Cracker: Harder
60 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 Newer→ Last
-
i dont think spanking between consenting adults is under threat. (i hope, anyway)all levity aside, i think that unfortunatly what we have here is peeps actually fighting to protect those who assault their kids, mostly the same people who would sneer at the whole 'thin end of the wedge' type angle.
-
plum,
I'm not sure if this has been mentioned, but didn't all the children's organisations come out in support of the bill? Save the Children, Barnados, all of them. If that's so (and please don't quote me on that), that says a lot for me. After all, you've gotta think about the kids.
-
plum that's right, all of them publicly support the amendment. and yes i think with consent BDSM will remain fine, the inapplicability to s59 being that children can't give legal consent. actually sorry, forgive the humour bypass - it's just this topic has been so thrashed to death elsewhere on PA.
-
"peeps actually fighting to protect those who assault their kids,"
No, that's a really disrespectful caricature.
I think the motivations behind the bill are admirable. I think the aim is admirable. I just think it's going to be bad law. And that has nothing to do with protecting people who assault their kids, and everything to do with opposing the idea that the best way to send a message is to pass a law.
If you want to send a message, use a courier.
-
I think it'd be wise to hold onto those shares and even invest more. Spanking will become an even more fetishised secret scene, a symbol of resistance and deviance. I predict we'll have the world's spankiest kinkiest population in a decade or so.
There is nothing so alluring as that which is forbidden.
-
Spanking should still be legal but what they'll have to cut out is all that "you've been a bad boy/girl" talk.
Because that would make it for "corrective purposes"
-
... but I understand it would be just fine if if it was to prevent the spankee engaging in 'offensive behaviour'.
"Stop that! Oh, stop! I said stop that!..."
But to return to the humourlessness, this does bring us back to the point (I'm not saying it's a complete or unbeatable argument) that there are other defenses for assault and some threshold for prosecution exercised. The analogy isn't perfect, but parents don't get charged with kidnapping their children, and there's no special clause for that. -
Err... serious discussion on the smacking bill off the end of my previous post please. Let's keep this all on topic thanks folks...
And no Dominic, of course I wasn't suggesting spanking would be legally affected by s59... although there have been some interesting cases about the extent to which people are able to consent to assault in a BDSM context.
In the end the House of Lords (I think, trying to remember back to LAWS 213) found the individual could consent to a range of activities, including having matches taped to the nipples then lit (all together now...owwwww), but I seem to recall it may have been because certain members of the B&D group in question were also senior tories or Lords or something... hardly surprising.
-
Ahh yes, I do remember the consent lectures vaguely as well (we called it laws 201) - although I thought NZ case law stated there were somethings you couldn't consent to, like nailing penises.
I'd try and do some research to verify this thought, but I'm sort of worried about whether the search terms would get me in trouble with our IT policies.
-
Probably nothing my post wouldn't have already alerted them to ;)
-
I thought that s59 only refered to children, not adults dress up in short school uniforms pretending to be naughty children.
Or can we use s59 to apply to adults as well?
So next time an a**hole at the bar needs correction...... -
Damian, you dirty blutter. I didn't need to know about that matches to nipples thing.
-
I can't recalling hearing the verdict in that German case, but I assume that they found that, when it comes to eating someone, having their consent is no defence.
-
In the context, I should probably add that I used "eating soemone" in the sense of cannibalism.
-
merc,
Having consent is no defence to providing a sophisting either.
-
I believe the lecturer made some comments to the effect of "this is the hot stuff, if thats what you are looking for"
-
here's a list of organizations that support Sue Bradford's bill.
UNICEF New Zealand, Save the Children, Barnardos NZ, Royal Plunket Society, Office of the Children's Commissioner, Families Commission, Jigsaw – Child Abuse Prevention (representing 14 member organisations), IHC, Amokura Family Violence Prevention (representing 7 iwi Chief Executives), Churches Agency on Social Issues (represents Presbyterian, Methodist, Quakers and Churches of Christ), NZ Council of Christian Social Services (represents 6 major church social agencies), National Council of Women New Zealand, NZ Federation of Business and Professional Women, National Network of Stopping Violence Services (33 members), Relationship Services NZ, Paediatric Society Of New Zealand, Action for Children and Youth Aotearoa, NZ Foster Care Federation
Women's Refuge (49 member refuges), NZ Psychotherapists Society
Parents Centre, NZ Psychological Society, NZ Child Care Association, NZ Playcentre Federation, NZ Federation of Graduate Women, CCS,
Brainwave Trust, Child Development Foundation, Pacific Foundation (founder Lesley Max), National Council for Young Catholics, Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom, ParentingWorks, Youth Law Project, Wellington Community Law Centre, NZ Association of Counsellors.isn't it odd that despite the so called 'majority of nzers' that are outraged by this bill, the groups that actually have some understanding of the law, and who are actively involved in making a positive contribution to children and families' lives completely support it?
-
Good list, is there a similar one of organisations against the bill?
-
Damian, you dirty blutter. I didn't need to know about that matches to nipples thing.
Try reading 'Guts' by Chuck Palahniuk, Juha. The only sexi time book to ever make me feel light headed. And not in an entirely good way...
-
I for one will wait to hear what you find and post on the previous Cracker, Heather.
I don't think consensual spanking as a titillation is jeopardised!
English former public schoolboys I've met have had fetishes beyond corporal punishment-b&d-type (not, I repeat not, that I helped them out on this front) that could theoretically have been sparked through their odd school caning, for example.
These are gentlemen who like to be piddled on.
So what on earth can we find to explain this??
-
Generationally though, I suspect things will change. If you were never smacked as a child, never equated physical discipline with ‘being naughty’, wouldn’t the whole thing just be a bit foreign? In a world where being smacked was just a completely alien concept, wouldn’t it be more like “What the hell? Did you just strike me on my bottom with your open hand? What’s that all about?”
Yeah, but I don't think that "time outs" on your own will ever be an acceptable substitute in BDSM circles...
Judi
-
'Guts' by Chuck Palahniuk
Peter, do you mean "Choke"?
-
Judi: Quite, but even on a more day-to-day level, do you think it will replace the casual bedroom slap on the arse? "Just go and sit over there for a second, I'm not going to talk to you..." "Ohhhh yeah, that's soooo hot..."
-
here in wellington (back in the day) i used to speak with a pot-selling dominatrix who lived on the terrace.
her: "there should be a BDSM dungeon in the basement of every major corporation in nzl"
me: "bwahahahaha... [sigh...], why?"
her: "so those dirty fckers don't have to come to my house any more".
-
Peter, do you mean "Choke"?
Sorry, it was from the collection, 'Haunted'.
http://www.chuckpalahniuk.net/books/haunted/guts.php
Post your response…
This topic is closed.