On developmental psychology...

[Fragment]

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.

I'm interested in this because I agree that the power disparity is the strongest argument anti positions have. In particular the ability to say "no" and refuse to engage.

The other argument is the argument about informed decision making. I think it's not just pregnancy and STDs that complicate sex but the emotional, social and relationship dynamics that can emerge out of a sexual encounter.

I also think that we need to stop seeing these two attributes as linked- they aren't really. In a sense "informed decision making" sets the lower age of consent where a minor knows enough about sex to engage it in but may need protections about exploitation (Romeo and Juliet laws in the current paradigm, or something like Germany offers for 14-15 year olds). "The capacity to say no" in a sense informs the older age of consent where partners are considered as being able to engage as equals.

I haven't fully developed this thought, but it aligns with BLR's pro-reform model where instead of an age of consent we are talking about ages of consent based on the emerging capabilities of youth.

[Artaxerxes II]

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.

I'm interested in this because I agree that the power disparity is the strongest argument anti positions have. In particular the ability to say "no" and refuse to engage.

The other argument is the argument about informed decision making. I think it's not just pregnancy and STDs that complicate sex but the emotional, social and relationship dynamics that can emerge out of a sexual encounter.

I also think that we need to stop seeing these two attributes as linked- they aren't really. In a sense "informed decision making" sets the lower age of consent where a minor knows enough about sex to engage it in but may need protections about exploitation (Romeo and Juliet laws in the current paradigm, or something like Germany offers for 14-15 year olds). "The capacity to say no" in a sense informs the older age of consent where partners are considered as being able to engage as equals.

I haven't fully developed this thought, but it aligns with BLR's pro-reform model where instead of an age of consent we are talking about ages of consent based on the emerging capabilities of youth.

Sure, but even then does arguments by antis are flawed. While these social dynamics exist in intergenerational relationships, they aren't inherent to sex. In this sense, power disparities are inherent in all personal relationships, whether it's between adults and minors, or between peers. That minor-adult relationships have power imbalances doesn't taint it anymore than it taints to heterosexual relationships between peers. In that regard, antis are hypocritical in that they'll apply double standards to intergenerational relationships, even if the youth isn't that young. And also, there are multiple factors at play other than age when it comes to power dynamics, such as race, gender, class, and disability. Which one of those would be the most important in determining inequality would be subjective, as shown by how the existence of concepts like male privilege and white privilege are often debated continuously. And that's assuming intimate relationships are internal power struggles in the first place.

It can also be argued that many of the disparities are due to ageist policies such as the minority status that makes anyone below the age of majority the assigned guardian's ward. So, it can be argued that many of the disparities between minors and adults aren't really inherent, especially when it comes to capabilities w.r.t. to adults and older minors.

Which brings me to my next point: The biggest hypocrisy of antis (particularly of the leftist persuasion) is how men and women need to strive towards equality, only to be adamant when it comes to striving towards adult-minor equality, even if said minor is 15 years older or around that age. In this case, they'll say how any male-female inequality must be due to the patriarchy, only to have deterministic when it comes to age-based differences (legal or biological), even if age is arguable more fluid than gender.

So really, should we strive to eliminate as much as possible the environmental/social conditions that perpetuate adult-minor power disparities, or not? Should the dynamics in which sexual relationships occur be changed to make the social environment more favourable towards AMSC, or not? Because those are the relevant questions society must ask itself when it comes to dealing with power imbalances. Because if it can't arrive to such a debate, we activists will have a long way to go before actual acceptance occurs. And of course, we will also need to entertain this debate, in this case whether we want to change the dynamics towards a balance between protection and autonomy that is more favourable to youth autonomy, or just take for granted said dynamics however unjust they may be.

[PorcelainLark]

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.

I'm interested in this because I agree that the power disparity is the strongest argument anti positions have. In particular the ability to say "no" and refuse to engage.

[/quote]
Funnily enough, I think I could construct a stronger argument than the standard power disparity one for the anti-contact position:
Children don't always act in their own best interest - e.g. eating large amounts of sugar even if they've been warned about diabetes and the effect on their teeth. So even if they understood the consequences of sex, that doesn't mean they would make good decisions about it.
There is a moral responsibility for adults to set external boundaries, in order to prevent children from making decisions that harm themselves. I think, this might be why at the psychological level, parent-child incest is generally so traumatic: an adult is violating the very norm of restraint that is meant to justify their authority over the child.

[Harlan]

So even if they understood the consequences of sex...

If we are talking about safe sex without coercion and rape, then the only consequences can be hypothetical infections, with heterosexual sex pregnancy is also added. These things are not inevitable and life threatening. All this can be prevented by proper sex education and a sex-positive culture.

Please forgive me for repeating myself. Children who have learned to walk and ride a bicycle are taught the traffic rules. Agree that the threat to life on the road is higher than during sex, but despite this, minors are not prohibited from riding bicycles until they are 16-18 years old. Teach them to use condoms and distribute it among young people without shame and fear and they will use them. This is the only way to prevent accidental pregnancy and infections without disrupting the natural sexual development of young people.

parent-child incest is generally so traumatic...

The same, if we are talking about voluntary sex without coercion and rape, then the sex itself will not be traumatic. Putting a stigma on sex artificially turns this experience into a traumatic one.

[PorcelainLark]

So even if they understood the consequences of sex...

If we are talking about safe sex without coercion and rape, then the only consequences can be hypothetical infections, with heterosexual sex pregnancy is also added. These things are not inevitable and life threatening. All this can be prevented by proper sex education and a sex-positive culture.

Please forgive me for repeating myself. Children who have learned to walk and ride a bicycle are taught the traffic rules. Agree that the threat to life on the road is higher than during sex, but despite this, minors are not prohibited from riding bicycles until they are 16-18 years old. Teach them to use condoms and distribute it among young people without shame and fear and they will use them. This is the only way to prevent accidental pregnancy and infections without disrupting the natural sexual development of young people.

I think I agree with this.

parent-child incest is generally so traumatic...

The same, if we are talking about voluntary sex without coercion and rape, then the sex itself will not be traumatic. Putting a stigma on sex artificially turns this experience into a traumatic one.

I'm not sure that the stigma on sex can be changed so easily. My theory is that it has to do with bodily functions generally. As an infant grows up, they learn to distant themselves from their excrement (why for example "bed-wetter" is strong insult amongst children). These boundaries about the bodily functions, mean that sex is shocking (i.e. because it's dirty, it involves the groin). It's hard to change sexual norms for much the same way Western-style toilets aren't substituted for Japanese-style toilets, even though the latter could be seen as less wasteful and more hygienic. The regulations of the body are the deepest ingrained norms in any culture. The parent serves the role disciplining the body, and ingraining what is and isn't disgusting.