16/12: Pro-Reform's position on AMSC

[Fragment]

Apologies if my tone came across as confrontational. I didn't mean to attack either your credentials or your desire for change. I was just hoping to keep this thread focused on feedback on 16/12 specifically and felt it risked veering off into "what is your ideal solution for AMSC" territory instead. Obviously forum threads can wander, but I'd rather keep this one a little more narrowly focused. I'd love to hear more of the specifics about your "ideal solution" as another forum topic, or even as a guest blog, though. While pro-reform is one possibility for the community to rally behind, it's definitely not the only one.

I'm curious, though, do you think removing AMSC from criminal courts is something compatible with 16/12, or do you see that as a different path entirely? You mentioned not wanting to set hard limits based on age, but part of 16/12 as I see it is to create a transitional period for 12-15 year olds where the courts will assess each case on a more individual basis. It adopts the very Netherlands model that you refer to- that a case will be investigated on complaint by the minor in question.

Is there an age at which you think the criminal courts should be involved? Should it be a civil matter even with very young children? Or in cases of incest? At what age do you think the civil courts should stop being involved? 16 as exists in the UK now?

[Red Rodent]

I didn't mean to promote my own agenda in this thread and so I, too, apologise if it came across like that. However, I couldn't comment on the 16/12 proposal without voicing my fundamental concern about the existence of a criminally enforced AoC in the first place.

do you think removing AMSC from criminal courts is something compatible with 16/12, or do you see that as a different path entirely? You mentioned not wanting to set hard limits based on age, but part of 16/12 as I see it is to create a transitional period for 12-15 year olds where the courts will assess each case on a more individual basis. It adopts the very Netherlands model that you refer to- that a case will be investigated on complaint by the minor in question.

Is there an age at which you think the criminal courts should be involved? Should it be a civil matter even with very young children? Or in cases of incest? At what age do you think the civil courts should stop being involved? 16 as exists in the UK now?

I don't think the approach is incompatible, no. Indeed, another problem with having the AoC in the criminal system is that it can make young people reluctant to complain, or even to seek advice, if they feel uncomfortable about a relationship with an older person. That older person may well be (and often is) someone they care about -- dare I say love? -- and not someone they would want to see shamed and go to jail, with all the guilt that would also entail for the younger party. It may well be someone on whom they are emotionally and/or financially dependent; I've seen this happen for myself and the fear of losing that person outstrips the benefit of reporting their concerns. Addressing the issues in a closed and confidential civil court hearing would go a long way to relieving this tension under the model you're proposing.

Part of the problem is that adolescence is a time of such rapid and fundamental change for young people that tying down a developmental milestone to a specific age (and that includes a proper grasp of the concept of consent) is problematic, if possible at all. Yeah, 16 as it is here seems fair enough to me, although erring on the side of caution. I've lived and worked in European countries where it's 15, and visited Germany where it's 14. None of that seems to make much difference to social attitudes or offending behaviour from what I've seen. Even in the UK, 16 is not an absolute; one can still be prosecuted for unlawful sexual intercourse with an older youth if (s)he has a significant learning disability, for example, or if you are in a position of trust (their teacher, youth worker, social worker and so on).

I think there is a point at the lower age-end where sexual contact can safely be assumed to be indecent assault but again it's hard to pin it down to a specific age. But just because a case starts as a civil action doesn't mean it can't result in criminal prosecution if, during its course, it emerges that such an offence has been committed.

[Harlan]

Is there an age at which you think the criminal courts should be involved? Should it be a civil matter even with very young children? Or in cases of incest? At what age do you think the civil courts should stop being involved? 16 as exists in the UK now?

The criminal court should only step in extreme cases, if there are clear signs such as ACTUAL beating, kidnapping, rape, murder. If such actions are discovered in a civil court, they must reclassify the case and apply for criminal proceedings. Incest is simply sex between close relatives, which can be either consensual or forced. We can discuss the lower limit when the civil court begins to operate, for example, from 7 years old.

[Fragment]

We can discuss the lower limit when the civil court begins to operate, for example, from 7 years old.

This is kind of what I was asking about. I think there would probably need to be a lower limit for the civil court and prior to that the case would automatically be criminal. In a sense 16/12 has a lot of potential to be compatible with that. Cases where the minor is 12-15 would go through the civil court unless evidence of abuse (in line with an adult standard of sexual abuse- or similar) was present.

I can understand wanting to use the civil court for older pre-pubescents. I could see civil court being a better experience than criminal for 8-11 year olds, too. But I still doubt the public would be willing to accept that any time soon. Seeing how the system plays out with adolescents first seems a more realistic path.

[Red Rodent]

Seeing how the system plays out with adolescents first seems a more realistic path.

I can live with that.

Harlan and I make strange bedfellows in any setting, but it's nice to give him a hug in this bunk

[Strato]

Thank you for highlighting in the proposal the-younger-age-at-which-children-commence-puberty phenomenon. The piece is stronger for it.

I note the following from virped.org/mission statements: "Virtuous Pedophiles is fundamentally opposed to any form of sexual activity between adults and children." Clearly the AMSC proposal takes a diametrically opposite view to this statement. I understand this forum is to give a collective voice to all MAPS, virtuous or otherwise. How does one avoid alienating a presumably not insubstantial number of fellow MAPS in this instance?

I'd say there's three things:

First, and most importantly, Pro-Reform is NOT a position held by MAP Union. It is a personal position held by Brian, and to a lesser degree, myself. As an organization we actually hope for the participation of more VirPed type people. We want to amplify THEIR voices, too. We have a guest blogs section where we would happily publish anti-c essays and we hope that as our committee expands in the future that we will be able to welcome anti-c people and be able to work alongside them. None of Mu's principles are opposed to VirPed's principles. We do support legal reform, but age of consent reform is not explicitly outlined as part of that.

Meanwhile we also support discussion about contact stances between pro-c and anti-c people. Some communities try to unite either side of the fence by banning discussion on the topic. We don't think that's productive. We want people who agree on most things, but disagree on one important issue, to be able to work together on the things that do unite us.

Second, and this may be splitting hairs, but pro-reform is not a position that supports sexuality activity between adults and children. Children are explicitly excluded from the reform. It is a proposal focused on adolescent sexual agency and autonomy. Formerly having strong anti-c views himself, Brian proposed 12+ partly because he felt it would be a position that moderate anti-c people could support, while still being seen as "progress enough" for pro-c people. Key to the position is that adolescents are not children- they are between childhood and adulthood and should be treated as such.

Third, even Ethan Edwards, one of the founders of VirPed has expressed a view very similar to 12+ in this blog.

The compromise I propose is that for girls of (say) age 13 and above, there should be no prosecution unless the girl herself wants it -- without heavy pressure from parents or law enforcement. This system leaves in place the most important protection -- if she was raped, there is no need to prove lack of consent. If it can be proven that sex happened, then if she says she did not consent she is automatically right. She could also admit she agreed to the sex but it was under false pretenses -- this should also result in a conviction, though a lighter sentence. But she also has the option to forgive the man and chalk it up to a learning experience. Of course, if she is enthusiastic about the relationship, she would not support prosecution.

Her judgment that she wants the man prosecuted should not be required immediately -- she should have a few years at least to re-evaluate the experience.

This is almost exactly the 16/12 position (except that the age is 13 instead of 12). Even including the ability of the younger person to prosecute without having to prove a lack of consent. I know this isn't an official VirPed position and just Ethan's personal view, but if such an influential member of the anti-c community can accept this as a reasonable position, then we believe it should be possible for 16/12 to unite a substantial part of the community. There will, of course, be abolitionists that think it doesn't go far enough and other people who think that it goes too far. But we hope it can lead to discussion, not alienation.

Thank you for your detailed response.

<Devil’s advocate mode: ON>

I am having difficulty reconciling on the one hand: proposal content penned by MAP Union founders, officers, whatever, and on the other: MAP Union has no position regarding the self-same proposal content. I get what you are attempting to do, but it just seems a tad dysfunctional.

“We want people who agree on most things, but disagree on one important issue, to be able to work together on the things that do unite us.”

How is MAP Union ever to improve the lot of MAPS, if our detractors can turn round and rightfully claim that the so-called union fails to agree on the important issues?

“None of Mu's principles are opposed to VirPed's principles.”

Well no ... as I read them, Mu’s principles are generic and fail to consider the elephants in the room. A problem might arise when contradictory proposals appear.

“Second, and this may be splitting hairs, but pro-reform is not a position that supports sexuality activity between adults and children.”

We need to be careful when splitting hairs; certain agencies consider a child to be between 5 and 14 years of age.

"I know this isn't an official VirPed position and just Ethan's personal view ..."

I would also caution placing excessive weight on a single person's viewpoint. There are many MAPS out there who also have personal views but no agency or resources to make them dominant.

<Devil’s advocate mode: OFF>

[Fragment]

How is MAP Union ever to improve the lot of MAPS, if our detractors can turn round and rightfully claim that the so-called union fails to agree on the important issues?

Well no ... as I read them, Mu’s principles are generic and fail to consider the elephants in the room. A problem might arise when contradictory proposals appear.

I acknowledge this is potentially a problem, but I see there being no clear solution. Options are:
1) Take a clear pro-c position (which giving the leanings of the committee would be more likely) and be guaranteed to lose half of the community.
2) Take a clear anti-c position (which means the committee would be arguing against their own beliefs) and be guaranteed to lose half of the community.
3) Ignore the elephant in the room and take an official "neutral" stance. MAP rights forum tried this- even banning contact discussion on the forum, but not being able to discuss a critical issue seemed to result in flailing motivation.
4) Try to encourage a plurality of views and work as an alliance on the basic human rights issues that motivate us all.

There's no good solution there, but we're trying the latter. I don't think that all members of a movement have to have the same views. In the 90s there were parts of the LGBT movement that were opposed to assimilationist policies like gay marriage. Political parties often include people with very different views, but who want to work towards common goals. Unions of people with different views work even better when it's only the degree that is different, not the direction.

Personally I want pro-c and anti-c people to stop seeing themselves as so diametrically opposed. Both groups want to move in the same general direction, but anti-c people have a stopping point that is a little closer than what pro-c people have. I also don't think that the groups are actually philosophically opposite as they often appear. It's often framed as "sex with minors" or "no sex with minors", but I don't think it's a matter of "yes" or "no", it's a matter of "when". No-one is anti-c at all ages. They might be pro-c for 18+. Or for 16+. A support of the status quo in Germany would be pro-c for 14+. The pro-reform position is 12+. More radical pro-c positions push that position lower, but I don't know anyone that supports penetration of newborns, so clearly there is a line drawn for radical pro-c people, too.

Instead of pro-c/anti-c being a debate, I'd rather it be a discussion. What are the challenges around youth sexuality? What kind of capacity is required to avoid harmful sex? How can we best balance agency with protection? I know that part of the anti-c position is strategic, though- "talking about sex with minors will hinder MAP rights". I disagree on that point. I think that trying to deny our sexual fantasies is pointless- regular people will assume we have them anyway.

As for my other two points- they were weak arguments and not likely to convince staunch anti-c people. If you reject teen sexuality as being distinct from child sexuality you'll probably find 16/12 arbitrary. But I think there will also be a lot of anti-c people who, like Ethan, will be able to agree with pro-c for adolescents, but anti-c for pre-pubescents.

Eventually Mu may adopt 16/12 or another proposal like it as official policy. But we also don't intend to adopt any policy positions without community consultation. Leadership is important, but we want to represent the views of our members, rather than dictate to them. Our articles are there to stimulate discussion.

I ended up kind of rambling a bit, but I hope I made things a bit more clear?

[Red Rodent]

Personally I want pro-c and anti-c people to stop seeing themselves as so diametrically opposed.

Oh, God, you and me both, Fragment! I've felt frustrated about this false dichotomy for years, possibly since I joined the Virped forum a decade ago.

I'm sure I'm not alone in my take on this: I identify as a non-contact boylover but that, to me, is a personal decision, based on my personal experience and consequent values and beliefs. I don't seek to judge the views and behaviour of others in this respect. I have never subscribed to the core VP dictum that "sex between adults and minors is always wrong," because the issues are too complex and nuanced to make such a bold declaration.

Things also change as time moves on. I've been in a civil partnership for over ten years. When we first made a commitment to each other I was in my mid-20s and he was 18. That was never an issue for me (aside from good-natured teasing from friends about me being a "toffee tortoise"*) But, even if I weren't in a monogamous relationship, I couldn't conceive of having sexual relations with a teenager these days.

I must also say that I would and could never be affiliated with a group that campaigns for the rights of adults to have sex with children, or even the rights of children to have sex with adults. It would be professional suicide for me, if nothing else.

I'm open about my support for VP and B4U-ACT; I've even defended Free Spirits as a legitimate support organisation rather than the sinister paedophile ring that it's sometimes been cast as. Discussion of the issues is great. Sexual liberation for teenagers, yes. Compassionate justice for those who make mistakes and overstep the mark. Freedom for one to love whomsoever they choose. But this is a line that I neither want nor am able to cross.
--
*Toffee tortoise: Brit. school slang from "toffee man", one who hangs around offering toffees to kids. A toffee tortoise is one who gets in before the hare.

[Strato]

"I ended up kind of rambling a bit, but I hope I made things a bit more clear?"

Playing devil's advocate sometimes brings things to the surface that might otherwise not be discussed, so thank you very much for digging deep by way of a response to two of the points I raised.

[BLueRibbon]

That is a long discussion to come back to.

Fragment explained everything remarkably well, but I think I should also reply as the primary author of the Pro-Reform framework.

1. The Pro-Reform framework that is becoming quite popular is a BLueRibbon position, not an official Mu position. It's posted in Mu Perspectives, to which anyone can submit an essay for consideration. The board is concerned about the lack of anti-c articles; we would like to see contributions from people with a variety of different perspectives. Perhaps Red Rodent, who seems to be soft anti-c, could write an article about his experience in 'safeguarding'. He might (hopefully would!) have some criticisms about the 'safeguarding' community from within.

2. The 16/12 proposal is designed to offer legal headroom for adults and young people to interact sexually, offering protections against both abuse and unnecessary prosecution. It avoids an over-reliance on chronological age by creating a zone in which an adult who takes advantage of a teen can be prosecuted, but a genuinely mutual relationship should not go to court. This recognizes the differential rates of development among young people, while placing a hard cut-off at a point necessary for the proposal to ever have any hope of gaining traction. It is supported by data on the harm of AMSC, and also by my observations of the emotional development of the many children and teens I have known through work and as a (platonic) AF to many boys.