On developmental psychology...

[Artaxerxes II]

One of the biggest talking points against MAPs and the idea of minor attraction. For those of you who don't know, it's the science which tells how humans develop. And since it has been monopolised by antis as a pretext to say "Everyone below the age of 18 is too immature to have sex because they can't give informed consent"

Now, one of the most common responses from MAPs is, understandably, to completely reject it as pseudoscientific hog wash. But, what if developmental psychology can be used to our advantage?

Think of it this way: If research consistently showed that willing sexual/romantic activity, intergenerational or not, didn't harm children's development, or that the vast majority of adults have cognitive capacities of teens and children that was close enough as to allow such relationships, then it would be advantageous to us.

Now, the first scenario is more likely. But anyway, how do we combat against the behemoth that is developmental science that is used as cudgel against us? Do we fully reject its paradigm, or assimilate it so that it's utilised in our terms? What would be your strategies, guys?

[Fragment]

Everyone below the age of 18 is too immature to have sex

I actually don't think true developmental psychology says this. It usually recognizes a sexual awakening at the start of adolescence. Which it then decides "Romeo and Juliet Laws" are sufficient for dealing with.

[Artaxerxes II]

I had more in mind what is popularly thought to be the core tenets of developmental psychology irrespective of the actual science, since in my debates with antis they used that science in the terms I mentioned in OP.

[PorcelainLark]

It will come as little surprise that I think it's possible to work from within developmental psychology. A thread on VoA I had was about whether consent was cognitive, i.e. whether it's possible to know when you're consenting to a sexual act. The goal I had in mind is working out empirically what consent is and interrogating some of the intuitions relating sexual ethics.
For comparison, brain damage could undermine a person's capacity to experience guilt, thereby impairing their moral judgement. Therefore it's appropriate to ask whether a person has the "physical" (i.e. neurological) capacity for certain moral qualities.
My opinion leans towards consent being non-cognitive because I can't pinpoint anywhere in a sexual act when I'm consenting to it. I think the older view, that consent is about desire is probably more reflective of what people mean by consent in practice. However, for the sake of argument, let's say that consent does involve cognition, what kind?

I'll break down the cognitive condition "knowing when you're consenting to a sexual act" into three parts: self-knowledge, consent, and sex.
1. Self-knowledge. Another way of expressing this is "metacognition" the capacity to think about thinking. You might test this along these lines:
"John opened the wrong door because he forgot which was the right door, why did John open the wrong door?" A person that lacked metacognition would potentially struggle to identify the answer, because they couldn't entertain the hypothetical state of not knowing once they know the answer to something.
2. Consent. A subcategory of metacognition, consent would be the capacity of comparing hypothetical states of wanting and not wanting. "John didn't want orange juice, but he had to drink it because he was thirsty. What would John have done if there had been water?" A person that lacked a cognitive understanding of consent might have difficulty identifying that John would have picked water.
3. Sex. Largely contingent on experience, i.e. knowing what the sexual act is motivated by (an orgasm).

Put together "John can know when he is consenting to sex when he's able to imagine situations in which he does or doesn't want sex".

If this conveys what people mean when they talk about "consenting to sex", you could test whether children had the capacity for the first two quite easily. Of course it wouldn't solve the moral issues, but it would start to unravel what people mean by consent since I think people often use the concept of consent in an obscure/vague way.

[lightseeker]

I recently read the book "The Trauma Myth" written by Susan A. Clancy and published in 2010 (link goes to Newgon Wiki).
I can't repeat her arguments but she says that most kids participating in sexual contacts with an adult do not recognize it as sexual until much later. They consent because it's someone they trust, someone they like, maybe someone they are used to obey. They might not like it but go along. Or they like the sensation but find it weird and wrong. According to the author, only in a very small percentage force or violence are being used which can lead to trauma.

A quote copied from Newgon Wiki:

[T]he fact that children cannot understand or react appropriately to sex is why, from a legal standpoint, children cannot technically consent to having sex with adults. For consent to truly occur, two conditions must prevail: A child must know what he or she is consenting to and have the freedom to say yes or no. So, in a court of law, children cannot consent. The problem is that most people do not live in a courtroom. We live in the real world, and in the real world, from the perspective of child victims, they do consent. (p. 72)

This matches more or less what PorcelainLark said above. Susan Clancy condemns sexual contact between adults and kids by saying:

Sexual abuse is never OK. No matter what the circumstances are, or how it impacts the victims, sexual abuse is an atrocious, despicable crime. Just because it rarely physically or psychologically damages the child does not mean it is OK. Harmfulness is not the same thing as wrongfulness. And why is it wrong? Because children are incapable of consent.

On the one hand, she has to say it, and I guess she means it. On the other hand, this leaves a path open to when kids know what is about to happen, and can say, yes I wanna be touched, or say no, that's weird, I don't want it; and a no decision are of course being accepted by the adult. The older the kids get the more probable it seems to me that kids can understand cognitively what they say yes to.

The biggest concern Clancy is raising is the reconceptualization process when todays adults recognize the past events for what they were, and feel betrayed, or used. This is where, according to Clancy, the suffering starts. I wonder why this must happen? Is it a universal rule?

[Fragment]

recognize the past events for what they were

This is probably the biggest problem I have with Clancy's argument. What were the past events? Abuse? If so, what defines abuse? Imagine an adult that is loving and initiates a sexual relationship with a child that they care for and want to protect. How is that so different between an adult-adult sexual relationship. What horrific discovery is there to be made by the child as they get older? "They only had sex with me because they are attracted to minors?"

The Trauma Myth still just assumes the immorality of AMSC. "It's not traumatic in many cases, but it's still bad". But while it proves the first half of that claim, it never really grapples with the second other than briefly mentioning life outcomes of people that experience AMSC.

Another question I never seen answered is where is the magical line at which harmful sex becomes loving. And why? Adult-adult sex is connected to a lot of adverse psychological outcomes, too.

But few people are willing to even take on Clancy's work, let alone even more provocative arguments.

[Strato]

“If research consistently showed that willing sexual/romantic activity, intergenerational or not, didn't harm children's development … how do we combat against the behemoth that is developmental science that is used as cudgel against us? Do we fully reject its paradigm, or assimilate it so that it's utilised in our terms? What would be your strategies, guys?”

I shall assume 'developmental science' means 'developmental psychology' above ...

Doubt is cast on whether psychology is science because it often fails to meet scientific rigour criteria, namely: clearly defined terminology, quantifiability, highly controlled experimental conditions, reproducibility and, finally, predictability and testability. The statement from psychologist Susan Clancy quoted by lightseeker above is typical of the behemoth, and has less to do with scientific rigor, and more to do with personal emoting. Therein lies a weakness in the dominant narrative.

My strategy would be to accumulate evidence, analyse the data, derive conclusions, and publish findings. This is the only way I can see to robustly confront those who declare with minimal evidence but bags of religious zeal: “children are incapable of consent”.

[Harlan]

My opinion leans towards consent being non-cognitive because I can't pinpoint anywhere in a sexual act when I'm consenting to it. I think the older view, that consent is about desire is probably more reflective of what people mean by consent in practice. However, for the sake of argument, let's say that consent does involve cognition, what kind?

Consent is an empirical response to a proposal or action, consisting of a continuous analysis of sensations . As long as a person shows interest and enthusiasm, he is demonstrating his approval. Within any activity there is a series of approvals that occur as the activity progresses. As long as a person receives a response in the form of pleasure, the action continues until it brings satisfaction. Unpleasant and painful sensations force a person to take a step back or stop the entire series of his approvals within the framework of activity.

Simply put, approving masturbation does not automatically mean approving anal sex. These are different actions within erotic activity that require separate approvals. Therefore, the concept of consent does not fit into the framework of one ultimatum "yes/no". This is an ongoing process until the activity is finished or stopped.

[Harlan]

And since it has been monopolised by antis as a pretext to say "Everyone below the age of 18 is too immature to have sex because they can't give informed consent"
...
Now, the first scenario is more likely. But anyway, how do we combat against the behemoth that is developmental science that is used as cudgel against us? Do we fully reject its paradigm, or assimilate it so that it's utilised in our terms? What would be your strategies, guys?

When they teach children to walk in the second year of life, none of them care about "informed consent" or mental readiness. There is simply a physiological fact that children are able to learn to walk by the second year. To keep children safe, they hold their hand and teach them the traffic rules. Similarly, there is a physiological fact of puberty. The puberty period begins at the age of ~10 (possibly earlier, read "Adrenarche"*), but instead of providing proper sex education, they do everything to delay learning, slow down natural development and intimidate them.

In response to this statement "Everyone below the age of 18 is too immature to have sex because they can't give informed consent", it is enough to recall the British survey of girls in 2000. In an era when moral panic was just emerging. https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews ... touch.html

In November 2000, an internet poll of 42,000 UK girls aged 12 to 16 was conducted. "Nine out of 10 respondents did not believe in waiting until marriage to have sex, while 87 per cent said the age of consent should be lowered from 16. Sex education was criticised as out-dated, uninformative and taught too late, with little structured literature about sexually transmitted diseases, same-sex relationships and how to deal with pregnancy". Those surveyed also said that free condoms should be provided in girls toilets and that the £60 million drive by the government to halve teenage conceptions would have been better spent on clinics for young people wanting confidential advice.

___________________________________________
Adrenarche* - occurs starting at the age of 6 years. After the first year of life, the adrenal glands secrete very low levels of adrenal androgens. Adrenarche begins on average between age 5 to 8 in girls and between 7 and 11 in boys, and precedes puberty by about 2 years. Unlike the physical changes that occur during puberty, adrenarche is primarily an emotional and psychological stage of development.

[PorcelainLark]

My opinion leans towards consent being non-cognitive because I can't pinpoint anywhere in a sexual act when I'm consenting to it. I think the older view, that consent is about desire is probably more reflective of what people mean by consent in practice. However, for the sake of argument, let's say that consent does involve cognition, what kind?

Consent is an empirical response to a proposal or action, consisting of a continuous analysis of sensations . As long as a person shows interest and enthusiasm, he is demonstrating his approval. Within any activity there is a series of approvals that occur as the activity progresses. As long as a person receives a response in the form of pleasure, the action continues until it brings satisfaction. Unpleasant and painful sensations force a person to take a step back or stop the entire series of his approvals within the framework of activity.

Simply put, approving masturbation does not automatically mean approving anal sex. These are different actions within erotic activity that require separate approvals. Therefore, the concept of consent does not fit into the framework of one ultimatum "yes/no". This is an ongoing process until the activity is finished or stopped.

I think for legal purposes, usually we still have an idea of "understanding-based" consent, like consenting to terms and conditions in a contract. Even though in practice, we may not always understand what we're agreeing with, the law is based on the possibility that we could understand it if we tried. With the question of sex, it isn't entirely clear how to compare it to other types of agreement (e.g. accepting a mortgage). The most obvious answer would be the potential consequences of either STDs or pregnancy, require a certain mental competency. However, the concept of avoiding diseases is already something we teach children (even if they don't always follow what they are taught), and paradoxically pregnancy as the thing that needs to be understood could undermine the coherence of the concept of the age of consent.
Who is more more at risk of getting pregnant? A 14 year old girl or an 8 year old girl? If girls prior to puberty aren't at risk of getting pregnant, then should the law be that from 12 until 18 a girl should be deemed unable to understand the risks involved in sex but not before it? Clearly this would be at odds with any normal understanding of the age of consent. So either what has to be understood would have to be something other than the risk of pregnancy, or we have to base the age of consent on something other than the capacity to understand sex.
Therefore, I think the strongest current argument for the age of consent, would have to be on the basis of power dynamics rather than understanding-based consent, but that's a topic for a different thread.