Age of consent for spanking

I'm not sure Geoffrey's post is entirely correct. In teh UK you cant consent to ABH but the boundary between ABH and assaults depends on the age and relatiosn between the parties.
The charging standard says:
Unless there are aggravating features, the appropriate charge will usually be contrary to section 39 where injuries amount to no more than the following:
Grazes;
Scratches;
Abrasions;
Minor bruising;
Swellings;
Reddening of the skin;
Superficial cuts.

The reason for the confusion is that age and relationship is seen as an aggravating factor so a small child assaulted by their parents may be prosecuted as ABH but I don't think that could happen for a consensual relationship between adults. Teenagers are a more complex issue.

I'm very happy to be corrected (no, not like that) and to learn more about spankos and the law.

Laura, please do tell me if you disagree, but I think you have failed to consider the difference between what is a crime (defined by statute, "clarified" by the courts) and what will be prosecuted or, in other words, what you might be charged with. You charging guidelines cover the latter.

In my comment above (sadly incomplete and I will try to load the rest, below) I was discussing the crime of ABH and one's inability to consent to it, not whether one would be prosecuted. It seems that currently, in the field of BDSM there is a huge gulf between what is criminal and what they prosecute.

Geoffrey Stirling.

Continued.....So, if I spank my girlfriend, with her consent, and the marks last for more than ten minutes I am guilty of an offence (I am afraid that I am a serial offender). If I burn off my friend’s beard whilst we are playing with fire, I am not.
If I spank my child and the marks last all day, I am probably not. Was it reasonable?
The Law Commission (the body charged with suggesting changes to the law) produced a report about this about 20 years ago (after the Spanners case) and opined that the law was a mess and needed major changes. Needless to say nothing has happened. On the bright side, the police are supremely uninterested in prosecuting people for consensual spanking etc, and if no one is going to prosecute you, what the hell?
An American friend has told me that the law in the US is remarkably similar.
I am/was a lawyer but this was not my field. I last looked into this about 20 years ago.

Completed......So, to the original question about age of consent. Let us consider a 17 year old female spankee. She cannot consent to being spanked at any age (if it leaves marks for more than ten minutes). She could however consent to a gentle spanking (no marks) or to pretend spanking (same thing?) from the age of 16.
There appears to be a general belief (not sure where it comes from) that to view porn, or visit a sex establishment she needs to be an adult (18 plus). I think that comes from excessive caution on the part of purveyors of porn or sexual services. If anyone knows where it comes from, I would love to know.

Geoffrey Stirling.

That's an interesting distinction. As far as I am aware (in the UK) minors who willingly engage in sex (whether with another minor or an adult) are never prosecuted, though technically they must have committed a crime. But a minor who willingly engaged in shoplifting with an adult would presumably have to take their share of the responsibility. So there must be a layer of discretion exercised by the police and the cps which isn't part of the written law.


My original question was prompted by seeing a number of profiles on Spanknet where people were at pains to point out that they were only interested in over 18's, and I wondered why they said 18 and not 16, the age of consent. It is possibly because the site itself is only open to over 18's, so they assume that 18 is the legal limit.

AlanBarr

I will preface my comments with I am not a lawyer and didn't study law at university or college but I did work for The Legal Aid Board at one point and became good at looking legal stuff up when necessary.

I agree the law is a mess generally. To answer Alan Barr's comments -

i)If anyone has sex with another individual who is under 16 it is a criminal offence and it counts as rape because you cannot consent to any penetrative sex under the age of 16. No matter the age of the other party. Often if it is two teenagers having sex and a parent makes a fuss with the police the kids might get a unofficial warning if any action at all is taken. However where there is a significant age difference between the under age person and the person they are having sex with, the police take a different view because it could be child abuse or coercion potentially a serious offence raping, having sex with, someone under the age of 16. The discretion that is used is guided by case law and the ruling of The Law Lords, High Court and Home Office recommendations, however the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) are independent of the Police and Home Office and are part of The Attorney General's Office (the Attorney General is a member of The Cabinet and only answer to The Secretary Of State for Justice and the Prime Minister.

ii)For any criminal offences apart from those mentioned above the age at which you are deemed to be answerable for your crimes is 10 in the UK, unless it can be shown that you do not know right from wrong, usually medical evidence is needed for this and often a psychiatrist is consulted.

I think the UK like the US needs to sort out all these different ages that different privileges are bestowed on you as you grow up. It's daft that at 16 you can have sex but still need the permission of your care givers to even live with someone. At 17 you can hold a driving licence and a motorbike licence but you cannot vote. At 17 and a half you can join the army/RAF/Navy without your caregivers consent but you still can't vote!

I wonder if the reason 'adult' sites are all about being over 18 is connected to X rated films etc. I seem to remember that after being gay was legalised in 1967 the age of consent for gay sex was 21, or have i miss remembered?

Until recently you had to be over 21 to stand as an MP but you could stand as a local, County or equivalent, regional councillor at aged 18, I know because i did!

I will go back to writing something - whu do I get so distracted from working when I come to see if my latest story has been loaded yet? Sigh

Wow,

Geoffrey is of course correct. There is a big difference between a crime defined by statute and a crime that will be charged. We're all guilty of the former. If I slap hubby in a temper I'm presumably guilty of assault but as he is a foot taller it would be laughed out.
All was trying to avoid was conflating law about children which is a minefield that has yet to be clarified in court and the law about consenting adults which is rarely if ever enforced.

I read a court from Ireland, around 1990's where a judge rules consent did not matter.

The case concerned a 'strict Madame' from the UK who set up as business as a 'school' in Ireland catering for 'naughty adult ' pupils. I am assuming that all the pupils paid well for the 'privileged education '. The school employed a young woman as maid/servant . This maid, like all the pupils was subject to regular discipline with the cane. Apparently the 'school' had been operation for a number of years. I think the maid might even have been a 'pupil' and then took on the more permanent role of maid/servant.

However, the maid left after some dispute with the school. And then sued for damages because of the corporal punishment/assault on the last occasion she was at work. The 'Madame' gave evidence that the maid had consented, that she had been regularly 'disciplined' and not raised any objection, and that she had 'participated in the punishment complained of. ( I think , by retrieving the cane from a bedroom and by raising her skirts and bending over to receive the actual caning). Apparently she left the employment immediately afterwards.

However the maid won her damages. The judge ruling that the only matter to consider was if she was 'injured' or 'marked' by the punishment and that consent did not matter. I can't remember how much but the 'school' closed soon afterwards.

Clearly there was more to this story than appeared at the time. I assume the maid was quite happy for a number of years to be caned. And unlike the others 'pupils' she was being paid rather than having to pay the madame. Of course the law is almost certainly different in other locations

Might it not have been a tad fairer for the 'madame' to get a licking of the type, severity and duration the maid claims was applied, rather than damages?
Then, the judge could ask the maid if she wanted to pursue her claim, in which case the madame would be free to bring her own counter claim?

To put in my two cents, I've always thought kids should be taught that if they want a spanking then they should ask without fear for one. Look, I have several LDs and Aspergers. there is a woman advocate out there who has the same condition but grew up on a farm. As a joke, suggestion (I don't remember how it came about anymore) she put herself in one of the holding contraptions they put cattle in for a branding. She said it made her feel more comfortable and calmer. Skin, the largest organ a human has, needs to be touched and for a kid it's essential (hugs and the like). So for me, when I was younger, spanking would have been been a strong indicator I was cared for. Now, to lead this back to the main discussion (and please I'm not trying to ignite the pro con CP for kids here. That's been done to death and frankly no one is going to change their views) parents, per the courts under both State & Federal Law have control over their children until they're 21. Isn't safer, if a minor is spanked at their own request, by a parent/guardian instead of them looking elsewhere where it's not as safe?