Age of consent for spanking

I don't know to what you are referring. Drinking age is a state's rights issue and any state can make it whatever they wish. When voting was made open to 18 year olds, many states had the drinking age go along with that........... until pressure from groups like MADD led the Federal government to influence the states' decisions by making 21 a requirement for funding. Still quite unconstitutional but no one seems to have the stomach to fight it.

That's the reason I created my mythical state of Westsylvania which, while located within the geographical limits of the U.S., is politically independent and has laws and a culture favorable to the use of corporal punishment within the judicial system, in educational institutions, business and professional relationships etc. (I'd originally thought of participating in the "Shared World" of Zark, but that didn't evolve to my liking, so I went my own way.)

When I was 18 I could die in Vietnam, but, could not buy a beer there. I could die for my country, but, could not vote. Went into a bar when I returned and in full dress uniform with 2 purple hearts and was told not to come back until I grew up. So as for age of spanking it is in the eye of the beer holder. RK

@RyanRowland & @[ raisedkilt

Here in the good old U S of A, we see no need for consistency among the ages at which we either confer privileges or impose obligations - whether for sex, marriage, voting, military service (com. pulsory or volunteer), entering into contracts, drinking, obtaining abortins/birth control, driving, dropping out of school, buying guns, etc, with or without parental consent. With most of these deemed within the prerogative of individual states, there a further element of inconsistency introduced. I just figured I ought to post this to help clarify for all the "furriners" perusing the Forum that here in this country we have absolutely no clarity on what it means to "be an adult."

It's correct that in the US, states have total authority over alcohol regulation. This is constitutional because it was provided in the 21st Amendment in 1933 that ended national prohibition. The authority was given to the states, and in some states, it's been delegated to counties and municipalities. State border crossing to obtain alcohol did lead to the push toward 21 in many states about 40-50 years ago. The federal requirement of 21 to receive highway funding also pushed the raising of the age, aided by MADD and similar lobbying groups. As with national prohibition (1920-1933), the 21 age limit has led to widespread defiance of the law because of the obvious inconsistencies of gaining voting rights at 18, driving licenses even earlier, etc. I don't believe there's much in the way of law regarding spanking, except that there's a powerful movement against kiddie porn and that has come, in effect, to include spanking minors of any age, and that includes criminalizing parents who dare to spank.

@lesliejones

The "movement" against spanking children is not a derivative of the movement against kiddie porn. Both are intended to protect children, but the concern about spanking children is not (primarily) about any sexual or pornographic aspect, but about the damage it does psychologically and the behavioral consequences (whether or not you agree with the expets).

Pim8Parnell is correct, in the UK it is impossible to consent to having actual bodily harm (ABH) inflicted on you.
Corporal punishment would usually involve such infliction. In one case the judge determined that if the marks (including redness) lasted for more than ten minutes it was ABH.
There are exceptions for “manly entertainment”, think rugby or boxing and, in one actual case, AirForce officers spraying one another with lighter fluid and igniting it. There is no exception, perish the thought, for consensual sexual activity.
Consent is not necessary for “reasonable chastisement” delivered by someone in loco parentis

And that's at ANY age.

My previous post was truncated. I have tried and failed to post the rest of it, here, but have failed. I will try again later.

Geoffrey Stirling.

It seems to me that such a decision, and even not seeing consensual adult spanking as a legitimate activity while some of the ones you mentioned clearly show that people consent to far worse trauma, is blatantly an expression of an individual's opinion rather than an administration of any law. In other words, any judge with anti-kink sentiments has leeway to appoint themselves gods and guardians in court.

While there are probably exceptions, I can't think now of any examples of a court case in the USA where clearly consensual adult spanking was regarded as anything other than a quirky, yet accepted, private variation on adult fun.