Institutionalised relationships

[Learning to undeny]

One topic that had been discussed at length here is reform on the age of consent, thus decriminalising individual relationships without them necessarily fitting a specific mold. But if adult-minor relationships were regulated as an institution, what could it look like?

Today, BLs and GLs are united, as we should be in an age of increasing gender equality. So forget about the historical forms of these, and especially child marriage, which is not at all the type of institution that I have in mind. We need to be more imaginative. (Gender equality will come back to bite us.)

Instead, the 'AM Union' that I propose would have a very different purpose: to protect the often most vulnerable part in the relationship—the minor. Partners in an AM Union would (in some cases; see below) be able to have legal consensual sex even if the minor is below the local age of consent (which could stay the same as it is). A-M Partners outside an AM Union would not be allowed to have sex.

Instead of first having the relationship, and later judging whether it was abusive or not, we allow from the beginning only those that are evaluated as not abusive (see below). This 'AM Union' might be an experiment and not persist long-term, but it would have the following benefits:

B1. Instead of having to hide the relationship, the AM Union would make it necessary to make it open. So partners would not feel so guilty about their relationship, even if some people condemn it. This also prevents abuse of power, since a potential abuser would not like to / would be unable to go through this AM Union. Minors gain a healthy way to begin a relationship and learn from it, and have it easier to denounce / escape if things go wrong.

B2. Good quality relationships for future studies.

B3. MAPs have an outlet that challenges conventional wisdom. Even if only a small minority of MAPs are in an AM Union, this would benefit all MAPs.

B4. It is easy to argue that the age of consent should not the same for everybody, but it has to be a fixed value since it applies to everyone. AM Union circumvents this problem and is, I feel, easier to sell to the general population.

The main features of the AM Union would be:

F1. In order to start an AM Union, the 2 parties agree and the relationship is evaluated (perhaps by social workers) as a net benefit for the minor. The family must also be informed (or consent).

F2. There would be 2 levels to AM Unions that are periodically re-evaluated. In level 2, consensual sex is allowed; in level 1 it is not. To evaluate the level, the power dynamics between the partners are taken into account, as well as the general capacity of consent. The minor must have a solid understanding of sexual and social practices and customs, STDs, pregnancy prevention and abortion (when applicable). If the evaluation shows that the relationship is no longer positive to the minor, the AM Union breaks, and additional measures can be taken if any kind of abuse is detected, including of course legal measures. This evaluation process sounds expensive, but remember that a small number of AM Unions would be enough for our purposes.

F3. The only incentive for the minor to enter an AM Union, apart from the relationship itself, must be the extra protections. Otherwise, the minor could stay in the AM Union for any other benefits, which is not ideal.

F4. The incentive for the adult is to have a relationship with the minor. Even in level 1, this would give them an "excuse" to show affect to the minor.

F5. The adult can be in a single AM Union at a single time, since the idea is that they spend time together and the adult pays attention to the minor.

F6. The formal union might continue in some form when the minor grows up, so that eventually it might become a marriage, even if many years later.

Shortcomings include:

S1. Starting an AM Union might not be worth the trouble if the parties do not want to have sex, unless level 1 is somehow redefined. But how?

S2. We would have to see whether this happens in practice, but I would expect many more male adult partners than female ones. I think MAPs tend to underestimate the importance of the fact that there are far less female MAPs than male MAPs. Any "advance" that benefits only men and not women will not be seen as an "advance" by society, where genders are increasingly equal. AM Unions have the risk of being perceived as an extension of patriarchy. Unless teleiophilic women have some incentive to join them, which again suggests that a careful definition of level 1 is the key.

S3. I think it would be feasible, but again, only in a small scale.

S4. Sexier name?

Do you like the idea? You can leave criticism.

[Not Forever]

I can't bring myself to like this scenario.
I mean, I like that there's a narrative to protect the minor, but for me the minor's rights also include the right to privacy and, if you will, a sort of right to make mistakes. My point of view is about consent and I don't like third parties getting involved to judge this consent.

But this is definitely a very personal position.
I'm not even a fan of the discourse about power dynamics; one person might have more experience and physical strength, the other has a loaded gun under their pillow with the entire social and institutional apparatus condensed as the bullet with automatic aim included, just pull the trigger, even by accident. Who's in the position of power? The strong person or the one with the gun? A gun that we're even tying around their hand as a preventive measure, with an elastic band so that as soon as they get distracted the finger presses by itself.

And even regarding the age of consent I'd make a more philosophical argument. Not so much that it should be different from person to person, but about the very concept of consent itself. Consent either exists or it doesn't, regardless of the age you have. And from here ask ourselves: does a state have the right to invalidate your consent?

And then there's the context problem, it would effectively be a public self-report of pre-existing relationships.
Because let's remember... we're talking about relationships, not a Tinder.

[Scorchingwilde]

I don't think adding a highly restrictive framework is going to be good at preventing exploitation, the way your proposal is written makes the steps involved seem like a massive bureaucratic burden, and it's not going to be conducive to minors being able to explore casual relationships or safe hookups, or polyamorous MAPs being able to express themselves, for that matter. I think the only appropriate situation in which relationships need to be disclosed is to human resources at a job or workplace, which includes student/teacher ones at schools, because it prevents the workplace from contributing to the relationships becoming coercive.

[Learning to undeny]

I don't think adding a highly restrictive framework is going to be good at preventing exploitation, the way your proposal is written makes the steps involved seem like a massive bureaucratic burden, and it's not going to be conducive to minors being able to explore casual relationships or safe hookups, or polyamorous MAPs being able to express themselves, for that matter.

That's why it's more of an experiment than a long-term measure. The point is not to help those minors and adults who want more casual relationships or to keep it secret. The point is to promote good-quality relationships that are not secret, and to challenge the current narrative.

I think the only appropriate situation in which relationships need to be disclosed is to human resources at a job or workplace, which includes student/teacher ones at schools, because it prevents the workplace from contributing to the relationships becoming coercive.

That's one example that I had in mind. This type of relationship (like student/teacher) would be higly scrutinised. They can also lead to favoritism. They should be allowed very rarely.

I can't bring myself to like this scenario.
I mean, I like that there's a narrative to protect the minor, but for me the minor's rights also include the right to privacy and, if you will, a sort of right to make mistakes. My point of view is about consent and I don't like third parties getting involved to judge this consent.

Third parties get involved in judging capacity of consent (of course, consent then has to be expressed between the partners every time). It's not that different from the age of consent, only individualised. Perhaps it would be more like a single exam rather than re-examinations, with only the positive character of the relationship and the power dynamics being re-evaluated, not the capacity for consent. Perhaps it's excessive anyway.

I don't think the right to privacy of anyone is being violated. Those who would not be happy with this bureaucracy would be in exactly the same situation that they are today. Only those that are happy with it would "sign up".

But this is definitely a very personal position.
I'm not even a fan of the discourse about power dynamics; one person might have more experience and physical strength, the other has a loaded gun under their pillow with the entire social and institutional apparatus condensed as the bullet with automatic aim included, just pull the trigger, even by accident. Who's in the position of power? The strong person or the one with the gun? A gun that we're even tying around their hand as a preventive measure, with an elastic band so that as soon as they get distracted the finger presses by itself.

Legal action would only be taken in cases of real abuse. The process of re-examination would prevent it in the cases where there is simply an imbalance. If necessary, the relationship would just be ended, with no legal issues.

And having a few relationships with the dynamics that you describe and that are publicly known is another thing that could challenge the existing narrative. Again, the experiment is the interesting thing here.

And even regarding the age of consent I'd make a more philosophical argument. Not so much that it should be different from person to person, but about the very concept of consent itself. Consent either exists or it doesn't, regardless of the age you have. And from here ask ourselves: does a state have the right to invalidate your consent?

That makes sense. Although it is true that the parties must know the consequences (for example, if there is penetration, or about STD prevention). It is harder to argue against a test that measures this knowledge. And it might recieve less push-back than simply lowering the age of consent, even with additional protections.

And then there's the context problem, it would effectively be a public self-report of pre-existing relationships.
Because let's remember... we're talking about relationships, not a Tinder.

Pre-existing relationships where sex was not allowed. Or, at least, the AM Union must be pursued as soon as it gets sexual. What remains is the incentive for level 1. Economic incentive for the adult is an obvious one, but the situations that may come from such incentive might not be good.

[JGHeaven]

My first reaction is that this is unnecessary and unworkable, but I think that's because I'm looking at this in a narrow way, from my own world, but if I pan out then it starts to make more sense.

I'm a western Christian woman and my view is that relationships should be between people, the only authority above it other than the people and parents is God. So I wouldn't object to the church having a hand in guiding a couple to think things through, but the state has no business being involved. Therefore I see no point in a formal structure to determine if two people can be together, that should be down to those two people plus parents if a partner is very young. If the parents consent and it's something the young person and her partner wants then that should be enough. There's no need to sit an exam, complete a course or get a certificate. So my first instinct is to say this isn't needed and wouldn't work.

But, panning out and thinking about wider society, I can see situations where this would work very well.
There are some Muslim communities influenced by people migrating here where relationships between minors and adults are not so taboo. They include ideas from "back home" such as finding good partners and supporting relationships that will endure, even when they start with a partner very young. The challenge is within these communities, the law here does not allow such thing so there's a tension there. There are good people, people of faith and strong morality that support such relationships, but the law here isn't built to cater for these diverse beliefs and views and so such relationships are hidden. I can see your suggestion fitting very well with such communities because it caters for those diverse beliefs and views within a western system.

Then if such a structure was introduced to cater for these diverse beliefs and cultures then it could extend out to other groups, to everyone. Why should this ethnic group be allowed such relationships and not me? It starts to challenge and break down barriers.

I think the way this idea gets serious attention is to wrap it in cultural and religious tolerance and differences. A framework that caters for differences in work views and relationships and not just a Christian majority. A framework that moves relationship control from the state to different religious and ethnic groups. If a church or mosque supports a relationship and the couple and parents do then that should be enough.

[Learning to undeny]

My first reaction is that this is unnecessary and unworkable, but I think that's because I'm looking at this in a narrow way, from my own world, but if I pan out then it starts to make more sense.

I'm a western Christian woman and my view is that relationships should be between people, the only authority above it other than the people and parents is God. So I wouldn't object to the church having a hand in guiding a couple to think things through, but the state has no business being involved. Therefore I see no point in a formal structure to determine if two people can be together, that should be down to those two people plus parents if a partner is very young. If the parents consent and it's something the young person and her partner wants then that should be enough. There's no need to sit an exam, complete a course or get a certificate. So my first instinct is to say this isn't needed and wouldn't work.

But, panning out and thinking about wider society, I can see situations where this would work very well.
There are some Muslim communities influenced by people migrating here where relationships between minors and adults are not so taboo. They include ideas from "back home" such as finding good partners and supporting relationships that will endure, even when they start with a partner very young. The challenge is within these communities, the law here does not allow such thing so there's a tension there. There are good people, people of faith and strong morality that support such relationships, but the law here isn't built to cater for these diverse beliefs and views and so such relationships are hidden. I can see your suggestion fitting very well with such communities because it caters for those diverse beliefs and views within a western system.

Then if such a structure was introduced to cater for these diverse beliefs and cultures then it could extend out to other groups, to everyone. Why should this ethnic group be allowed such relationships and not me? It starts to challenge and break down barriers.

I think the way this idea gets serious attention is to wrap it in cultural and religious tolerance and differences. A framework that caters for differences in work views and relationships and not just a Christian majority. A framework that moves relationship control from the state to different religious and ethnic groups. If a church or mosque supports a relationship and the couple and parents do then that should be enough.

Interesting thoughts! Some people would accept it if it were out of respect for other cultures. I know Muslim communities have also been heavily influenced by some Western values, but maybe their prejudice is not so strong.

[RoosterDance]

The point is to promote good-quality relationships that are not secret, and to challenge the current narrative.

I see and respect your intent, but I can't imagine this convincing anybody as things are now.
If we can get to a point where people are even willing to try this, then I think that's be a good point to be trying for less government intervention, not more.

On top of that I'm ever-increasingly against institutionalized anything. Especially relationships.