The 'ethics' of casual 'bdsm'

[rida]

All the more reason to approach such a situation cautiously ... taking the time to get to know someone, developing trust and affection.

A novice attending a party is unlikely to know anyone well, taking everyone and everything on faith. She will be getting almost no time to get to know anyone, let alone get to know them to the point where she can develop a reasonable idea of whether these individuals are being candid or not.

By the age of 21 I'd expect an individual to be mature enough to have developed a critical thinking and a good judgment. That being said, plenty of people never develop such skills and end up in trouble whether they attend a BDSM party or the company Christmas bash or go to happy hours at the bar around the corner.

I do not condone taking advantage of people. However that happening is not exclusive of BDSM events.

They, on the other hand, are only interested in whether she will be cooperative or not. They don't care about her as a person, don't want to know about how she was abused in the past ... just as long as she doesn't melt down in front of them, and is willing to do as she is told, she's in.

Certainly not the regulars. We've seen more than enough evidence of that in this discussion.

And the other novices, eager to be accepted by the regulars, will agree with the regulars.

And anyone who doesn't like it would simply leave or not go back.

I'd like to point out that I did not think you were a poor lost "fresh meat" that needs protection from the big bad Casual Players. You have also proved that you can hold your own very well when it comes to make broad swiping offending generalizations.

The fact that no knight in shiny armor is running to rescue you has no bearing on how the people that are taking the time to discuss in a mature way with you will react if aware during a public event of abuse and fool play.

From the sum of their posts (here and many other thread) I can think of many that would indeed be the first to intervene. But then I have faith in humanity as overall good.

 

[Ravenwind]

This is an Urban Legend. There's enough real information to debunk BLoved without having to rely on tales.

My bad, then, I had genuinely thought it to be true- so much so, that none of my friends or family would use pay phones back then. *shrugs* ya learn something new every day. ...I just wish I had learned it 20 years earlier... would've saved me a lot of sitting around and waiting. lol

 

[warrior queen]

I assume that should anyone choose to read my words, they will make up their own minds over whether I present a valid argument or not.

and pretty much, most here have completely disagreed... but still you pontificate, argueing a point that has unanimously been call INvalid.....
perhaps it's time to rethink your position.

 

[Seurat]

ad hominem: An ad hominem, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument toward the person"), is an attempt to persuade which links the validity of a premise to a characteristic or belief of the person advocating the premise. The ad hominem is a classic logical fallacy.

Funny, that was exactly what I defined some of your posts as, back on page 3 of this thread, when you said:

Thus far, advocates of casual 'bdsm' have demonstrated an overwhelming need to shout down all opposing points of view. Wherever they dominate an online discussion board, here and on other sites, all those whose views oppose casual 'bdsm' are chased off. By examining a considerable number of these encounters it is clear advocates of casual 'bdsm' revert to a form of behaviour reminiscent of school-yard bullies, bereft of content but lots of static.
I consider this a demonstration of the degree of immaturity required to advocate casual 'bdsm'.

and

Clearly it is part of the casual 'bdsm' paradigm to use deceit, subterfuge, bullying, and any other tactic they believe will get them what they want, without concern or consideration for anyone else.

and

It is readily recognized by its antipathy towards love, those who are victimized by the casual community, novices in general, and its inability to discuss its own short-comings. A degree of fanaticism attends its defense, an insistence that whatever anyone calls "bdsm", we must all respect said definition (otherwise we are free to judge what is and is not "bdsm" and questions about the abusiveness of casual players will bring into question the casual paradigm).

You lost me to the 'Argumentum Ad Hominem'. Once you start with the 'victims', 'fanaticism', and, what I see as unsupported and unfounded comments such as, 'an insistencethat..we must all respect" you again undermine my willingness to be see your theories as viable, regardless os of how my own belief structure may align with yours.

I find it very interesting (and telling) that you simply ignored my requests to post your theories in a logical manner and without the use of generalized and personal attacks, and yet now use the same call for disuse of personal attacks on the grounds of logical fallacy when you and where you want. All I was asking for was to have your position presented in a way that gave people a way to react and present both supportive and contradictory positions without feeling that they were being attacked.

Utilizing such tools only when they fit your purpose, and disallowing their use (even if it is only through dismission) will and does, I think, disuade those who might support your position given the chance.

 

[Etoile]

Some schools implemented school door numbering to improve public safety response.

Oh shit, that's what that is for? I see that kind of thing at most schools in my county, but I never knew the reason for it.

 

[BLoved]

By the age of 21 I'd expect an individual to be mature enough to have developed a critical thinking and a good judgment.

Well then we have a problem, don't we.

You see, here a person is considered an "adult" when they reach the age of 18.

Using your standard of 21, that means those who have not achieved the age where you would expect them to be "mature enough to have developed critical thinking and a good judgment" are free to attend these events.

That being said, plenty of people never develop such skills and end up in trouble whether they attend a BDSM party or the company Christmas bash or go to happy hours at the bar around the corner.

I do not condone taking advantage of people. However that happening is not exclusive of BDSM events.

In other words, if they find themselves being abused at a casual 'bdsm' public event, they can blame themselves for not having the good sense to have stayed away from the event in the first place ... and the fact they are younger than the age where Rida expects them to know better isn't a factor.

Always good for a victim to know the casual community will blame them for any abuse they endure.

They should have known better than to attend the event in the first place.

The fact that no knight in shiny armor is running to rescue you has no bearing on how the people that are taking the time to discuss in a mature way with you will react if aware during a public event of abuse and fool play.

From the sum of their posts (here and many other thread) I can think of many that would indeed be the first to intervene. But then I have faith in humanity as overall good.

Riiight.

There's that infamous blind spot again.

How are we to believe the casual community polices itself when it can't even police itself on an online bdsm forum?

 

[Ravenwind]

It's called "spot-checking", taking a random example and analyzing the processes involved.

I see no reason to assume the one random example is atypical.

All we have is the word of casual players and their advocates that it isn't typical.

I have been in the hospital just one time in my life (the birth of my kids). That *one* time, the hospital had caught on fire, unto the point that some evacuations were necessary. Should it be fair to assume, then, that because of my single experience that went horribly wrong, that all hospitals are prone to catching on fire, or that one hospital is constantly facing fires? I mean, all I have to go on is the word of other patients (pyls) and doctors (PYLs) that it isn't typical...

Where is the difference between your reasoning and mine?

Isn't it more fair to assume that it was merely one bad coincidence, and it takes a wide variety of experiences to reasonably judge the situation as a whole?

regarding later posts...

I've provided links to shootings at nightclubs, and a shooting at a high school, and the steps taken to improve safety.

'Columbine' was a regular activity at the school I went to. Deaths were far from uncommon, mostly due to drugs and gang violence- and I went to a relatively 'safe' school in CA. Yet we didn't even make the local paper, let alone national news- the deaths from our school was only related via the school newsletter. It took an act from a generally-non-violent subculture (gamers, the bullied, goths) against people in power (teachers) for anyone to give a damn, and then demonize the non-violent subcultures surrounding the offenders. I mean, everyone knows who Rachel Scott is, in Columbine... but no one knows about Michael Manzo from the school I went to.

I don't see how Columbine relates to BDSM. Students have their American rights stripped from them (both unwillingly and unknowingly) - subs have 100% of their rights, which they *choose* to hand over until such a point that it is in their best interest to take back those rights. Kliebold and Harris were bullied by their peers and ignored by the authorities. Subs are in no way bullied by Doms, as bullying implies someone who hurts another against their will, whereas a sub is willing, but fully able to call the police if things get out of hand. The only time a "Columbine" could occur in the BDSM world is a sub who is forced to be a sub unwillingly by their 'Dom'- but by then, the sub is not truly a sub, but is a sex slave or prostitute (in the worst sense of the words, of human trafficking and/or an abusive relationship). Then this is no longer under the concept of BDSM, but rather, cruelty and hatred in its most vile form.

Hypnosis may or may not be used to obtain cooperation.

If you genuinely believe hypnosis is a swinging stop watch where people inexorably are drawn to stare at it until they pass out, then wake up like zombies, then there's something wrong with your thought-processes as a whole. Hypnosis only works on 110%-willing participants: if there is a hint of a shadow of a doubt in your mind that it won't work, hey, guess what, it *won't*, and if you can't intentionally focus your mind fully at the task at hand, you *will* be woken up from your relaxed state. Hypnosis is merely a relaxing placebo effect using an open mind in association with some concepts of conditioning and suggestion amongst real practitioners, and amongst entertainers, it is at best using over-eager people who are more than willing to act silly for their '15 seconds of fame' (Wrestlers such as Ted "The Million Dollar Man" DiBiase, exemplified this by having people do what he asked at the expense of a little money- people need not be hypnotized to publicly cluck like a chicken, or in the case of Vince McMahan, the only motivation people needed to physically put their lips on his ass is the threat to keep their jobs... all of these things done for '15 seconds of fame'), and at worst, fraudulent using accomplices.

One simply *cannot* hypnotize the unwilling, because the unwilling are innately incapable of relaxing for a span of a few minutes or more toward someone they are uncomfortable or actively hostile with (consider all the research the military put into the prospects of hypnosis, and then found it to not be viable against people hostile towards them), nor can one hypnotize the disbelieving, because they do not know how to relax properly, and refuse to 'take it seriously'. One likewise cannot hypnotize the drugged and sleepy, because they will bypass the relaxed state altogether, and go right to genuine sleep- snoring and all.

I practice self-hypnosis, and can achieve varying levels of 'depth', from mere relaxation, to full-body paralysis with heightened mental acuity, to lucid fully-conscious dreaming. And the moment I hear a funny commercial on TV, I'm woken right back up, because it takes a full and complete conscious effort to maintain that state to avoid being pulled to either total consciousness, or total sleep.

"Yoooouuu are feeeelingggg slleeeepppyyyy..." ....Hypnotism does not work that way. Sorry.

You see, here a person is considered an "adult" when they reach the age of 18.

Not in all states or areas. Some places it's 16, others, it's 21. Check your local laws please.

Oh shit, that's what that is for? I see that kind of thing at most schools in my county, but I never knew the reason for it.

You know, I was always under the impression school rooms were numbered so kids could find their way to class at the beginning of the year... but I don't think it was for safety... I mean, my dad is amongst the earlier parts of the Baby Boomer generation, and his school rooms were numbered...

 

[BLoved]

I have been in the hospital just one time in my life (the birth of my kids). That *one* time, the hospital had caught on fire, unto the point that some evacuations were necessary. Should it be fair to assume, then, that because of my single experience that went horribly wrong, that all hospitals are prone to catching on fire, or that one hospital is constantly facing fires? I mean, all I have to go on is the word of other patients (pyls) and doctors (PYLs) that it isn't typical...

Where is the difference between your reasoning and mine?

Are you suggesting events at a public 'bdsm' event are as well reported as a hospital on fire?

Are you suggesting the safety protocol at the party I experienced is as exceptional as a hospital on fire?

If that were true, why do we have so many people posting to say they've never attended a public event where there was a weapons check?

Why would Rida and ImOnIt be telling people they attend these events at their own risk, and if they get abused they only have themselves to blame for being so stupid as to attend these public 'bdsm' events in the first place?

 

[Daddy2mylilgirl]

Living with Trauma: Cycles of Self-Destruction

As was described in the previous section, past abuse can predispose a submissive to accept more abuse.

This is not inevitable. Love has a healing quality when it comes to abuse.

Whether the love of one person can heal the abuse suffered by another very much depends on the individuals and the degree to which Love and Fear motivates them.

But there is no cure for abuse but Love.

Love helps to restore self-respect.

Love provides a solid foundation from which one can determine what is real, what is flattery, and what is delusion.

Love does not deceive.

But for those who do not find love, and for those combinations of people where the love of one was insufficient to overcome the fears of the abused, there continues this diminished sense of self-respect.

In their need for relief, they seek solace in the arms of others. But in allowing themselves to be used for the sake of the illusion of being desired they further undermine their self-respect.

Some, convinced they are not doing enough to be desirable, seek to go further, casting off limits if need be, ignoring safety concerns and pushing themselves to the brink of extinction, emotionally if not physically as well.

It is a vicious cycle which, if not stopped, eventually leaves the submissive incapable of accepting love, pushing away anything that looks like love.

After so much abuse, she simply no longer believes in it, or no longer believes herself worthy of it.

She may well go to the extreme of only seeking out situations where there is no chance of Love entering her world.

Jaded and calloused, she may even join in the abuse of others.

After so much abuse, the ability to relate to the feelings of others grows numb.

Just as it does for the domly types who abuse others.

-- Excerpt from "Casual 'BDSM' and Emotional Abuse: The Case for Love"

Well then you and your "beloved" can work on having your "True Love" for each other help heal her as your relationship with each grows and blossoms and only gets stronger as time goes on.

I'm sure "Love" can conquer any past issues she might have.

Oh wait.....Nevermind.

~smile~

 

[BLoved]

Kliebold and Harris were bullied by their peers and ignored by the authorities. Subs are in no way bullied by Doms, as bullying implies someone who hurts another against their will, whereas a sub is willing, but fully able to call the police if things get out of hand.

And how is the sub to do this when she is bound and gagged?

Not in all states or areas. Some places it's 16, others, it's 21. Check your local laws please.

I said "here", as in Canada where the age of adulthood is 18.

But thanks for telling us that people as young as 16 could also attend, local laws willing.

 

[WriterDom]

So still at it I see? Most kids in Middle School take at least a few days to recover when their "true love" crush dumps them. And you are an adult who lived with this woman? No wonder she left you. You are obsessed with message boards.

The weapons kick you've been on since you have been here is just weird. Has their been one documented case of a shooting at a bdsm event? Outside of some government buildings and airports, where else are you checked for weapons, and why for God's sake would you be concerned about a bdsm event? And why would you walk in the door and say, "Maybe we should call 911 if something happens." Who does that? If you were that jaded walking into your one and only bdsm event, what makes anyone think you'd be objective?

 

[PaddyO]

And how is the sub to do this when she is bound and gagged?

When I have my sub bound and gagged she is always holding a red ball in one hand. If she drops the ball EVERYTHING STOPS she is released until she feels safe enough to continue.

Will admit that I have had this happen once, we continued the scene right away and she orgasmed over the next few swats.

 

[rida]

Well then we have a problem, don't we.

You see, here a person is considered an "adult" when they reach the age of 18.

Using your standard of 21, that means those who have not achieved the age where you would expect them to be "mature enough to have developed critical thinking and a good judgment" are free to attend these events.

Legal age of adulthood not withstanding, I've seen that many public event enforce a "no under 21yo" rule. Events that usually do not are the TNG ones, organized by the under 35 (or 30, depending on the group) crowd where people above their cut-off age are not allowed in.

Honestly I'd be all for a "maturity" test before allowing people to be grown up (with the right and responsibilities it entitle). But it does not work that way.

In other words, if they find themselves being abused at a casual 'bdsm' public event, they can blame themselves for not having the good sense to have stayed away from the event in the first place ... and the fact they are younger than the age where Rida expects them to know better isn't a factor.

Always good for a victim to know the casual community will blame them for any abuse they endure.

They should have known better than to attend the event in the first place.

Nowhere I said a victim is to be blamed for abuse.
And a crime is a crime, whether the victim was stupid or not.

But since we do not agree on the definition of abuse (my definition of abuse does not include consensual play, sexual or otherwise, that is outside of an emotional relationship) nor on what constitute consent (just showing up is not consent, having talked and agreed on the parameters of play and a safeword is), this part of the conversation will go nowhere.

Riiight.

There's that infamous blind spot again.

How are we to believe the casual community polices itself when it can't even police itself on an online bdsm forum?

This is a free speech forum. You are free to repeat your words and writing over and over and over. Others are free to disagree. You are free to insult people's mental status. Others are free to do the same. I'm free to keep wanting to have a conversation. You are free to keep having your monologue.

It is assumed that as we are all over 18, the legal age of maturity according to the Lit boards, we don't need a nanny to have conversations and discussions.

 

[TypicalDeviant]

Hey, where can I get a copy of "Casual 'BDSM' and emotional abuse: a case for love"? I checked online and couldn't find it. Who wrote it? When was it published and by whom?

 

[BLoved]

Hey, where can I get a copy of "Casual 'BDSM' and emotional abuse: a case for love"? I checked online and couldn't find it. Who wrote it? When was it published and by whom?

[url="http://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=34068755&postcount=932]Casual 'BDSM' and Emotional Abuse: The Case for Love[/url]

I wrote it.

It is not yet published.

 

[BLoved]

No wonder she left you. You are obsessed with message boards.

The amount of time I've been on this board since she left is not indicative of the amount of time I spent on the board before she left.

Before she left she had my attention whenever she wished. The only time I gave this board was while she was sleeping, or busy with her art.

She knew that I viewed my efforts here as important, offering insights to others like her, helping them as I helped her. If indeed this was a problem and contributing factor to her going (and she did not say that) then she would in effect be isolating me from others, keeping me all to herself.

That would not work out in the long-run.

I certainly did not isolate her from her family or friends. She spoke with them several times every day (cell phone, email).

Certainly a healthy loving relationship requires a considerable investment in time together, and she got that every day. But it should not take up all of one's time.

As I said, she did not blame our break-up on this.

 

[BLoved]

When I have my sub bound and gagged she is always holding a red ball in one hand. If she drops the ball EVERYTHING STOPS she is released until she feels safe enough to continue.

Dropping a ball is not the same as being "fully able to call the police if things get out of hand." (quote from Ravenwind).

 

[BLoved]

Legal age of adulthood not withstanding, I've seen that many public event enforce a "no under 21yo" rule. Events that usually do not are the TNG ones, organized by the under 35 (or 30, depending on the group) crowd where people above their cut-off age are not allowed in.

You are dodging the issue.

You said you expected anyone who reaches the age of "21" should be "mature enough to have developed critical thinking and a good judgment".

In Canada people as young as 18 attend, at an age three years younger than your specification, three years before you would expect them to be "mature enough to have developed critical thinking and a good judgment".

Ravenwind reports there are jurisdictions where people as young as 16 can legally attend ... five years younger than the age where you expect a person should be "mature enough to have developed critical thinking and a good judgment".

I see no reason to believe the casual community in those jurisdictions refuses to enlist children as young as 16.

In what way is this responsible behaviour on the part of the community?

In what way is this safe for 16 year old children, to be put on exhibition at public casual 'bdsm' events for the price of a ticket?

But since we do not agree on the definition of abuse (my definition of abuse does not include consensual play, sexual or otherwise, that is outside of an emotional relationship) nor on what constitute consent (just showing up is not consent, having talked and agreed on the parameters of play and a safeword is), this part of the conversation will go nowhere.

So you're fine with the casual community putting 16 year old girls on display for money at public casual 'bdsm' events as long as the girl "consents" and the "local laws" (to use Ravenwind's words) allow it?

And this is the casual community's idea of responsible behaviour?

 

[seela]

In what way is this safe for 16 year old children, to be put on exhibition at public casual 'bdsm' events for the price of a ticket?

And this is the casual community's idea of responsible behaviour?

Why would the "casual community" be putting 16 year old children on exhibition? What does that even mean?

It isn't very likely that someone just randomly stumbles into a BDSM event, at least not in this part of the world. People who go there know full well where they are headed to and what kind of an event it will be like. The age of consent here is 16, age of majority is 18 and the age to be able to attend BDSM events is usually also 18, but those under 20 are pretty few and far between.

No one is forced or coerced into doing anything they don't want to do, you can just go there and observe if that's what you wish. You certainly won't be whipped on stage and hung on ropes just because you happened to attend an event. If someone is capable of making the conscious decision to go into a BDSM event, then I assume they also are capable of taking care of their own boundaries. Like I said, it's nigh impossible to run into an event without knowing what will happen in there.

 

[Keroin]

BEEEEEEEEEEP


ATTENTION: This is not a test. This is a message from the Emergency Public Broadcast System.

The Casual BDSM threat level today is MAGENTA.

Repeat: MAGENTA

Do not go outside with a good coat of sunscreen and string of garlic around your neck.

Repeat: This is not a test.

Repeat: MAGENTA

This has been a message from the Emergency Public Broadcast System.

Repeat: BEEP.

 

[BLoved]

Why would the "casual community" be putting 16 year old children on exhibition?

Good question.

Ages of consent in North America: United States - Wikipedia lists all the jurisdictions where a child of 16 can consent to sexual relations.

Presumably if it is legal, the casual community has no reason not to exhibit children 16 years of age or older in their public casual 'bdsm' events.

It isn't very likely that someone just randomly stumbles into a BDSM event, at least not in this part of the world. People who go there know full well where they are headed to and what kind of an event it will be like.

16 year old children "know full well where they are headed to and what kind of an event it will be like"?

No one is forced or coerced into doing anything they don't want to do

And you've proof that absolutely "no one" is "forced or coerced" ... anywhere?

What about misled, deceived, motivated by peer pressure?

If someone is capable of making the conscious decision to go into a BDSM event, then I assume they also are capable of taking care of their own boundaries.

Even 16 year olds?

Thank you for shedding some light on the 'ethics' of casual 'bdsm', and the extent to which they will go to make a profit off of these public casual 'bdsm' events.

 

[Netzach]

You are dodging the issue.

You said you expected anyone who reaches the age of "21" should be "mature enough to have developed critical thinking and a good judgment".

In Canada people as young as 18 attend, at an age three years younger than your specification, three years before you would expect them to be "mature enough to have developed critical thinking and a good judgment".

Ravenwind reports there are jurisdictions where people as young as 16 can legally attend ... five years younger than the age where you expect a person should be "mature enough to have developed critical thinking and a good judgment".

I see no reason to believe the casual community in those jurisdictions refuses to enlist children as young as 16.

In what way is this responsible behaviour on the part of the community?

In what way is this safe for 16 year old children, to be put on exhibition at public casual 'bdsm' events for the price of a ticket?



So you're fine with the casual community putting 16 year old girls on display for money at public casual 'bdsm' events as long as the girl "consents" and the "local laws" (to use Ravenwind's words) allow it?

And this is the casual community's idea of responsible behaviour?

One can be an emancipated minor at 16 in some states.

You cannot be in a bar.

You cannot be in a munch.

You cannot attend an SM event and I've never known anyone under 20 at one. These are private organizations, and can discriminate based on age all they wish.

There is NO SM organization run by adults that would go NEAR a 16 year old with a 20 foot pole. Are you seriously insane?

Ravenwind said it was considered old enough to consent to sex (usually with people in your own age range) , old enough to live on your own (usually with court supported requests) but no SM organization, NOT ONE would go near a 16 year old for any reason.

There *are* limited opportuinities in PEER LED groups for younger people to talk to each other - but these are peer-led groups dealing with sexual difference. I'm assuming you are in favor of young people being free to do this and informed to have discussions with their peers and leadership training.

Outright lying and manipulation of people's words again. Super ethics you've got going.

 

[BLoved]

One can be an emancipated minor at 16 in some states.

You cannot be in a munch.

You cannot attend an SM event and I've never known anyone under 20 at one. These are private organizations, and can discriminate based on age all they wish.

There is NO SM organization run by adults that would go NEAR a 16 year old with a 20 foot pole. Are you seriously insane?

Ravenwind said it was considered old enough to consent to sex (usually with people in your own age range) , old enough to live on your own (usually with court supported requests) but no SM organization, NOT ONE would go near a 16 year old for any reason.

Would you like to find any of these exceptions here:

Ages of consent in North America: United States - Wikipedia.

Thus far I've not found them.

As for claims about what a casual community will and won't do ... without evidence from jurisdictions where 16 is the age of consent, they are nothing more than claims.

 

[seela]

Good question.

Ages of consent in North America: United States - Wikipedia lists all the jurisdictions where a child of 16 can consent to sexual relations.

Presumably if it is legal, the casual community has no reason not to exhibit children 16 years of age or older in their public casual 'bdsm' events.

I'm only familiar with the BDSM events of where I live, and here 16 year olds are not allowed to attend, as I mentioned in my previous post. You twist and turn everyone's words completely out of context. How is that considered constructive conversation, which is exactly what you've been asking for in this thread?

16 year old children "know full well where they are headed to and what kind of an event it will be like"?

Yes, I believe even a 16 year old children these days know where they are headed to if they have gone through the trouble of finding a BDSM event they would be allowed enter because of their age. But again, here people have to be at least 18 to be able to enter, and in reality there are quite few people who are under 20 and go to events. It isn't likely that someone would randomly bump into a BDSM event without wanting to be there, especially not if you're 16.

And you've proof that absolutely "no one" is "forced or coerced" ... anywhere?

What about misled, deceived, motivated by peer pressure?

Again, I only know what happens in the events where I live. I've never been to any BDSM event in another country, so I cannot say what is or isn't true to those communities. As I said in my previous message, if someone is capable of finding out where these events are, they are capable of taking care of their own boundaries. If they aren't, then they shouldn't be attending the events in the first place.

And why keep going on about those 16 year olds? I stated in my previous message that the required age to enter the BDSM events is 18. Sorry, I think I said it's usually 18 - what I meant with that was that the required age is 18 or higher.

Do you believe in personal responsibility? Should everything be adjusted to the level of the least capable of being able to take care of themselves? Or do you only want to adjust the BDSM communities to that level?

 

[WriterDom]

Just another tangent to muddy the waters like his AIDS and rape rants. The fact is he doesn't want any woman of any age at any public bdsm event. Correct?