Experience from adult relationships

[Supermario]

Consent is not something that is vocalised, it is simply explored (with high skill) and known during the subtext of flirting/communication of desire.

Often, women really enjoy sex after having been "coerced", so the commonly repeated narrative in the media is wrong. The perfectly moral form of consent is not actually offering 100% choice. Most people just hide that from the media types.

Could this be the same for children?

[Not Forever]

To me, consent is simply something psychological, which can be expressed verbally, through subtext, or implicitly — and it can also be withheld. Essentially, the (more or less explicit) request for consent serves as a patch to make up for our inability to read other people's minds.

It’s something that can change over time, in any case.
I believe that when it comes to young people, the issue of consent is more delicate, simply because they may be more easily influenced and have more difficulty expressing their psychological state (which also depends on their personality).

I’ll use my own experience as an example: I was always a “shy” child and tended to go along with things. My expression of dissent, at least at first, wasn’t very clear. If someone asked me to dress a certain way, I would say “I don’t want to.” but if they put a bit of pressure on me, I would end up complying. Afterwards, I’d feel stressed because of the clothing but kept it all inside until I eventually felt like crying.

The problem with these kinds of situations is that you can’t dig into someone else’s head. So, especially in cases where expressing consent or dissent is complicated, in my opinion, it’s important to pay close attention to small signals. If those signals are hidden or disappear, it might mean the person has shut down, rather than that they’ve been persuaded.

So, can it be the same for children? Maybe — maybe if the context and the approach are right. But it could also be the opposite, and the problem is that, at least at first, the two situations are probably indistinguishable from each other.

[PorcelainLark]

Often, women really enjoy sex after having been "coerced", so the commonly repeated narrative in the media is wrong. The perfectly moral form of consent is not actually offering 100% choice.

Seems like a slippery slope.

[BLueRibbon]

These discussions often forget one crucial factor: child/teen initiators are common.

Let's not fall into the anti trap of acting like AMSC is an adult foisting themself upon a confused child.

[PorcelainLark]

Let's not fall into the anti trap of acting like AMSC is an adult foisting themself upon a confused child.

What, you're saying sex can be innately pleasurable without any evil adult manipulation corrupting minors' desires? No self-respecting person would enjoy sex, right? Right?

[Curson]

Consent is not something that is vocalised, it is simply explored (with high skill) and known during the subtext of flirting/communication of desire.

Often, women really enjoy sex after having been "coerced", so the commonly repeated narrative in the media is wrong. The perfectly moral form of consent is not actually offering 100% choice. Most people just hide that from the media types.

Could this be the same for children?

I find it highly illogical that people can say teenagers can date each other, just not an evil adult who's past the age of 18 and should know better even if both parties love each other.

[Supermario]

To me, consent is simply something psychological, which can be expressed verbally, through subtext, or implicitly — and it can also be withheld. Essentially, the (more or less explicit) request for consent serves as a patch to make up for our inability to read other people's minds.

It’s something that can change over time, in any case.
I believe that when it comes to young people, the issue of consent is more delicate, simply because they may be more easily influenced and have more difficulty expressing their psychological state (which also depends on their personality).

I’ll use my own experience as an example: I was always a “shy” child and tended to go along with things. My expression of dissent, at least at first, wasn’t very clear. If someone asked me to dress a certain way, I would say “I don’t want to.” but if they put a bit of pressure on me, I would end up complying. Afterwards, I’d feel stressed because of the clothing but kept it all inside until I eventually felt like crying.

The problem with these kinds of situations is that you can’t dig into someone else’s head. So, especially in cases where expressing consent or dissent is complicated, in my opinion, it’s important to pay close attention to small signals. If those signals are hidden or disappear, it might mean the person has shut down, rather than that they’ve been persuaded.

So, can it be the same for children? Maybe — maybe if the context and the approach are right. But it could also be the opposite, and the problem is that, at least at first, the two situations are probably indistinguishable from each other.

Really good points, thanks for contributing here.

[Grunko]

Consent is not something that is vocalised, it is simply explored (with high skill) and known during the subtext of flirting/communication of desire.

Often, women really enjoy sex after having been "coerced", so the commonly repeated narrative in the media is wrong. The perfectly moral form of consent is not actually offering 100% choice. Most people just hide that from the media types.

Could this be the same for children?

I find it highly illogical that people can say teenagers can date each other, just not an evil adult who's past the age of 18 and should know better even if both parties love each other.

I agree. I think it is stupid that they say teenagers can consent to other teenagers but not with people who are much older. Also what many people forget that adults are human beings too and just like teenagers are trying to figure things out and will make a lot of mistakes and doesn’t know everything. Adults can be niave and innocent too. Sometimes a teenager may have more knowledge and experience than people who are much older than them.

[Kierkegaard]

I don't think we should fall into the trap of rejecting the importance of consent just because that is what antis claim we are doing as pedophiles. I happen to think consent is extremely important during sex and that rape and coercive sex are deeply immoral. If anything, I would say I probably care about the autonomy and consent of children more than the average non-pedophile.

I simply reject the philosophically incoherent cliche that children are utterly incapable of giving informed consent to any kind of sexual activity with an adult. Nobody cares to ask if a child can give meaningful, informed consent to jumping on a trampoline, playing contact sports, or eating junk food regularly, despite these arguably being more dangerous activities than voluntary non-penetrative sex play and possibly constituting child neglect, depending on what degree of risk we consider to be neglectful. Even if a child explicitly does not consent to playing a sport, for example, but is instead being pressured into playing football by their dad, we may consider this to be unethical or shitty parenting to some extent, but nowhere near as unethical as sex with a child, the ultimate evil and most abhorrent thing anyone can possibly do. Nor do we even consider consent to be ethically relevant at all when it comes to coercing children into attending school or receiving necessary medical treatments like vaccinations, because it is assumed that these are in the best interests of the child and that it is okay for adults to employ some form of coercion like the threat of punishment to get kids to comply with things we deem to be in their long term interest.

In fact, the only time we do positively refer to consent being ethically relevant in the context of childhood is occasionally when more progressive parents speak of "teaching the importance of consent" to young children by telling them it is their choice if they wish to accept a hug or other physical contact from an adult. This is a relatively recent phenomenon, nobody in the past ever told children they were allowed to refuse a kiss on the cheek from grandma, you simply sucked it up and acted polite and compliant. However, this is completely contrary to the notion that simple willingness =/= "consent". Does the power relation between grandma and grandchild preclude the possibility of informed consent to a platonic hug or a pinch of the cheeks? Is simple willingness an acceptable substitute? Is an erotic hug fundamentally more incomprehensible or dangerous for a child than a platonic hug?

Basically, the cliche justification "children can't consent!" is an inconsistent and muddled ethical idea. We play fast and loose with the importance of consent as it suits us. We do not apply consistent standards regarding the necessity and possibility of informed consent to any other domain of child-adult interaction. Either we reject consent as a necessary ethical requirement entirely, assuming the authority to engage in coercion for the best interests of the child, or we ignore the power dynamic and accept simple willingness as adequate when convenient. We also regularly conflate 5 year olds with 16 year olds and hardcore anal sex with erotic fondling or kissing, removing all nuance from discussion of consent and sex play. It is only because of the special, mystical properties attributed to the realm of the erotic and the need to construct a secular, progressive justification for the denial of child sexuality that we uncritically accept such a strange cliche as an obvious moral fact which needs no explication. It is "common sense" that children cannot consent and that adult-child sex is evil, like it is common sense that witches sometimes cause crop disease or that race is biologically essential. Just don't think about it or question it too much, only a pedophile would need to think about such an obvious fact.

Personally, I think it's true that sometimes children do need to be coerced by adults into doing what is in their best interest(such as, for example, being vaccinated despite a fear of needles). So, in that regard, I don't consider consent or even simple willingness to always be ethically necessary for all kinds of adult-child interactions. This is especially true for interactions with serious long term consequences for the child like their education, medical decisions, etc where a child is likely to act against their own long term interests due to their short-sightedness and cognitive immaturity. However, I think we should at least try to respect the autonomy of children and take consent into account to the greatest extent that consent is possible, allowing children to choose whether or not to engage in physical touch, what clothes to wear, how to style their hair, etc whenever we can. Giving children as much choice and autonomy as reasonably possible is good for them. We should build our parenting styles and educational models around maximizing autonomy and responsibility.

When it comes to sex play and sexual kinds of physical contact, or exposure to sexual situations like witnessing sex, I don't think sex is intrinsically all that different from most other kinds of physical activities and don't see any ethical problem with allowing children to be involved in it and for erotic adult-child interactions like massages and so on to be normalized and treated just the same as platonic intimacy. The harm is largely socially constructed because of the stigma placed on sex. Or a result of other factors like violence rather than the sex itself. In other words, I think simple willingness is usually an adequate ethical justification for sex play with a child, assuming the sex is done with the child's physical health in mind and doesn't take a particularly risky form.