Who knew putting down “no sex acts under the age of consent, no sex acts between an underage person and an adult is allowed in the prbb” would give me such a fucking headache.
If 14 is too old for you in your sex story, we have a major fucking problem.
I do appreciate that…
Excuse me? I am not kink shaming. I refuse to allow the spread of underaged sexuality with adults.
I used 16 the first time because thats the age in my country. I am sorry you think me rude but i am not. I have a list of age of consent for each country so it stays within the rules.
I didnt ban anything else because THAT would be kink shaming.
Adults fucking children is not acceptable. NOT ACCEPTABLE.
Thank-you for your reply! I really appreciate it, it’s nice to be able to have this discussion with you :)
I’m afraid I am a bit confused. Prohibiting other cases of non-con, such as rape, would be kink-shaming, but prohibiting underage (eg. 15yo with a 17yo) isn’t kink-shaming in your opinion? I’m afraid I can’t tell why one is and one is not.
Jesus.
I give up.
My husband is 3 years older than me. Its fine if you want to write about a relationship between two teens living it up like the bad asses that they are.
What is NOT okay is stacker having a sexual relationship with mako or raleigh or chuck when they are under the age of consent. If they are OVER the age of consent i honestly dont care.
They have to be legal.
Everything will be marked with warnings like all the other big bangs for the other kinks they like. I want all sex to be of consent.
I dont care about your ship or your kink or what ever - age of consent for sexual activity is the only rule.
Can somebody PLEASE explain to me how the fuck banning pedophilia (actually hebephilia, if one of the parties is a teenager) from a Big Bang is “kink-shaming”?
Anyone? Please?
(Shiva, you are doing the right thing—I am not in the PR fandom, but I am 100% on your side here)
Perhaps we have different definitions of kink-shaming! Sorry, I should’ve clarified. I suppose I am simply confused as to why banning a particular kink (such as underage - not necessarily paedophilia; not everyone who likes underage likes their pairings to involve children under the age of 12) is NOT considered kink-shaming, whereas banning say non-con or dub-con IS considered kink-shaming. I can’t quite see the difference in severity between something like paedophilia and something like rape.
Underage isn’t even my kink, but this just felt like a bit of an inconsistency and I raised the issue! I’m sorry to have stirred up such a shit-storm. I was just after a bit of clarification, is all.
Opalescent: eternalshiva: Who knew putting down “no sex acts under the age of...
Uhh....no. Just stop right there.
Leather is a kink. Watersports is a kink. Rubber is a kink. Foot Fetishism is a kink. Amputee is a kink, as is chubby-chasing (though tbqh chubby-chasing does tend to border on Feederism, and don't even get me started on that).
An adult--specifically, an authority figure or adopted parent--having sex with somebody who is under the legal age of consent is NOT a kink by any stretch of the imagination. Banning its appearance in a BB event isn't "shaming", because it's not a godsbaned kink to begin with.
I just...wow.
And now you've just embodied kink-shaming to the letter.
But all right. I can see it this way. Underage isn't a kink. It certainly isn't mine. It potentially features a non-consensual sexual situation that should not be fetishised or glamourised under any circumstances. Fine. I can see that.
Tell me, then, why rape is considered a kink in this situation. She explicitly states that banning rape would be kink-shaming. If you're going to consider underage disgusting or unacceptable, you had better include rape in those categories. It's absolutely not okay to differentiate between these two in terms of legality or morality; either both are unacceptable, or both can be considered kinks. The fact that a distinction has been made makes this kink-shaming.
