasonable risk of harm to actual children, because they help create pedophilia -- others say they act as a safety value and deter pedophilia. I wish I knew.

I am not sure, myself. It's a new and very tough legal question.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Legality aside - my definition of perverted sickoness may be different than others. I can't even watch violence on TV or movies.

Hey. Maddie - if I felt nervous sitting next to a man with a mask and a metal studded dilldo and expressed such anxiety on TV, would I be guilty of hate speech? After all, it s perfectly "nornal" right?

Nobody asks that you like, agree with, or feel comfortable with other people's kinks; just don't make YOUR problems someone ELSE'S problem. If you're uncomfortable being around something, just walk away. There's no need to make other people feel bad about it just because YOU don't like it.

There are a number of kinks that make me feel uncomfortable. Generally, anything that can be described using the word "puncture" qualifies. That doesn't require me to judge it or condemn it, or tell people that they're "sick". I just go take a walk, get a bite to eat, or visit the smoking area for a while. As long as they're happy and not asking me to have an opinion, I don't feel required to have one.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Do you feel the same way about virtual kiddie porn?

Dunno who you're asking, but personally, I think anything that encourages or strengthens the urges of pedophiles shouldn't be allowed. Nothing good is ever going to come from that.

 

[Madeline]

Legality aside - my definition of perverted sickoness may be different than others. I can't even watch violence on TV or movies.

Hey. Maddie - if I felt nervous sitting next to a man with a mask and a metal studded dilldo and expressed such anxiety on TV, would I be guilty of hate speech? After all, it s perfectly "nornal" right?

Nobody asks that you like, agree with, or feel comfortable with other people's kinks; just don't make YOUR problems someone ELSE'S problem. If you're uncomfortable being around something, just walk away. There's no need to make other people feel bad about it just because YOU don't like it.

There are a number of kinks that make me feel uncomfortable. Generally, anything that can be described using the word "puncture" qualifies. That doesn't require me to judge it or condemn it, or tell people that they're "sick". I just go take a walk, get a bite to eat, or visit the smoking area for a while. As long as they're happy and not asking me to have an opinion, I don't feel required to have one.

I'm not comfy with anyone else's exhibitionism; I do not attend places where live sex acts/kink acts of any sort occur. I'd be uncomfy next to the guy in the mask as well, but I consider it my problem and no one else's....and I dun need anyone to accommodate me apart from giving me notice, so I have time to clear out.

As an aside, no responsible adult involves minors in a sex/kink act of any sort even as viewers. That is a completely separate matter and nobody would argue against it remaining illegal.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Legality aside - my definition of perverted sickoness may be different than others. I can't even watch violence on TV or movies.

Hey. Maddie - if I felt nervous sitting next to a man with a mask and a metal studded dilldo and expressed such anxiety on TV, would I be guilty of hate speech? After all, it s perfectly "nornal" right?

Nobody asks that you like, agree with, or feel comfortable with other people's kinks; just don't make YOUR problems someone ELSE'S problem. If you're uncomfortable being around something, just walk away. There's no need to make other people feel bad about it just because YOU don't like it.

There are a number of kinks that make me feel uncomfortable. Generally, anything that can be described using the word "puncture" qualifies. That doesn't require me to judge it or condemn it, or tell people that they're "sick". I just go take a walk, get a bite to eat, or visit the smoking area for a while. As long as they're happy and not asking me to have an opinion, I don't feel required to have one.

I'm not comfy with anyone else's exhibitionism; I do not attend places where live sex acts/kink acts of any sort occur. I'd be uncomfy next to the guy in the mask as well, but I consider it my problem and no one else's....and I dun need anyone to accommodate me apart from giving me notice, so I have time to clear out.

As an aside, no responsible adult involves minors in a sex/kink act of any sort even as viewers. That is a completely separate matter and nobody would argue against it remaining illegal.

I consider taking one's kink behavior into public places to be non-consensual play, because you are forcing people to participate in your kink who have not agreed to do so and do not wish to do so. And I don't even discuss that sort of thing around minors, other than my own kids in order to answer their questions, much as I answer all of their questions involving sex.

 

[Missourian]

Do you feel the same way about virtual kiddie porn?

Dunno who you're asking, but personally, I think anything that encourages or strengthens the urges of pedophiles shouldn't be allowed. Nothing good is ever going to come from that.

It was an open question.

But now we're on the same page...I think nothing good comes from a societal acceptance of sexual behavior that encourages and strengthens the urge to demean, humiliate and physically abuse of another human being.

 

[strollingbones]

missouri did you see where i said consenting adults...

 

[Madeline]

Questions About Accuser Surround Sex Slave Case - FoxNews.com

Comments?

Prosecutors are paid to get convictions. They are manipulative and do whatever the can legally to present a case. They are under no obligation to do the right thing. They also enjoy inflamatory cases that draw attention to themselves as many of them aspire to higher public offices and use the publicity to their own advantage.

The same can be said of the defense.

True. But defense lawyers have only one client -- the accused. Prosecutors (are supposed to) serve the interests of justice of their entire communities, and have (additional, higher) different duties.

 

[Madeline]

Do you feel the same way about virtual kiddie porn?

Dunno who you're asking, but personally, I think anything that encourages or strengthens the urges of pedophiles shouldn't be allowed. Nothing good is ever going to come from that.

It was an open question.

But now we're on the same page...I think nothing good comes from a societal acceptance of sexual behavior that encourages and strengthens the urge to demean, humiliate and physically abuse of another human being.

"Social acceptance" and "illegality" are two different issues. You are free to disapprove, and to express that disapproval. No one is trying to alter your personal tastes. I would like to see laws changed so that your community could not prosecute criminally in the absence of a risk of severe harm or death.

Apparently, this is where we disagree.

 

[Missourian]

missouri did you see where i said consenting adults...

I did...but you cannot use the argument for one behavior and dismiss it for the other.

If a pedophile is sick because of his (or her) aberrant sexual desires and virtual porn will only encourage and strengthen his urges (which I believe is true) then shouldn't the same holds true of a Dominants aberrant sexual urges. Is what the Dom real wants to dominate the willing?

How many cases of woman being held against their will as sex slaves have been reported recently...didn't 20/20 just report on this a week or two ago?

 

[Father Time]

Most people in the community draw the line at "lasting physical harm". Basically, if it's going to involve a trip to the doctor, they avoid it. Scarification doesn't qualify - although it's viewed as extreme - because it doesn't actually inhibit your body's ability to function. Really, it's not any different from getting a tattoo. Amputation or bone-breaking or such would get one blacklisted in most BDSM communities, because you are not a "safe player".

I'd be okay with outlawing amputation and bone breaking. I'm not sure you can do either one without a grave risk of death...but even if, I still think they are so outre', 99% of all other adult consensual sexual behavior would be legal.

The one that gives me the most pause is breath play. Any cop and most military types prolly know how to cause unconsciousness but not death -- I'd imagine they all know at least how to do a choke hold. Most BDSM-related deaths resulting in homicide charges arise from breath play of one sort or another....and I hear teens are getting into this as well.

I think people should have to demonstrate aptitude at both the breath play and the revival, if one is needed, or else face homicide charges if the bottom dies, regardless of the bottom's consent.

And I dun think minors should be doing this AT ALL.

I agree on breath play, actually. My club recently had a debate about whether or not to allow it on the premises, and came down on the side of a rule prohibiting "any play to intentionally cause unconsciousness" and "no carotid artery play".

So no grabbing the neck? (Sorry I've never heard of breath play or the carotid artery, human anatomy never interested me).

 

[Madeline]

missouri did you see where i said consenting adults...

I did...but you cannot use the argument for one behavior and dismiss it for the other.

If a pedophile is sick because of his (or her) aberrant sexual desires and virtual porn will only encourage and strengthen his urges (which I believe is true) then shouldn't the same holds true of a Dominants aberrant sexual urges. Is what the Dom real wants to dominate the willing?

How many cases of woman being held against their will as sex slaves have been reported recently...didn't 20/20 just report on this a week or two ago?

BDSM is consensual conduct between two adults, Missourian. Without consent, the conduct is all some form of assault or false imprisonment, etc.

The issue of trafficking is grave, and deserves the attention of law enforcement, but has nothing whatsoever to do with BDSM.

 

[Father Time]

Do you feel the same way about virtual kiddie porn?

Are you talking about porn made with real actors and age-regression software?

I think he means drawings/animations of kids being screwed.

I don't think they cause pedophilia, so I don't want them to be illegal.

 

[Missourian]

Dunno who you're asking, but personally, I think anything that encourages or strengthens the urges of pedophiles shouldn't be allowed. Nothing good is ever going to come from that.

It was an open question.

But now we're on the same page...I think nothing good comes from a societal acceptance of sexual behavior that encourages and strengthens the urge to demean, humiliate and physically abuse of another human being.

"Social acceptance" and "illegality" are two different issues. You are free to disapprove, and to express that disapproval. No one is trying to alter your personal tastes. I would like to see laws changed so that your community could not prosecute criminally in the absence of a risk of severe harm or death.

Apparently, this is where we disagree.

You'll have to link to any post of mine that mentions in any way shape or form criminalization.

In fact, I think I posted that these folks have the right as consenting adults to engage in this sexual behavior.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/138511-sex-slave-or-consenting-adult-2.html#post2883844

What I have contended from my first post is that they have underlying psychological issues that drive these behaviors.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/138511-sex-slave-or-consenting-adult.html#post2883316