Fun and games in South Carolina

[eyes_of_cyrene]

Don't worry if you beat up your significant other... you'll be outta jail in 30 days (that's assuming, ha, you get the maximum sentence).

But for pity's sake, don't whip out your gamecock and set it on another gamecock if you live in South Carolina

Comments

[eyes_of_cyrene]

1) I highly doubt it was consensual when it started. The balance of power between adult and child is so skewed that there is no possible way a 14-year-old child, who by the way had more than likely been groomed from a much younger age, could give true consent. And that magical moment when she becomes a legal adult doesn't have anything to do with it, either, unless you're going into the court of law.

Children and parents have, by definition, a completely imbalanced relationship. That's the way it's supposed to be. Parents have power over children (and hopefully exercise that with caution, care, and love). A parent who takes advantage of that power is abusing his or her child. Period. I don't see any wiggle room there at all. (and, by the way, this applies to a stepparent, too)

I've lost track of how many former child victims have claimed consensuality in order to protect their abusers... because they've been led to believe they consented. Grooming. It's a wonderful thing.

2) define "between children."
Sexual experimentation is normal and healthy. Sex between minors, while often regrettable, is normal. Sex between a 16-year-old and an 8-year-old is abusive. Balance. Of. Power. Inability. To. Consent.

3) it's not illegal (or abusive) for the secretary to be screwing her boss, or for the boss to be porking his secretary. It's stupid, yes, and will more than likely lead to problems, but it does not become illegal (or abusive) until or unless there are threats or sanctions stated or implied. "you fuck me or you lose your job," stated or implied. THEN it becomes abusive. And illegal. (unless you're in the military, and the military is literally a law unto itself)

If the sex between them is the result of those sorts of threats, then, yes, it's abusive. Her ability to consent implies an equality. If he reminds her that she's not anywhere near equal to him, and she feels coerced, then it's not consensual.

I think you and I are not only defining the big terms differently, but also the supporting terms.

4) Once again, we hit up against... are we discussing/arguing the terms based on moral/social views, or legality?

Legally, yes, all that is abusive, grounds for suspension, et cetera.

Is it abusive by the definitions of "nonconsensual" and "power imbalance?" Maybe. Maybe not. I'm quite sure there are, somewhere, former doctor/patient, priest/lay person, dentist/patient pairs who have gone on to happy, healthy, fulfilled relationships.

Cool. I'm all for healthy relationships.

This is one place where, morally, the waters are a little muddy. Was there any coercion at the beginning? If not, then I would personally (and this is entirely my own opinion) say that sex between these two people wasn't abusive. If there WAS coercion, I'm going to slap that label on.

Because coercion lessens the ability to consent.

Consent. Balance of power.

Put this back in the context where we began... BDSM.

Dominant.
Submissive.

Would you argue that there is an inherent imbalance of power upon labelling people as one or the other? I submit that (hahah, unintended pun) until the submissive party has consented to the exchange of power, he or she has an equal amount. And I would furthermore submit that the balance of power doesn't necessarily truly shift.

This is getting too far into personal credo, though. My point here is this: The submissive party needs to give consent to the dominant party before the power EXCHANGE takes place.

There's no exchange in abuse. Power is taken, not given.

[teamnoir]

1) It's not my position to judge an adult who claims past or ongoing consensual activity. Until and unless they present their issue to me and ask for me help, it's not really any of my business. From my perspective, it is not a priori abuse and it does not invite intervention on my part.

2) So you're saying that an 8yo can consent to another 8yo, but not to a 16yo? That gets into a beard argument then, doesn't it? Surely one hair is not a beard, but are two? Or three? If 8&16 is not ok, then what about 8 & 15? 8 & 14? 9 & 16? etc. How do you draw the line? How would you go about deciding whether to intervene, assuming you happen across a pair of children in the act and you know neither of them personally nor their parents?

3) From the outside, it's not so clear. It's the same case as the child, in many ways. If power imbalance a priori prevents consent, then it should a priori prevent consent in both the case of the secretary as well as the child.

Let's make this more personal.

In first person - I take action. I decline action. Whether something is judged by society to be abusive or illegal enters into my choices, but it doesn't necessarily define them. I will take actions that are considered abusive by others but not necessarily by me. If someone has a problem with me, I prefer that they take it up with me first, but I understand that in some situations, that can be difficult for someone to do.

In second person - I interact with others. If I don't like an exchange, I decline it. If I can't decline it, then I look for support. Are there other people around who can help me out of the situation? If so, I call for help in whatever means works. If the situation is abusive, I expect that society - perhaps total strangers, will step in to help. If the situation is not clearly abusive, then I expect to do a lot more explaining or a lot more looking to find someone willing to help me out.

In third person - we have societal standards for behavior and for abuse. Consent is not prohibited. Abuse can occur even when the parties consent to the behavior. There are situations in which I will step in to intervene, even though neither of the parties has asked.

Yes, we may be having a semantic argument. To me, "abuse" is defined in part by consent, but primarily by societal norms and that's the definition I use. It's ok to punish your child, even though it's nonconsensual, because that's within our society's norms.

If you work it the other way, and define abuse in terms of a lack of consent, then you are forced to define away consent on your own terms, while ignoring the claims of the people involved. I prefer to respect and acknowledge those claims, though I won't necessarily agree to take action solely on that basis.

If a child complains that it's not right that his parent punishes him, (perhaps a claim of abuse), I can acknowledge that it's not fair and that the relationship is imbalanced.

Whether the words submissive and dominant come with an a priori power imbalance depends on the context. In many contexts, they do. Power dynamics exist even outside of consensual d/s. Inside consensual d/s, there are entire communities where those words do come with a priori power imbalances - the tpe folks, the gor folks, and many folks who practice m/s.

My personal preference is to view d/s exchanges as though the participants were effectively at power parity. I find the results of that assumption to be more interesting and useful than the reverse. It's an arbitrary belief, though, and I'm well aware that it's an arbitrary belief. A world view without this can still be a self consistent world view and can still yield insight. I just don't usually find it quite as constructive.

I think your perspective on these issues is more rigid, more black and white than is either necessary or useful. I hear that they have strong emotional charge for you. They have had for me as well.