Different views on what consent is (poll)

[PorcelainLark]

To me, consent is more about allowing experiences than assessing potential risks. Unlike risk assessment, which focuses on possible harm, consent should be more viewed as granting permission for an experience. The field of sexual ethics could benefit from this distinction of consent, emphasizing a shift from focusing on merely preventing harm (by judgements of consentability) to actively reducing it (by judgements of the actual sexual interplay). The specific use of language in "Age of Consent" suggests that consentability is dependant on age, dependent on mental faculty and proper risk assessment; but consent isn't about that. Consent in this instance is an approval to initiate an experience.

So, for you consent is based on desire? I'm still not entirely sure I understand what you mean. What do you think are the necessary conditions for a person to be able to consent? Forget about age for a moment, what are some examples where you feel someone is violating another person's consent?

[harpydreams]

All three things in this poll are demonstrably important to have to consent and without one of them nothing should occur.

Enthusiastic (desiring) consent, informed by sexual education and finalized with the ability to comprehend the consequences and the future after having sex, as well as the other person's intentions, is the only kind of sex I support even among adults.

[OnionPetal]

I had to vote 'Other,' because consent seems more like a complex legal framework based in contract law than an expression of willingness. And especially in the context of minors, the whole legal mechanism of age of consent laws seems designed specifically to legally preclude willingness (as a 'protective' measure).

More than a legal framework, 'consent' is also a complex social concept that has evolved rapidly in recent decades, with vast volumes of research articles and books from psychology and sociology scholars to gender studies professors and activist movements all weighing in. It is far too easy, then, for a layperson's views on consent to be dismissed as 'ignorant,' 'uneducated,' or 'uninformed.' I concede that it is virtually impossible for me to keep up with all the current theoretical literature on the many evolving definitions and usages around the concept of 'consent.' But again, as related to minors, 'consent' seems so far removed from free will, and so much more focused on 'protectionism,' that I prefer not to debate on exactly what 'consent' is or is not. 'Protecting minors' is relevant and can be integrated into various legal/social models. But I prefer to focus on 'willingness' separately. Because so few normies who are concerned with minor 'consent' are actually concerned with 'willingness.'

I am of the line of thought that consent ≠ willingness, applying the concept of consent, which is legal in nature [...]

[...] It's not actual willingness if the judge in court is the one to decide whether you "consented" or not, for consent is solely a socio-legal construct [...]

^This is where my line of thinking was going, too. I'm not saying that the concept of 'legal consent' should not exist. Just that the concept of 'consent' seems to be more focused on some sort of socio-legal protectionism, rather than an individual's objective willingness. Personally, I think there are better models for protecting youth while respecting their autonomy than outright banning consent.

The concept of informed agency within sexual consent poses an intriguing paradox. It suggests that before engaging in sexual activities, individuals must possess comprehensive knowledge about potential outcomes. However, this ideal raises significant concerns as it overlooks the intrinsic value of exploration and risk-taking, which often lead to profound experiences. [...]

^This is a really good point that I've thought about a lot, as well. Some risk-taking can be healthy and important for growth. Obviously, there's nuance and a balance to be struck. We don't want to bubble-wrap kids until they're 18. On the other hand, we don't want a little kid to go skydiving without any safety guidance. There needs to be a middle ground.

I was thinking of a normative remedy to the problem. If an anti says they don't think a child can consent because they don't understand sex, does that mean that with the right sexual education they could consent, or do they mean there's a hard and fast line about maturation (i.e. no amount of education can make a 16 year old educated enough to consent like an 18 year old)? I don't think anyone really believes the former, but I think it's useful to clarify they mean the latter.

Well, again this is why I prefer to discuss this in terms of 'willingness,' rather than 'consent.' Because when normies say, 'Kids can't consent,' they generally mean legally. Following then, why is it not legal for kids to express consent? Is it really because kids can't meet the overly complicated legal criteria that constitutes 'consent'? Or is it mainly just to protect kids from exploitation? It seems to all boil down to 'protecting kids from harm.' And that being the case, I wonder if there are other mechanisms, besides disregarding the capacity of kids to consent, which could more effectively reduce harm.

It always struck me, how the term 'consent' (and children's supposed incapacity to express it) is primarily applied to sexual activity, with very few exceptions. For instance, when a child wants to ride a horse -- a risky activity that could result in serious, life-altering injury -- we do not hear about her 'inability to consent.' But what we do hear in that case (hopefully) is about safety training, protective equipment like helmets, education, etc. We also hear about permission from parents, which is appropriate. There may be 'parental consent forms,' which are legal in nature (usually including liability waivers). But when it comes to risky sport, society does not deny the agency of a child to participate willingly.

Kids should be protected from harm/exploitation, but not at the cost of their total autonomy. If 'inability to consent' is the primary legal framework 'protecting' children from exploitation, then I would ask what other frameworks have been considered and weigh their effectiveness. Because as far as society takes it with regards to children, 'consent' is not about willingness. Rather, it's about preventing 'harm' with the broadest, most categorically dehumanising legal mechanism possible. It is to say, 'You are banned from consenting, to protect you!' It's so overly simplistic that it's legally 'convenient.' But a more comprehensive system could adequately address harm and safety concerns while respecting dignity and legal autonomy better than a blanket ban.

TL;DR: There are healthier and more effective ways to protect youth besides saying, 'You are banned from consenting to that!'

[PorcelainLark]

All three things in this poll are demonstrably important to have to consent and without one of them nothing should occur.

Enthusiastic (desiring) consent, informed by sexual education and finalized with the ability to comprehend the consequences and the future after having sex, as well as the other person's intentions, is the only kind of sex I support even among adults.

So, if a person unenthuasiatically gives a kidney to another person, the kidney was obtained nonconsensually? I think that would be strange, since all the time we consent to things we don't want to do (commitments which are exhausting, for example). If you say any agreement where one person is reluctant is nonconsensual, fair enough, but that has wider implications than just sex.

If consent is impossible without sexual education, is all sex among indigenous populations nonconsensual?

I was thinking of a normative remedy to the problem. If an anti says they don't think a child can consent because they don't understand sex, does that mean that with the right sexual education they could consent, or do they mean there's a hard and fast line about maturation (i.e. no amount of education can make a 16 year old educated enough to consent like an 18 year old)? I don't think anyone really believes the former, but I think it's useful to clarify they mean the latter.

Well, again this is why I prefer to discuss this in terms of 'willingness,' rather than 'consent.' Because when normies say, 'Kids can't consent,' they generally mean legally. Following then, why is it not legal for kids to express consent? Is it really because kids can't meet the overly complicated legal criteria that constitutes 'consent'? Or is it mainly just to protect kids from exploitation? It seems to all boil down to 'protecting kids from harm.' And that being the case, I wonder if there are other mechanisms, besides disregarding the capacity of kids to consent, which could more effectively reduce harm.

It always struck me, how the term 'consent' (and children's supposed incapacity to express it) is primarily applied to sexual activity, with very few exceptions. For instance, when a child wants to ride a horse -- a risky activity that could result in serious, life-altering injury -- we do not hear about her 'inability to consent.' But what we do hear in that case (hopefully) is about safety training, protective equipment like helmets, education, etc. We also hear about permission from parents, which is appropriate. There may be 'parental consent forms,' which are legal in nature (usually including liability waivers). But when it comes to risky sport, society does not deny the agency of a child to participate willingly.

I mostly agree. Though I think antis are dishonest about their reasoning, which is what I wanted to draw attention to. Say that they mean "we need to protect children from exploitation" when they say "children are incapable of consenting", that's a much more flexible position you can work with. If that's what they mean, I'd like to get them to admit that's what they mean.

Kids should be protected from harm/exploitation, but not at the cost of their total autonomy. If 'inability to consent' is the primary legal framework 'protecting' children from exploitation, then I would ask what other frameworks have been considered and weigh their effectiveness. Because as far as society takes it with regards to children, 'consent' is not about willingness. Rather, it's about preventing 'harm' with the broadest, most categorically dehumanising legal mechanism possible. It is to say, 'You are banned from consenting, to protect you!' It's so overly simplistic that it's legally 'convenient.' But a more comprehensive system could adequately address harm and safety concerns while respecting dignity and legal autonomy better than a blanket ban.

Unfortunately, I feel this is where things fall apart, since giving children autonomy regarding sex doesn't fit with most people's concept of dignity. Sex, to many people, is an indignity. If you look at the history of legislation about sexual assault versus the rights of sex workers, you see there is great enthusiasm for discipline and restriction regarding sex, while support for sexual freedom is mostly lukewarm if not met with hostility. I don't know if this is the right climate for sexual liberation, considering the popularity of ideas about porn addiction, scandals about "gooning", and now the recently developed idea of "EPI". I think we're in the autumn of sexual liberation, and people will get more hostile and restrictive to it before we can start to have serious conversations about it again.

[harpydreams]

All three things in this poll are demonstrably important to have to consent and without one of them nothing should occur.

Enthusiastic (desiring) consent, informed by sexual education and finalized with the ability to comprehend the consequences and the future after having sex, as well as the other person's intentions, is the only kind of sex I support even among adults.

So, if a person unenthuasiatically gives a kidney to another person, the kidney was obtained nonconsensually? I think that would be strange, since all the time we consent to things we don't want to do (commitments which are exhausting, for example). If you say any agreement where one person is reluctant is nonconsensual, fair enough, but that has wider implications than just sex.

If consent is impossible without sexual education, is all sex among indigenous populations nonconsensual?

We can see in any population without comprehensive sexual education the damages of teenage pregnancy, higher rates of STDs, and grooming/non consensual familial sex. I do think that the people who suffer from those consequences did not consent to receiving them. Just because you like sex in the moment doesn't mean you consented to pregnancy, STDs, or fucked up family dynamics where being a good daughter/son involves being submissive sexually.

So yes, on a level, any society without sexual education that goes over the consequences of sex, has a lot of nonconsensual sex.

As for your example with the case of donating an organ to save a life, that's a different case because of the ethics of self sacrifice. You can be unenthusiastic about sacrificing yourself, but recognize that the gain of saving a loved one to be greater than the suffering you might experience, and logically consent. This is different from sex because sex has no greater gain in giving it unenthusiastically, it is just letting someone take advantage of you.

I have been in relationships where my unenthusiastic consent wasn't questioned, despite being obvious, and it felt like I was just meat to them. My enjoyment was unimportant. My peace was just a thing in the way of their sexual gratification. Sure, I didn't say no, sure, I went along with it, but it was still a violation, and anyone capable of reading body language and my disinterest and dissatisfaction would realize that.

[PorcelainLark]

So yes, on a level, any society without sexual education that goes over the consequences of sex, has a lot of nonconsensual sex.

Would you bite the bullet and say police need break up those communities and arrest anyone who engaged in sex before mandatory sexual education existed? Or would you say there is a moral difference between those who willingly have sex in the absence of sexual education, versus someone who forces themselves on another person?

As for your example with the case of donating an organ to save a life, that's a different case because of the ethics of self sacrifice. You can be unenthusiastic about sacrificing yourself, but recognize that the gain of saving a loved one to be greater than the suffering you might experience, and logically consent. This is different from sex because sex has no greater gain in giving it unenthusiastically, it is just letting someone take advantage of you.

If a person can consent by weighing their personal aversion towards something against an abstract concept of the greater good, then enthusiasm isn't a necessary condition for consent. Another example, what if someone was holding the world hostage with a nuclear weapon, and said "unless I get to have sex with Scarlett Johansson, I'm going to destroy the world"? Sex could be for the greater good and unenthusiastic at the same time.

[John_Doe]

All three things in this poll are demonstrably important to have to consent and without one of them nothing should occur.

Enthusiastic (desiring) consent, informed by sexual education and finalized with the ability to comprehend the consequences and the future after having sex, as well as the other person's intentions, is the only kind of sex I support even among adults.

So, if a person unenthuasiatically gives a kidney to another person, the kidney was obtained nonconsensually? I think that would be strange, since all the time we consent to things we don't want to do (commitments which are exhausting, for example). If you say any agreement where one person is reluctant is nonconsensual, fair enough, but that has wider implications than just sex.

If consent is impossible without sexual education, is all sex among indigenous populations nonconsensual?

We can see in any population without comprehensive sexual education the damages of teenage pregnancy, higher rates of STDs, and grooming/non consensual familial sex. I do think that the people who suffer from those consequences did not consent to receiving them. Just because you like sex in the moment doesn't mean you consented to pregnancy, STDs, or fucked up family dynamics where being a good daughter/son involves being submissive sexually.

So yes, on a level, any society without sexual education that goes over the consequences of sex, has a lot of nonconsensual sex.

As for your example with the case of donating an organ to save a life, that's a different case because of the ethics of self sacrifice. You can be unenthusiastic about sacrificing yourself, but recognize that the gain of saving a loved one to be greater than the suffering you might experience, and logically consent. This is different from sex because sex has no greater gain in giving it unenthusiastically, it is just letting someone take advantage of you.

I have been in relationships where my unenthusiastic consent wasn't questioned, despite being obvious, and it felt like I was just meat to them. My enjoyment was unimportant. My peace was just a thing in the way of their sexual gratification. Sure, I didn't say no, sure, I went along with it, but it was still a violation, and anyone capable of reading body language and my disinterest and dissatisfaction would realize that.

It seems to me that your understanding of consent precludes the possibility of a legitimate choice that is 'irrational' (in the sense of being unwise or imprudent) or has bad consequences, and this is a grievance that I have with a common but selectively applied conventional standard of consent when it comes to minors agreeing to sex, women consenting to sex with men under some circumstances, something like people using dangerous drugs (supposedly necessarily out of emotional desperation) or even the concept of wage slavery and labor exploitation, etc. It would make more sense to me to make a straightforward argument that's rooted in a preoccupation with welfare then to try and attach that to consent or autonomy concerns (i.e. we shouldn't allow children to have sex with adults because there's a high enough risk that they will suffer as a result, not because they can't truly consent to something that ultimately causes them pain. The absence of true consent doesn't necessarily mean that a thing violates someone's autonomy either). Again, your position seems to just preclude the possibility of a bad choice. I don't think it follows that I haven't legitimately consented to x because it wasn't wise to do so or even because I couldn't anticipate certain undesirable consequences (bad choices exist, if I hit someone in anger my need for immediate gratification, the stress they've caused me, the fact that I will suffer for my choice but couldn't immediately appreciate that in an emotionally meaningful way doesn't negate that I've made a choice to assault them. Nor can I predict whether or not I'll enjoy a novel I buy, I'm taking a gamble in the realization that I don't know how it will go exactly). Maybe you can make a libertarian argument for sex fraud when it comes to someone passing on an STD that they know they have but not because the other person can get pregnant (that's something to do with their body, not the man misleading them about his body or who he is) or because they might ultimately be emotionally affected by sex with them in a certain way and older children can grasp the concept of pregnancy and getting sick because of unprotected sex (or later emotional regret, 'abstractly' at least), it's not hard to communicate the basics of that to older children at least (no 5-month class is necessary). I'm not apathetic to the harm that sex can cause children or minors but I think the libertarianish argument against it (the preoccupation with 'true consent') is disingenuous, or at least flawed.

From memory, a site I quickly browsed cited something like 'the ability to make good choices or choices that don't lead to harm' as a criteria for consent, arguing that no one under 18 is capable of this. Consent, ultimately choice, is simply the ability to select one option among conceivable alternatives. The capacity to consent (which infants and most non-human animals probably lack) and the likeliness of making wise or prudent choices are two different things. It would be naive to assume that adults are equally capable of wise or prudent decision-making, if an adult has a low IQ or possibly a genetic or physiological disposition toward impulsivity we don't consider them to be incapable of consenting to various contracts (that doesn't really show anything, maybe you would argue that we should, but I don't know how you plan on practically working this out; who has what level of rational agency, under the law).

I think the difference between reluctantly donating a kidney to save the life of a loved one and reluctantly agreeing to have sex with someone lies in the value and meaning that you believe those things to have. In both cases, someone is literally 'taking advantage' of the other person (if the person receiving the kidney has authorized it) but sex is held to a different standard because of the traditional meaning that we project on to it. I care whether or not people suffer as a result of consensual child/minor-legal adult sex and legal policy should consider what's likely for a large enough number of people but a thing circumstantially causing emotional distress doesn't make it inherently bad. You're making a value judgment in saying that sex has no greater gain, people can also engage in it for altruistic reasons, you just don't seem to think that sexual experiences can meaningfully be beneficial so pressuring someone into sex with you and pressuring them into giving their kidney to you, possibly even loaning you money to pay your rent or for groceries or your medical bills or spending time with you because you're lonely, etc. have different values, to you.

I think people also conflate desire with will (will is ultimately rooted in one's strongest desire but one can have primal animal desires without a true will). That something frustrates a desire does not mean that it is contrary to one's will (one can agree to work despite having a desire not to and that's not slavery), will is 'rational' and reflective so the idea that true consent is null because someone lacks the social intelligence or perceptiveness required to pick up on something as subjective and unclear as body language and the other party intuits that they've been de-valued, all in the absence of any physical coercion, seems extremely off and I don't see how people can think that you can really build legal policy on this. I believe that suffering has value unconditionally and that people have a responsibility to consider the welfare of others (as in they should care about the suffering of others as they do, or should, care about their own), but from a standpoint that's preoccupied with consent/contract/autonomy you have to clearly communicate what you want, or authorize, and take responsibility for your own choices (even if someone has influenced you in a certain way, say because they're very assertive or you have a deep need for approval or to avoid confrontation, you are still responsible for what you authorize. It wouldn't be on them to be a mind reader, it would be on you to set boundaries and speak up for yourself. If we don't consider children to be rational agents then this wouldn't apply to them but, if we don't, the argument should be about harm, not the lack of consent per se; you can't violate the autonomy of someone who cannot 'rationally' consent).

[harpydreams]

My understanding of consent doesn't "preclude the possibility of a legitimate choice that is rational," it just includes that people who wouldn't consent to something when given the full picture (not just a basic understanding, but indeed that '5-month sexual education course' even though afaik nothing like that exists, it's usually just a week? But I'd like for it to be that comprehensive).
I would not have consented to so much in my life if I were properly educated on manipulative tactics, the effects of early sex, and how to deal with my PTSD.
The reason people think it is better to have relationships with adults is because adults are far more likely to have a comprehensive understanding of sex regardless of the sexual education system.

I'll give an example from someone that isn't me though. I am a close friend of an AAM. He's a trans guy who used to be in a very bad situation. This bad situation he "consented to," because the adult man he was with preyed on his insecurities, lack of will to protect himself(he has sex related PTSD as well), fear of consequences, and lack of first hand comprehension of certain life choices. He consented to things I know for a fact destroyed him, because I was the one who cleaned up this man's mess and gave the support and information needed for my friend to leave this situation. Before he met me, he was consenting to a future plan of this adult man, to take him as a tradwife and get him pregnant at the age of consent in his place of residence(16). He did not respect his male name, he did not agree with him seeking top surgery and HRT, he did not respect my friend's future plans.

In contrast to this, my friend wants to become a lawyer, and go to university, and have his own career and life. He wants to have kids one day, but having them at that age would've destroyed his dreams. Thankfully he broke away from that deadbeat POS before this all went to head.

Tell me that does not sound like hell on earth for a young and easily convinced trans boy. These kinds of people should be protected from this kind of thing. Groomers DO exist in the MAP community (shocker) and they do selfishly ruin the lives of young people who we claim to love.

Do I believe in the possibility of a teenager having the capacity and knowledge to consent? Yeah, in fact the friend I mentioned, I believe he could now after a year of being free from all this nonsense. Thankfully though it's not a risk anymore because he only dates people his age now. He is all the better for that. He's protecting himself better in relationships, he's cut off shitty bfs at the first sign of not respecting him and his transition and dreams, even just for being racist because he is a principled person.

I am happy to see how he's grown and this happiness sets my beliefs like concrete within me. I never want anyone to go through what he went through. I don't want these kids to rely on someone like me to escape nasty men because they can't argue against their tone of voice, their place of authority that they abuse, etc etc.. I'm not the person that should be relied on for this, these kids should have therapists who won't immediately snitch on them to their parents and ruin their home life and everything. If he had something like that he could've escaped it without anyone's help.

That's why I am anti-c until actual youthlib in other areas occurs.

[John_Doe]

harpydreams,

My understanding of consent doesn't "preclude the possibility of a legitimate choice that is rational," it just includes that people who wouldn't consent to something when given the full picture (not just a basic understanding, but indeed that '5-month sexual education course' even though afaik nothing like that exists, it's usually just a week? But I'd like for it to be that comprehensive).
I would not have consented to so much in my life if I were properly educated on manipulative tactics, the effects of early sex, and how to deal with my PTSD.
The reason people think it is better to have relationships with adults is because adults are far more likely to have a comprehensive understanding of sex regardless of the sexual education system.

You say that they 'wouldn't' consent under different circumstances (and we're not necessarily talking about concrete tangible information that can be inter-subjectively demonstrated, like buying what you assume is vinegar only for it to be poison) as though our choices ever exist in a vacuum (free from various social factors, goals and emotions, self-aware ignorance; as in knowing that I don't know what some new food I've never tried will taste like or how any given relationship will evolve, the possibility of future maturation or growth of some kind, etc.). The effects of early sex that you seem to have in mind aren't categorical, so while you could persuade me that risk aversion could justify discouraging minor-adult sex (and you can use personal anecdotes to highlight the possibilities for at least some other people), that has nothing to do with the literal capacity to consent. I'm still not clear on what this comprehensive understanding of sex is because I don't feel that I know anything about it now that I didn't at 13. If nothing else, that alone should demonstrate that these problems aren't inherent to age (if you take me at my word).

I'll give an example from someone that isn't me though. I am a close friend of an AAM. He's a trans guy who used to be in a very bad situation. This bad situation he "consented to," because the adult man he was with preyed on his insecurities, lack of will to protect himself(he has sex related PTSD as well), fear of consequences, and lack of first hand comprehension of certain life choices. He consented to things I know for a fact destroyed him, because I was the one who cleaned up this man's mess and gave the support and information needed for my friend to leave this situation. Before he met me, he was consenting to a future plan of this adult man, to take him as a tradwife and get him pregnant at the age of consent in his place of residence(16). He did not respect his male name, he did not agree with him seeking top surgery and HRT, he did not respect my friend's future plans.

In contrast to this, my friend wants to become a lawyer, and go to university, and have his own career and life. He wants to have kids one day, but having them at that age would've destroyed his dreams. Thankfully he broke away from that deadbeat POS before this all went to head.

Tell me that does not sound like hell on earth for a young and easily convinced trans boy. These kinds of people should be protected from this kind of thing. Groomers DO exist in the MAP community (shocker) and they do selfishly ruin the lives of young people who we claim to love.

You're circling back to the idea of wise or prudent decision-making, in this case the idea seems to be that your friend was ignorant of how abusive, insensitive or generally problematic people can be so he lacked the wisdom to discern who to trust. Again, I'm not indifferent to scenarios like this (I don't know what you might be leaving out or how at fault that man really is but it's besides the point; some adults will abuse children or minors whom they have consensual sexual/romantic relationships with. This is somewhat of a rushed response so I don't want to get into how unreasonable it is to have concerns over surgery/hormonal therapy or wanting to impregnate your friend when she turned 16-I'm editing this is in) but you're just reframing a concern with psychological abuse as a faux libertarianish preoccupation with consent. Consent means nothing if you don't think that people can consent to relationships with insensitive people who prey on their insecurities or use their anxieties to manipulate them in whatever ways and this isn't inherent to age-gaps since teenagers can abuse people in their thirties as well as other teens, people in their thirties can abuse other people in their thirties etc. You are just circling back to the idea that you can't make an unwise or ultimately harmful choice to be in a relationship with someone and lack of life experience doesn't make a choice uninformed in the way that 'fraud' requires.

Thankfully though it's not a risk anymore because he only dates people his age now.

Of course it is. Why on Earth wouldn't it be? Even if you think the risk is lowered, how can you honestly believe that teenagers aren't abusive toward each other? I had a friend in high school whom I only really hung out with after a certain point because I needed a 'friend' or social support.

I am happy to see how he's grown and this happiness sets my beliefs like concrete within me.

Again, I think you are conflating what's best for people (and making blanket generalizations in that regard) with what they can meaningfully consent to. Not all choices have good consequences. Not all choices are wise or prudent. If the only choices you accept are the ones that don't ultimately hurt people, your issue is with welfare, not consent.

these kids should have therapists who won't immediately snitch on them to their parents and ruin their home life and everything

That's one consequence of adult-minor sex being illegal that other people have noted (although even then, maybe the policy would be to inform the parent about something like that). If minors really want relationships with adults, they will have them. Bringing them out in the open might have a similar effect as removing the prohibition of alcohol in terms of the criminality associated with putting it on the black market.

That's why I am anti-c until actual youthlib in other areas occurs.

[Removed by mod] In legal terms, 'youth liberation' would mean granting minors the same rights that adults have (e.g. the right to sleep with any consenting person they want to) and you can only make your case for this if they're rational agents who can be held responsible for their choices. In cultural terms, you seem to be setting up this standard where no one under whatever age can meaningfully consent until we ensure that we've created a culture where they won't subjectively perceive other people as having some kind of social 'authority' over them or be easily intimidated or swayed by them which applies to certain personality types across age groups (by the way, not that I'm haunted by the experience or fault the woman herself at all but I wasn't even remotely attracted to the second woman I had vaginal s.x with and went through with it basically to be polite, yet many would say that I was exploiting her as the escort even though she advertised with a completely false picture. I was 25 at the time). Whether or not they can actually consent has nothing to do with societal 'youth liberation.' I would make a similar argument when it comes to internalizing the idea that child-adult relationships are inappropriate in retrospect and suffering for that reason but that doesn't negate actual consent (in other words, my practical anti-contact stance would be paternalistic, and I'm not sure where I would draw the line in terms of age. It's not illegal in most places for teens who are 16 or 17 to sleep with older adults but there's still a cultural stigma, yet I can't honestly say that I would discourage someone my age from being with a 20-year-old or not be open to that myself in an ideal enough fantasy scenario that still takes places in this world. I don't have a problem admitting to cognitive or relative cognitive differences between adults and children or even young teens so that's something to consider in terms of how likely it is that they'll later come to view what was wanted at the time negatively. In terms of understanding how one is likely to be affected by sex itself, not considering the effect of indoctrinating people into the idea that AMSC is inherently exploitive, I think that's a non-issue when it comes to people who are capable of ejaculating or who ovulate/menstruate who I'm sure will have a fully developed libido in the absence of some medical issue).

[Rakuraku]

Consent is when you agree to something and understand a sufficient amount of context to what you're agreeing to make a informed decision. It literally just means to agree.

I notice some inconsistency between my thoughts and experiences. When I was 11 I masterbated with an older teen. I just knew it would feel nice and didn't know that people would call the older guy a pedophile and evil (he was 15 mind). I definitely feel like I consented there though

When I was older at 15 I started this relationship with an older guy he was manipulative about starting sex and he did not inform me of the consequences that would happen if we were found out. I got put through the ringer of being told to dump him and turn him in and having my private messages looked at by my mother. It sucked and I definitely feel like he was not responsible and I did not have informed consent there.

I think maybe there's degrees to this so to speak. The more likely there is to be harm the more the person ought know about it. With the teen since I wasn't bothered as much about him I don't feel as exploited as it were about my lack of full knowledge. Maybe the encounter lacked true consent philosophically but it was ultimately harmless and good. The other definitely lacked consent but caused a lot of harm and wasn't a positive experience