Moral and legal questions on belting
Milord Absolutely no! No bdsm for minors! Bdsm is alternative sexuality, must be explored when you have the emotional maturity to understand it. Be aware that we are talking about power dynamics.
I avoid doing things with young people, normally I avoid anyone younger than 24, but it’s a personal choose. No serious bdsmer will ever do this.
Alternative or no is a conformist statement, but the thing about the power dynamics is definitely something to keep in mind. I would argue that it is none of our business what teens do among each other (aside from parents keeping an eye out for any signs of physical harm or emotional distress of course, but that is not specific to BDSM), but adults should not be enabling minors to engage in BDSM play, nor engage with them even in cases where age-of-consent law would normally allow such interactions. Because the power dynamics just are not there.
For example, German law technically allows for 14-year-olds to engage sexually with people over 21, provided that the older person "does not take advantage of the minor's limited ability to sexually self-determine". I would argue that the power exchange nature of BDSM definitely makes it a lot more difficult to avoid the limits of a teenager's sexual autonomy and maturity, so even ignoring intentional abuse/grooming for now, domming a person who is generally assumed to be of limited maturity to consent is a can of worms I would encourage any adult to stay away from. And subbing to one? Have you seen teenagers? You really want to put yourself at their mercy?
youdontknowme For the sake of clarity. We talk about BDSM if there is a power dynamic, otherwise it's kinky play. Everything is fine of course, it's not that one is better than the other, bu they are different
Teen with teen can of course do what they want. But if someone asks my opinion (unfortunately it happens very often) I enforce the point that no minor should do BDSM. I'm no god and I can't do anything to prevent. But at least in my community I try to inform that it's not a great idea.
In Italy age is 14, for some situation 16, but it's not that simple.
Thanks for all your comments. Really appreciated.
youdontknowme But if every single one of these conditions is met:
the wearer wants to use the belt for a goal other than sexual play
they do not trust themself to not abuse the standard consent rules of sexual interactions
the wearer fully trusts the keyholder in having their well-being at heart
there is a clearly definied maximum timespan before the consent question has to be resolved (which involves ending the current keyholding arrangement if there is any doubt about consent at the end of it)
that timespan is only as long as it needs to be to address the wearer's self-trust issues
the wearer enters that agreement freely, enthusiastically and fully informed about what it entailsI believe a cooldown period may be acceptable.
I consented (actually asked) to wear a belt but also specifically asked for a 10 day cool down period, no matter what (except medical issue, obviously). If I ask to be out, I do not regard being told to wait 10 days as a violation of my consent, even though it would seem that I have revoked it. This is, I think, a tricky issue in a lot of these KH relationships. I think the same situation would apply to someone under 18 who CHOOSES to wear a belt for a reasonable goal but then asks to be released. Consent can be for a specific purpose. I think some may not agree with this. In any event, imposed (not suggested or offered) chastity belts are wrong for any age but especially minors.
youdontknowme That is the thing. Of the people here who had been locked up before their 18th birthday, none of them want their parents sent to gaol. That is what makes the issue so much more complicated. They love their parents, but not that one thing their parents do.
Getting the authorities involved becomes a much easier thing when the expected outcome is actually the outcome you want, but for most less-than-voluntary wearers who posted here, that is not the case.
Thank you, I think that is the main point that also describes my life perfectly
Angelina You and Lukas were the people I had on the front of my mind when I wrote that.
Milord No serious bdsmer will ever do this.
Yes, I know. My parents are deep into the subject so the views of the BDSM community are well known to me. However, I was more concerned with a legal assessment (e.g. from the point of view of Italian law) than a purely ethical one.
youdontknowme And subbing to one? Have you seen teenagers? You really want to put yourself at their mercy
I was immediately reminded of a meme popular in Polish fetish circles: a sarcastically smiling Johnny Depp as Mad Hatter and the caption 'So you say you're a 19-year-old dominatrix?'
Sabina
It’s too tricky
In Italy it’s not technically illegal to do bdsm with a minor, but if he decide to sue you, it’s very difficult to prove your consent
In sexual activity, lack of consent must be proved by the victim, but if you are in a bdsm scene, consent must be proven by the dominant part
If it’s a minor, consent is even more difficult to prove
I can take an oath anywhere that I wear the belt by consent and voluntarily
- Edited
MissBlossom That statement was from 4 years ago. And it's different now
Laura That statement is from 4 years ago. It's different now
What changed? Have your parents agreed that you may withdraw your consent and you have chosen not to?
You used to say that they would make you stay in the belt even if you moved out.
MissBlossom What changed?
Age. More independence
MissBlossom Have your parents agreed that you may withdraw your consent and you have chosen not to?
Correct. Although not wearing a belt is still not appreciated
MissBlossom You used to say that they would make you stay in the belt even if you moved out.
I only said that moving out wouldn't change the status, not "make"
Angelina interesting point. If someone has been convinced and then gives her consent, I don't see any major problems. I'm sorry to say this, but Dorothea herself wrote that she was convinced, and she's not wearing the belt yet, so she didn't say yes or no
I take this post from @angelina in another thread because I think that it is an important point. As some of us pointed out, consent is very tricky when required by someone young and inexperienced from a parent, and often consent is not enough. For example you can’t consent on giving up your freedom. But more, you have to be totally aware of consequences, because otherwise consent is vitiated, and so null. Consent is by law a very complex concept. I wrote in the beginning the list of characteristics of consent, if not legal (difficult to know every law of the world) but at least moral.
Milord As you said, consent is tricky, but there’s at least 2 rights you can easily consent to revoke in US law. The first being my 5th amendment right to not self incriminate. I have the right to say nothing and not answer questions. But as easily as answering after being read my rights, that protection no longer applies and what I said can be used against me. You’ve likely heard the Maranda warning in cop shows. Same as your right to legal counsel.
I can also waive my right to search and seizure by simply saying yes. The police can’t randomly search but the individual can allow it.
Those constitutional rights can be waived with a simple yes, but I can take them back just as easily. I’d imagine there are similar concepts in European law too.
So as you said consent and waiving rights is a tricky subject. And those are protected rights in our constitution, other things would probably come down to what a specific law says and previous case law, which itself is a interesting subject
- Edited
Sasha not sure what you mean, but will try
Not all rights are equals, there are rights you can renounce too (for example, beside the one you says, right to correspondence secrecy, you can renounce to) and others, few, that you can’t renounce or revoke. They are absolute. Right to life or to freedom. So consent to remove them is a very serious thing. And while for other rights once removed they are gone, undisposable one are always there, and consent can be revoked anytime, another thing that it’s not compatible with chastity and key holding (there is cool-down and all). Let’s face it, a full consent here is the only things that matters
Sasha I mean, in the case of both of those rights, if you are consenting to waive those rights temporarily, and then try to reassert them, the deed is already done. That is very different from bein restraint, in which case keeping your restraints locked after you no longer consent to wearing them would involve a continued act of restraining you.