|
Elisabella -> RE: what is TPE 24/7? (10/5/2009 11:12:50 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Ialdabaoth
I mean, given that "consent" is a social construct anyways, and requires enforcement to maintain reality... so if it's not being enforced, there's really nothing to talk about, you know?
How exactly is consent a social construct? I'm guessing you mean legal consent? And "requires enforcement to maintain reality" is BS, does that mean a serial killer isn't doing anything illegal until people find out and prosecute him?
This individual case might not be prosecuted but guardians taking advantage of their wards is regularly prosecuted, as is sexual coersion of the legally incompetent.
quote:
A "cult" is just what we call certain types of relationships when we don't approve of them. There's no meaningful distinction between a 'brainwashing cult', a 'loving relationship, or a 'devoutly religious group', except for the indignation of outside observers, and their capacity to destroy what they disapprove of.
In my eyes there is a distinction. A requirement for a healthy relationship is that the individuals involved are healthy themselves. Emotionally and mentally I mean. There is plenty of variety in unhealthy relationships of course, ranging from codependence to cheating to DV to worse, but if one of the individuals involved isn't functionally healthy alone I fail to see how s/he can contribute to a healthy relationship.
quote:
quote:
We're talking about a court appointed guardian abusing (in the legal sense) his legal ward.
Well, given all the number of times I've heard people say, "I wish there was some way to make slave contracts legally binding", it sounds like someone found one.
You will never hear me say that there should be a way to make slave contracts legally binding. I'm sorry but this gives D/s relationships a bad name. Those acronyms, SSC and RACK, they weren't invented to tell BDSM'ers what to do, they were invented to show the rest of the world we're not totally nuts, that we're able to consent. And then a bunch of people go and say that someone who has the legal rights of a minor is just consenting to a relationship where she's being physically battered by her guardian.
Where do you draw the line on legal incompetence? I mean, if it's okay that Daddysprop is consenting to a D/s relationship even though the law says she can't, how can you say it's not okay when the same situation involves a minor? I mean if you read the book, Lolita seduced Humbert that first time, does that mean she consented to the rest of it? Taking into account that she's his quasi-legal ward, the situation is pretty parallel.
I'm sure that reading all this isn't going to give Daddysprop an epiphany that maybe she's being abused or taken advantage of, but that's not surprising because after all, she's been found unable to make decisions for herself. Declaring someone legally incompetent isn't easy, especially someone her age. It has to be shown that she's a threat to herself or others, and the sad thing is that his guardianship is supposed to make her LESS of a threat to herself, not encourage her to stay in a relationship with someone who has a nasty temper.
See the thing is, from what I could tell from Daddysprop's posts, when she got her arm broken it wasn't a scene type thing. It wasn't "let's break a bone because that's pretty hot or cool," but rather a 'punishment' thing, he was angry with her and broke her arm. That isn't BDSM. That isn't D/s. That's DV. And not only is it domestic violence, it's domestic violence against someone who is legally unable to leave, who would have no resources of her own if she wanted to go to court and say that her guardian was abusing her. How can you possibly think that his behavior is moral, right, or justifiable?
|
|
|
|
