OH, Arizona!

[Doktor Howl]

It occurs to me that we need kink police.  And possibly - in the case of the woman in the OP - attention whore/15 minuter police.

[Doktor Howl]

And I'm in Massachusetts, the BDSMers can't consent to beatings here anyway.

How about restraints?

I think that's kosher, you just can't agree to getting hit.

It's both damaging, and illegal in any other context.

[Doktor Howl]

Not all abuse is criminal, either.

Then what is it?

Damaging to the victim

My buddy mooched a smoke off of me yesterday. 

Am I abusing him?  Is he a victim?

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

And I'm in Massachusetts, the BDSMers can't consent to beatings here anyway.

How about restraints?

I think that's kosher, you just can't agree to getting hit.

It's both damaging, and illegal in any other context.

I don't want to play tie-me-up games with you.

[Doktor Howl]

And I'm in Massachusetts, the BDSMers can't consent to beatings here anyway.

How about restraints?

I think that's kosher, you just can't agree to getting hit.

It's both damaging, and illegal in any other context.

I don't want to play tie-me-up games with you.

Wait.  So discussing something is a proposition?

Then Obama just hit on every male in the USA the other day.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

I'm just saying the tying up part is not supposed to be damaging and if you think it is that implies things about how you play those games.

[EK WAFFLR]

And I'm in Massachusetts, the BDSMers can't consent to beatings here anyway.

How about restraints?

I think that's kosher, you just can't agree to getting hit.

It's both damaging, and illegal in any other context.

I don't want to play tie-me-up games with you.

Wait.  So discussing something is a proposition?

Then Obama just hit on every male in the USA the other day.

Didn't you know? When you discuss anything of a sexual nature, it automatically means you want to roger the heck out of the one you are discussing with. Always.


(pun not intended, initially)

[Doktor Howl]

I'm just saying the tying up part is not supposed to be damaging and if you think it is that implies things about how you play those games.

So nobody ever gets chafed or bruised?  Really?

It's also illegal to merely tie someone up in any other context.  False imprisonment isn't abuse?

[Doktor Howl]

And I'm in Massachusetts, the BDSMers can't consent to beatings here anyway.

How about restraints?

I think that's kosher, you just can't agree to getting hit.

It's both damaging, and illegal in any other context.

I don't want to play tie-me-up games with you.

Wait.  So discussing something is a proposition?

Then Obama just hit on every male in the USA the other day.

Didn't you know? When you discuss anything of a sexual nature, it automatically means you want to roger the heck out of the one you are discussing with. Always.


(pun not intended, initially)

I love that my name is a euphamism for sex. 

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

I'm just saying the tying up part is not supposed to be damaging and if you think it is that implies things about how you play those games.

So nobody ever gets chafed or bruised?  Really?

It's also illegal to merely tie someone up in any other context.  False imprisonment isn't abuse?

False imprisonment is preventing someone to leave when they want to. Part of the whole "consent" thing is that you're doing things because you want to, and the minute you don't want to anymore you can revoke that consent. And if someone keeps you tied up after you've revoked that consent, it becomes false imprisonment. The sexytiems is not what makes it not false imprisonment, it's the fact that it's not imprisonment unless you don't want to be there.

People have the right to put up with abuse if they so choose, and some abuse is clearly non-criminal. If your girlfriend slaps you in the face repeatedly, it's abuse. No one would attempt to classify it as illegal unless there were other circumstances, but it is still abuse. Feeding your disgusting meatsack of a wife to the point of crippling her is clearly abuse, and unlike the examples you're trying to equate it to it results in permanent, possibly life ending damage. She needs help just as badly as an anorexic does.

[Doktor Howl]

Feeding your disgusting meatsack of a wife to the point of crippling her is clearly abuse, and unlike the examples you're trying to equate it to it results in permanent, possibly life ending damage. She needs help just as badly as an anorexic does.

Does a pot smoker need help?  A person who drinks alcohol?  Because they're consenting to doing themselves damage, at least to some degree.

I don't smoke pot.  Why should I not stand on pot smokers getting "help"? 

On the other hand, I do smoke, which definitely results in permanent, possibly life-ending damage.  Should I be assigned "help", if I don't want to quit?

[trippinprincezz13]

I'm just saying the tying up part is not supposed to be damaging and if you think it is that implies things about how you play those games.

So nobody ever gets chafed or bruised?  Really?

It's also illegal to merely tie someone up in any other context.  False imprisonment isn't abuse?

People have the right to put up with abuse if they so choose, and some abuse is clearly non-criminal. If your girlfriend slaps you in the face repeatedly, it's abuse. No one would attempt to classify it as illegal unless there were other circumstances, but it is still abuse.

Actually, since we're being all pedantic here, the law would very much consider that assault & battery, which is illegal. 

And I wouldn't consider your girlfriend slapping you repeatedly to consenual BDSM activity. Do you really not get this? Or you just can't stand to be wrong?

[trippinprincezz13]

Feeding your disgusting meatsack of a wife to the point of crippling her is clearly abuse, and unlike the examples you're trying to equate it to it results in permanent, possibly life ending damage. She needs help just as badly as an anorexic does.

On the other hand, I do smoke, which definitely results in permanent, possibly life-ending damage.  Should I be assigned "help", if I don't want to quit?

It's for your own good! You just don't realize how much you're abusing yourself!

[Doktor Howl]

Feeding your disgusting meatsack of a wife to the point of crippling her is clearly abuse, and unlike the examples you're trying to equate it to it results in permanent, possibly life ending damage. She needs help just as badly as an anorexic does.

On the other hand, I do smoke, which definitely results in permanent, possibly life-ending damage.  Should I be assigned "help", if I don't want to quit?

It's for your own good! You just don't realize how much you're abusing yourself!

"Evil turns in on itself.  On the other hand, if I knew a man was coming to my house with the earnest intent of doing good, I would jump out the window and flee."
- Some hippie in the 1850s.

[Q. G. Pennyworth]

Does a pot smoker need help?  A person who drinks alcohol?  Because they're consenting to doing themselves damage, at least to some degree.

I don't smoke pot.  Why should I not stand on pot smokers getting "help"? 

On the other hand, I do smoke, which definitely results in permanent, possibly life-ending damage.  Should I be assigned "help", if I don't want to quit?

Lots of pot smokers, drinkers, and smokers need help, that's why they check themselves into rehab and hospitals and ask their doctors for prescription medication to help them quit. You are absolutely abusing yourself, and if you were unable to buy your own cigarettes because the cancer finally caught up with you, anyone who brought you more cigarettes would be abusing you. That doesn't mean that particular variety of abuse is criminal. "Needs help" and "should be forced to get help" aren't the same.