Fun and games in South Carolina
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 ( Read more... )
But for pity's sake, don't whip out your gamecock and set it on another gamecock if you live in South Carolina ( Read more... )
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.
Reply
Leave a comment