TY for your response.

I'm still down for informed consent. Should bad things happen? Not my problem.

Long as minors are not involved, not concerned. If this sounds crass? It's because just as I can't judge people based on what they do behind closed doors, neither can I be outraged that the occasional person falls victim to their own vice.

this is mostly fine, but if someone beats a kid and chokes them, then that kids grows up to join the bsdm community and take beatings for sexual gratification then chokes himself to death accidentally, is he then falling to his own vice? or is he a victim of the child abuse that was inflicted upon him? its not a strictly black and white issue.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Feb 15 2021 01:37pm

Oh lol neither

This is mine to have and to hold and to love

This post was edited by DrFaGgIt on Feb 15 2021 03:29pm

Society's duty regarding children is to at least attempt to protect them from abuse. It is not, however, society's job to remove an adult's self-ownership out of fear of what may or may not have happened while they were children. Other people are not the property of society. People are not slaves.

This post was edited by InsaneBobb on Feb 16 2021 03:30am

Well I didn't think much of this,. as expected common peasant gossip which this thead is all about. t4t

the op definitely got hot and bothered by said gossip. made the thread multiple times while having hot flashes

the "correct" answer is that the fault here is partially on the abuser for setting in motion a course of events, and partially on the individual, as well as likely partially on others who failed to intervene and failed to get that person the help they needed to overcome the abuse in more safe and productive ways. but this spaced out blame subverts consent somewhat, although not entirely. as all im doing is trying to paint in grey i think my point stands.

There's very little gray here. To alter the scenario slightly, if a child is abused, has half the bones in their body broken and rebroken, and barely survives their childhood, then, 20 years later, murders somebody in cold blood, they're still guilty of murder. However, should they receive capital punishment or a life sentence? Or is it possible to give them 10 years hard time with 10 years parole based on their circumstances, based on good behavior and them consenting to go through intense psychological counseling to work out their childhood issues?

If you commit a crime or commit suicide or do any of a number of things, as a self-owning adult, you're still responsible for your own actions and decisions. The only thing, from a societal stance, that changes is the harshness of the sentence.

i feel like you're making my point for me, a lowered sentence is analogous to the gray area of questioning consent im speaking of. im not saying they dont consent (just as you're not saying they arent guilty), im saying their consent is lesser than someone in a different circumstance, just as you're saying the murder is less punishable than another murder.

in short consent isnt consent, guilt isnt guilt. a spectrum is gray area. spectrums arent black and white by definition.

This post was edited by thesnipa on Feb 16 2021 07:27am

The argument you originally made had to do with sexual preference and activity. There's no criminal code or criminal intent behind "alternative lifestyles". If your consideration regarding "the bad thing" is autoerotic asphyxiation, you don't seek to legislate the bedroom to prevent it. If you wish to propose introducing the risk of such things into sexual education courses? Let's have a conversation.

The "gray area" in such a case isn't whether or not they should have moderated their sex play. Instead it's whether or not their life insurance company can refuse to pay out to their family due to the "suicide" status of the nature of death. And in most recent cases that I've seen, special circumstance DID play a hand given there was no intent to suicide, but the insurance companies were also provided consideration, as the person did not disclose this potentially dangerous habit.

Regardless, the person still consents to the autoerotic asphyxiation. They made a choice. There may well be consequences to that choice, not the least of which is death, but other consequences as well. Since they consented, the "case by case" nature of justice says we deal with the "bad thing" after it happens.

Consent IS consent, and guilt IS guilt. Related circumstance is what moderates sentencing.