Different views on what consent is (poll)

[Learning to undeny]

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.

This does sound like a harmful relationship for your friend, I'm glad he escaped. And I think this type of relationship is pretty common nowadays. The adults who are more likely to disregard the legal and social norms and pursue a relationship with a minor nowadays might also be more likely to disregard the well-being and desires of their partner. Anyway, we are still in a culture with harmful stereotypes about relationships, stereotypes whose danger can be multiplied in the case of inter-generational relationships, so I'm not saying that positive relationships would not come with their own problems.

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

I would not lower the age of consent until the youth get liberties in other areas, which for me includes not depending so much on their family, creating alternatives to the traditional school system, etc. So I kind of agree with that. But I wouldn't call myself anti-c as I don't find it to be a useful label. I think there are safe forms of sexual contact between people of any ages (or at least, that's possible given the right social conditions). Also, potentially positive relationships still exist nowadays, although I would advise against them given the likelihood of sociogenic harm, as well as the lack of functioning support systems for minors. So if MAPs are discriminated against for something that is not necessarily bad (both because many MAPs don't have relationships with minors and because such relationships are not always bad), I personally see the anti-c label as counter-productive (and perhaps the other contact labels too). I'd like to know your point of view.

[harpydreams]

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.

This does sound like a harmful relationship for your friend, I'm glad he escaped. And I think this type of relationship is pretty common nowadays. The adults who are more likely to disregard the legal and social norms and pursue a relationship with a minor nowadays might also be more likely to disregard the well-being and desires of their partner. Anyway, we are still in a culture with harmful stereotypes about relationships, stereotypes whose danger can be multiplied in the case of inter-generational relationships, so I'm not saying that positive relationships would not come with their own problems.

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

I would not lower the age of consent until the youth get liberties in other areas, which for me includes not depending so much on their family, creating alternatives to the traditional school system, etc. So I kind of agree with that. But I wouldn't call myself anti-c as I don't find it to be a useful label. I think there are safe forms of sexual contact between people of any ages (or at least, that's possible given the right social conditions). Also, potentially positive relationships still exist nowadays, although I would advise against them given the likelihood of sociogenic harm, as well as the lack of functioning support systems for minors. So if MAPs are discriminated against for something that is not necessarily bad (both because many MAPs don't have relationships with minors and because such relationships are not always bad), I personally see the anti-c label as counter-productive (and perhaps the other contact labels too). I'd like to know your point of view.

I agree on everything you said other than that there are safe forms of sexual contact for all ages. I don't think any prepubescent sexual contact is "safe." Can you make it out unscathed? Yeah. But it's it safe? No it's basically throwing a bunch of dice at the wall and hoping none of them land on one. It's horribly irresponsible.

In cases of truly consensual and reasonable relationships between adults and teenagers I think if they are caught, based on "victim statement," presenting a positive light of the relationship, it should be a very light sentence like community service or something like that rather than jail, and not being put on an S.O. registry.

I believe in having these rules and laws but having no lower limits on the prosecution. That way these innocent situations that are just taboo and victimless can be waved away with a slap on the wrist and the actual crimes can still be prosecuted.

You could call me comp-c as I wouldn't snitch on an innocent situation, I get why ppl might do that despite the social risk, but I think anti-c draws the line that most ppl are drawing the line for, being prepubescent kids.

[Learning to undeny]

I agree on everything you said other than that there are safe forms of sexual contact for all ages. I don't think any prepubescent sexual contact is "safe." Can you make it out unscathed? Yeah. But it's it safe? No it's basically throwing a bunch of dice at the wall and hoping none of them land on one. It's horribly irresponsible.

In cases of truly consensual and reasonable relationships between adults and teenagers I think if they are caught, based on "victim statement," presenting a positive light of the relationship, it should be a very light sentence like community service or something like that rather than jail, and not being put on an S.O. registry.

I believe in having these rules and laws but having no lower limits on the prosecution. That way these innocent situations that are just taboo and victimless can be waved away with a slap on the wrist and the actual crimes can still be prosecuted.


You could call me comp-c as I wouldn't snitch on an innocent situation, I get why ppl might do that despite the social risk, but I think anti-c draws the line that most ppl are drawing the line for, being prepubescent kids.

OK, that could be a cool solution.

[aeterna91]

In cases of truly consensual and reasonable relationships between adults and teenagers I think if they are caught, based on "victim statement," presenting a positive light of the relationship, it should be a very light sentence like community service or something like that rather than jail, and not being put on an S.O. registry.

I think what you’re proposing would undoubtedly be much better than the current system, but this part doesn’t convince me either. Have you considered the wide variety of reasons why someone might lie and claim they’ve been abused, even after having had a healthy and happy relationship? Including:
-Simple spite, after the relationship breaks down and ends badly but for non-abusive reasons.
-Money, in the form of the convicted person having to compensate the victim, victim assistance funds, etc.
-Social and environmental pressure. Many parents would punish their children if they disobeyed them and went off to have consensual sex with someone, but they wouldn’t punish them for having been abused, so it seems more convenient to present oneself as a victim of abuse.
I believe that, as with any other crime, there would need to be solid evidence that mistreatment, abuse, or manipulation by the adult has occurred.

[The dude]

Well, I do not desire having my annual bloodwork, but I can certainly consent to it happening despite my obvious lack of desire for having a needle entering my arm and discover whatever is wrong with my body.

[harpydreams]

In cases of truly consensual and reasonable relationships between adults and teenagers I think if they are caught, based on "victim statement," presenting a positive light of the relationship, it should be a very light sentence like community service or something like that rather than jail, and not being put on an S.O. registry.

I think what you’re proposing would undoubtedly be much better than the current system, but this part doesn’t convince me either. Have you considered the wide variety of reasons why someone might lie and claim they’ve been abused, even after having had a healthy and happy relationship? Including:
-Simple spite, after the relationship breaks down and ends badly but for non-abusive reasons.
-Money, in the form of the convicted person having to compensate the victim, victim assistance funds, etc.
-Social and environmental pressure. Many parents would punish their children if they disobeyed them and went off to have consensual sex with someone, but they wouldn’t punish them for having been abused, so it seems more convenient to present oneself as a victim of abuse.
I believe that, as with any other crime, there would need to be solid evidence that mistreatment, abuse, or manipulation by the adult has occurred.

From my point of view, all of that would be your own fault for not having the due diligence to engage with someone that could hold the maturity to overrule their parents desires, stand up for themselves, not betray someone who loves them, etc..
If they can't do those things, I don't think they are mature enough for an adult relationship, and u should stay away.

Also on the note of punishment from parents- most girls punished for "sexual immorality" on their part are in fact victims of abuse. Victim blaming is rampant among Christian families here in the US and women are often punished for "tempting" their abusers. And their abusers walk free and get a Jesus-like forgiveness from their church community. Saying you were abused isn't enough to avoid parental punishment.

There's a reason we say we live a patriarchy / rape culture.

[OnionPetal]

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. [...] 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 [...]

I will start with a defense/clarification, and then will ask a question.

My main criticism is around the 'convenient' blanket legal mechanism of a hard-line binary 'Age of Consent', under and over which consent is legally precluded or permitted, and which does not actually reflect the concepts of 'consent,' but rather reflects the 'protective instincts' of society.

[...] giving children autonomy regarding sex doesn't fit with most people's concept of dignity. Sex, to many people, is an indignity. [...]

In defense, while this could be culturally subjective, many people would find it denigrating, for example, if women were not legally allowed to give consent, as a 'protective measure' against possible exploitation. But if 'dignity' might evoke adverse connotations regarding sexual rights, maybe there is another term that better describes someone's bodily autonomy being excessively constrained.

[...] I don't know if this is the right climate for sexual liberation [...] 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.

Yes, there may be different seasons for different types of freedoms. But there seems to be a lot of push-and-pull, and heightened controversy around such sexuality topics lately. That controversy can be an opportunity for drawing more attention to issues and for increased discourse, albeit at the risk of increased backlash. Still, activists can strategically leverage controversy to push for change. Personally, I share a lot of concerns about youth safety that a lot of 'normies' have. I just think there are better approaches to protection than to deny bodily autonomy to everyone below line X.

And to clarify, if there are reforms, I think those reforms need to be focused on what young people get out of it, rather than what MAPs will get out of it. If I believed that reforms solely benefited adults, but not children, then I would not support said reforms. I think it's important to put children's interests first in these issues, and I think children stand to gain a lot by having at least some acknowledgment of agency over bodily and interpersonal autonomy.

I would ask if there any approaches that you (or others) would suggest exploring beyond a hard-line binary age of legal consent that could balance protection with autonomy, but I don't want to stray too off-topic. Yet if the topic is on 'consent,' but the law categorically disregards consent of minors as a means of 'protecting' them, but only with some risky activities like 'heavy petting,' but not other risky activities like dangerous sport, then oh what a tangled web. It seems that communicating these ideas with 'normies' is a big hurdle to overcome, since they've been so well-trained in the mental gymnastics of justifying the aforementioned contradictions.

[PorcelainLark]

In defense, while this could be culturally subjective, many people would find it denigrating, for example, if women were not legally allowed to give consent, as a 'protective measure' against possible exploitation. But if 'dignity' might evoke adverse connotations regarding sexual rights, maybe there is another term that better describes someone's bodily autonomy being excessively constrained.

If we mean dignity in a philosophical sense, I think you're right; excessive constrain can be an indignity. However I was think about something less philosophical - the relative weight people give to things. For comparison, the disconnect between views people have about the legality of cannabis and how slow decriminalization has been; even if people can be persuaded of the logic, it doesn't mean they give it the energy to change things. In this case where there is already resistence, there's also another layer you have to peel away underneath: indifference.

Yes, there may be different seasons for different types of freedoms. But there seems to be a lot of push-and-pull, and heightened controversy around such sexuality topics lately. That controversy can be an opportunity for drawing more attention to issues and for increased discourse, albeit at the risk of increased backlash. Still, activists can strategically leverage controversy to push for change. Personally, I share a lot of concerns about youth safety that a lot of 'normies' have. I just think there are better approaches to protection than to deny bodily autonomy to everyone below line X.

I seems one sided to me, pulling in the direction of restriction even while technology lets people have more sexual freedom. I feel it's only a matter of time before the sexual freedoms technology gave get regulated out of existence. The whole idea of "nofap" and the idea of the "gooner" are both part of this zeitgeist of sex-negativity. If there was a referendum on whether to ban porn today, I think people would vote to ban it.

And to clarify, if there are reforms, I think those reforms need to be focused on what young people get out of it, rather than what MAPs will get out of it. If I believed that reforms solely benefited adults, but not children, then I would not support said reforms. I think it's important to put children's interests first in these issues, and I think children stand to gain a lot by having at least some acknowledgment of agency over bodily and interpersonal autonomy.

I don't think of it in terms of adults versus children, I think of it in terms of irrationality about sex.

I would ask if there any approaches that you (or others) would suggest exploring beyond a hard-line binary age of legal consent that could balance protection with autonomy, but I don't want to stray too off-topic. Yet if the topic is on 'consent,' but the law categorically disregards consent of minors as a means of 'protecting' them, but only with some risky activities like 'heavy petting,' but not other risky activities like dangerous sport, then oh what a tangled web. It seems that communicating these ideas with 'normies' is a big hurdle to overcome, since they've been so well-trained in the mental gymnastics of justifying the aforementioned contradictions.

The other idea I had was to focus less on changing what is/isn't illegal, and instead focus on proportionality. For example, say the age of consent remained the same, but statutory rape had reduced sentencing. Again, there doesn't seem to be an appetite for that; the signs seem to point in the direction towards a more restrictive society. I think part of it is to do with how the internet makes us disembodied, out of touch with the body and immediate experience, judging everything from a distance (in other words, what we expect other people to want us to experience, instead of what we actually experience). The way social status works on the internet is deeply conformist and conservative; and there is an incentive to not deviate, because the more clout you get, there's the possibility of making money, and the more stigmatized you become there's a possibility not only of losing money, but also of losing your job, and of being harrassed or attacked in real life. It doesn't matter how articulate a young person could be about having fulfilling sexual relationships, even with people their own age, because this pattern means that sort of feedback can never change the system.