quote:

ORIGINAL: AnimusRex

In the original post, I sense a bit of the old "Argument of the beard" we learn about in Debating 101- that just because we can't pinpoint the exact line between a beard and a clean shaven face, then there is no difference.

There is a difference between abuse and consensual edgeplay, or abuse and the practice of religion, or abuse and the proper authority of parents.

We as a society have a difficult time locating that line, because we try to maximize freedom while protecting the innocent or vulnerable.

In the example the OP gave, I wouldn't call it abuse- but depending on the exact circumstances, depending on any number of other factors, I can see an argument made that it is.

Does it change your answer if the girl in question was 16?
Does it change your answer if she was the legal wife, in a state that allows teen marriages?
Does it change your answer if she is under the influence? In an emotionally vunerable state?

They ask these sorts of questions to first year law students precisely because there are no simple, easy to draw lines. We have to use wisdom, judgment, weighing all the facts and circumstances.

But we CAN draw lines. We CAN set boundaries, however fuzzy, and say this is off limits, and that is ok.

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527

I've always found this argument terribly myopic and disingenuous. Honestly, out of you, I'd expect better. The basic facts are that as a society, we MUST determine what's allowed and what's not. Anything else is anarchy and has been shown decisively at various points in history, us humans don't like anarchy. So given that the lines must be drawn, then that means that people's various viewpoints about what is and is not detrimental to the fabric of society all need to get their air time. So yes... those folks who think that gay marriage is deleterious to the very fabric of marriage and our society and possibly even the space-time continuum have a right to their opinions and their opinions matter just as much as mine. And yes, those people who think beating your lover is heinous have a right to that opinion also. Just because you don't share someone's viewpoints doesn't make them stupid or selfish or any other thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sweetsub1957

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyNTrainer
Sometimes consenting adults like to enjoy things that are fun for them and don't hurt anybody, but that other people freak out over and decide are sick or morally wrong, because they think those things are disgusting.

I generally think it's smarter to accept that different people like different things, and that we have a pretty diverse BDSM community. Your personal preferences do not a universal moral compass make.

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527
The basic facts are that as a society, we MUST determine what's allowed and what's not. Anything else is anarchy and has been shown decisively at various points in history, us humans don't like anarchy. So given that the lines must be drawn, then that means that people's various viewpoints about what is and is not detrimental to the fabric of society all need to get their air time.

quote:

So yes... those folks who think that gay marriage is deleterious to the very fabric of marriage and our society and possibly even the space-time continuum have a right to their opinions and their opinions matter just as much as mine.

quote:

And yes, those people who think beating your lover is heinous have a right to that opinion also. Just because you don't share someone's viewpoints doesn't make them stupid or selfish or any other thing.

quote:

I think a pretty reasonable place to draw the line is with consenting adults in private who are not harming anyone, and where the ramifications of their actions are also not harming anyone, impacting the general public health and welfare, or imposing an economic burden on society.  Reasonable regulation comes into play when people get involved who are nonconsenting, not adults, or who are otherwise being impacted

Sexual behavior that falls into the category of potentially harming the nonconsenting or of impacting the public health and welfare should be regulated whether it is personal or professional. Eg, you can't rape people, have sex with the underaged or those who have insufficient mental ability to consent, have sex in public, or knowingly spread STD's. Those are reasonable lines for society to draw, and we already do draw them.

.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyNTrainer
The question is whether they have the right to stop you from having a consensual D/s relationship in private with your lover.  The reality right now is that they do, and I don't think that is particularly a good thing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: leadership527
YOUR moral compass uses a measuring stick of "consenting adults" as the arbiter of what is good and what is not. Someone else's moral compass uses the bible for such things.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyCimarron

quote:

ORIGINAL: sweetsub1957
i'm thinking that if i were to answer the question(i tried to earlier, but obviously i didn't think it through well enough), i'd say it needs to be a person of legal age that was not under the influence of a mind-altering substance that would put him/her in a vulnerable mental/emotional state. In this sort of thing, nothing is black & white or either/or. There are too many variables to make a blanket statement.

But if you are dealing with matters of law a line has to be drawn. There has to a "blanket statement" where they say "cross this line and you are in violation." Now sometimes that line is drawn too narrowly and sometimes its way too broad, but there is really no other way to define something under the law. That is one reason why laws that govern us are ever changing.

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyNTrainer
Are you saying that there is no difference between a viewpoint of respecting individual freedoms up to the point that they impact on others, and forcing arbitrary religious conformity?  I think there is a real and objective difference between these things that does not depend on an individual moral compass.

quote:

ORIGINAL: sweetsub1957

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyCimarron

quote:

ORIGINAL: sweetsub1957
i'm thinking that if i were to answer the question(i tried to earlier, but obviously i didn't think it through well enough), i'd say it needs to be a person of legal age that was not under the influence of a mind-altering substance that would put him/her in a vulnerable mental/emotional state. In this sort of thing, nothing is black & white or either/or. There are too many variables to make a blanket statement.

But if you are dealing with matters of law a line has to be drawn. There has to a "blanket statement" where they say "cross this line and you are in violation." Now sometimes that line is drawn too narrowly and sometimes its way too broad, but there is really no other way to define something under the law. That is one reason why laws that govern us are ever changing.

Yes, You are right. And i am thinking that the line could be drawn at the spot where the things that happen with people's "naughty bits" happen between consenting adults. But that's just my opinion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: dvart
So although "Society" has to have rules, those rules are not always moral and under certain circumstances (Nazi Germany) it is moral to violently oppose them.

quote:

ORIGINAL: domiguy
Why are people horrified of sushi? Who would consider it abuse?

quote:

ORIGINAL: LadyNTrainer

I think a pretty reasonable place to draw the line is with consenting adults in private who are not harming anyone, and where the ramifications of their actions are also not harming anyone, impacting the general public health and welfare, or imposing an economic burden on society.  Reasonable regulation comes into play when people get involved who are nonconsenting, not adults, or who are otherwise being impacted.