The Million Dollar Question: Age of Consent

[OnionPetal]

What do you propose as an alternative to a flat AoC of 16 or 18? Or do you agree with the current system?

My favoured approach is to delegitimize AoC laws, rendering them meaningless, or largely unenforceable (or selectively unenforceable). There are a lot of laws on the books that are no longer enforced, because society doesn't really care about them anymore. Once that point is reached, then that is a good time to look at reforming these laws to be more compatible with society.

I am not a fan of a flat AoC, because -- in all proposals I've seen -- it completely lacks nuance. In the case of a hypothetical AoC of 12, it makes zero sense to me that a 12-yo can do everything, but an 11-yo can do nothing. I would like to see some gradient that reflects children's abilities to make different choices at different ages. Certainly there can be real risks associated with penetrative intercourse, especially if the child is too small. But can an 11-yo not even consent to a kiss below the belt? A flat AoC of 12 would say 'No.'

To anti-c people:
What do you think is a fair and just punishment for an adult who has non-forced sex with a competent minor?

To pro-c people:
What do you think is the biggest factor that makes consent difficult for a minor to give freely to an adult?

This question of 'Are you pro- or anti-contact' has always confused me, because it never defines specifically what kind of contact a person is in favour of or against. Are we speaking of penetrative intercourse? Or just kissing? How about kissing on the chest? On a naked chest? And so forth. And my requests for clarity are almost always met with vague or inconsistent responses.

For that reason, I prefer what I had assumed to be a nuanced middle ground, 'pro-reform,' in that it expressed my dissatisfaction with the status quo, and that I would like to see some unspecified reforms. When I say that I am 'pro-reform,' however, I do not mean that I prefer a specific legal reform to a flat AoC. Because that strips all of the nuance that drew me to the 'pro-reform' descriptor. To me, pro-reform is as much about social reform as legal reform. It also acknowledges that there are some things young children can consent to, but that these exist on a continuum, which grow as children mature in their physicality and independence.

Note: while some of my views may differ, I am happy to stand behind the positions of forum leadership, because I think they are taking us, thoughtfully, in the right direction.

[BLueRibbon]

What do you propose as an alternative to a flat AoC of 16 or 18? Or do you agree with the current system?

My favoured approach is to delegitimize AoC laws, rendering them meaningless, or largely unenforceable (or selectively unenforceable). There are a lot of laws on the books that are no longer enforced, because society doesn't really care about them anymore. Once that point is reached, then that is a good time to look at reforming these laws to be more compatible with society.

I am not a fan of a flat AoC, because -- in all proposals I've seen -- it completely lacks nuance. In the case of a hypothetical AoC of 12, it makes zero sense to me that a 12-yo can do everything, but an 11-yo can do nothing. I would like to see some gradient that reflects children's abilities to make different choices at different ages. Certainly there can be real risks associated with penetrative intercourse, especially if the child is too small. But can an 11-yo not even consent to a kiss below the belt? A flat AoC of 12 would say 'No.'

To anti-c people:
What do you think is a fair and just punishment for an adult who has non-forced sex with a competent minor?

To pro-c people:
What do you think is the biggest factor that makes consent difficult for a minor to give freely to an adult?

This question of 'Are you pro- or anti-contact' has always confused me, because it never defines specifically what kind of contact a person is in favour of or against. Are we speaking of penetrative intercourse? Or just kissing? How about kissing on the chest? On a naked chest? And so forth. And my requests for clarity are almost always met with vague or inconsistent responses.

For that reason, I prefer what I had assumed to be a nuanced middle ground, 'pro-reform,' in that it expressed my dissatisfaction with the status quo, and that I would like to see some unspecified reforms. When I say that I am 'pro-reform,' however, I do not mean that I prefer a specific legal reform to a flat AoC. Because that strips all of the nuance that drew me to the 'pro-reform' descriptor. To me, pro-reform is as much about social reform as legal reform. It also acknowledges that there are some things young children can consent to, but that these exist on a continuum, which grow as children mature in their physicality and independence.

Note: while some of my views may differ, I am happy to stand behind the positions of forum leadership, because I think they are taking us, thoughtfully, in the right direction.

I would also prefer to see a nuanced approach in theory, but there are two major obstacles.

1. The age of consent is too firmly embedded in legal systems across the world. Ideas like the proposed 12+ exist in other forms in a small number of countries, but an AoC of 0 only exists in countries where sex outside of marriage is always illegal.

2. If the AoC is miraculously replaced by case-by-case judgment, it is inevitable that judgments will tend toward criminalizing AMSC; in countries with an AoC of 14, it could even make things worse by allowing juries or judges to decide that AMSC with a 15 or 16 year old minor constituted a crime.

If you would like to write your own framework or a detailed critique of my Pro-Reform essay, we can publish your writing on Mu or Newgon Wiki.

[OnionPetal]

I would also prefer to see a nuanced approach in theory [...]

Yes, in practice, a nuanced approach would likely be much more difficult to implement. I appreciate that considerations have to be made for practicality and feasibility.

2. If the AoC is miraculously replaced by case-by-case judgment, it is inevitable that judgments will tend toward criminalizing AMSC [...]

I wonder if case-by-case judgment is the only alternative to a flat AoC? Perhaps it is. But for clarity, when I suggested 'selective enforcement,' resulting from delegitimization of laws, I had in mind something like the change in social attitudes surrounding cannabis in the US from the 1980s to the 2000s. In the space of a couple decades, it went from being classified as a dangerous 'gateway drug,' to something commonly associated with the college experience, with this social shift (aided by college activist organizations) ultimately leading to its decriminalization and legalization in some states. In some areas, cannabis use is so prevalent that law enforcement only prosecutes the most egregious cases, so as not to clog up the justice system. That is what I meant by 'selective enforcement.' (Disclaimer: do not break the law.)

So I suppose my favoured approach in delegitimization of AoC laws is a 'long game' based on social reform. However, as discussed with Fragment, these social and legal approaches should probably be deployed concurrently, as they would ideally play off of each other, building momentum.

If you would like to write your own framework or a detailed critique of my Pro-Reform essay, we can publish your writing on Mu or Newgon Wiki.

Your approach is very strong. Clearly a lot of thought and work went into it, and I am very happy to support it. I absolutely believe it will take us in the right direction to eventually allow for that nuance, possibly via a complementary social reform approach. Thank you for your invitation to write a related response for Mu or Newgon. I might take you up on that. It would be nice to explore more of the nuance and social reform elements of the pro-reform position... as well as present something that might be less alienating to our CL friends who exclusively love pre-pubescents. Let me think on it.

[FairBlueLove]

I recently read O'Carroll's "The radical case" book, and I found myself in strong agreement with the proposal there exposed, which involved the removal of the age of consent, with some well thought caveats. I think I should go back to the book to pull out the main points, even if probably many on this forum know them by heart. I will try to do that in the next few days and I would be interested to hear your criticisms about it.

[PorcelainLark]

In my case 12 is largely anecdotal and coincides with the end of elementary education. And it roughly correlates with an age where most youths have started maturing sexually (puberty). And it's the age that exists as an absolute age of consent in multiple English-speaking jurisdictions already.

If you ask "when do some kids naturally start playing around sexually?" most progressively minded people will admit that it starts to happen "around 12".

There are, of course, debates to be had about earlier ages. Some non-Western tribal cultures have practised sexual acts with pre-pubescents with no observable harms. Yet in our western context "12" is a pretty big deal. The Netherlands set it at 12 for slightly over a decade and the political move to change it from that "12" was not based on harms caused by the old system, as far as I'm aware.

Fair enough. I suppose it's stepping stone towards getting people thinking about whether sex is as big a deal as we make it out to be.

[Fragment]

Fair enough. I suppose it's stepping stone towards getting people thinking about whether sex is as big a deal as we make it out to be.

Right now people don't even see teens as sexual- or do in some weird cognitively dissonant way. If they can't see teens as sexual, they'll never seen children as sexual. Even as a moderate pro-c I think that teen sexuality is closer to adult sexuality than it is to child sexuality.

If we're going to revamp sexual values in society in their entirety I think it has to start with breaking down some of the myths regarding who and what is sexual.

[PorcelainLark]

Right now people don't even see teens as sexual- or do in some weird cognitively dissonant way. If they can't see teens as sexual, they'll never seen children as sexual. Even as a moderate pro-c I think that teen sexuality is closer to adult sexuality than it is to child sexuality.

If we're going to revamp sexual values in society in their entirety I think it has to start with breaking down some of the myths regarding who and what is sexual.

I suppose you've got to start somewhere.

[TMKnight]

I have asked youths what they think the age should be. Most of the time the number is a single digit.

I think it should be all about the will of the child. Take any age you want, some kids will have favorable or unfavorable outcomes to intimacy. Hell, we know some kids wouldn't kiss or like to be kissed by their parents. Some kids won't stop kissing or demanding kissing once one gets them going. Some kids develop no issues with their experiences and others do.

My own experiences were both good and bad. One of the youths I know had a bad experience and at his own admission with other youths had a good experience. AS a MAP, the only thing I care about is rather the youth(s) consented or not. If they did not consent I want to see the rapist put to death we have no room in this world where there are willing kids.

I have seen a video where kids would chase adults all over their community begging to be F'ed and wanting to be paid for it.
There are cases where the kids did want to criminal charges to happen to their lovers.
I think most kids who tell are looking for answers to their experiences not always trying to get someone in trouble. Sometimes kids are tricked into filing charges. They are later taught to hate and that is what people grow up to being all these anti-free-will towards children.

[Xuxa Nuit]

You need a license to drive a car, a license to get married, a license for massage therapy.

Now you need a license if you're going to woo a minor without alarm. You're going to need parenting skills, understanding child development, no prior felonies, a high school education.
First year is probationary, you and your YF have to check in with your guidance councilor for relationship advice/therapy once a month.
The Guidance Councilors are experts in CL.

[terminally_unique]

In an ideal world the AoC would be puberty, but girls start as early as 6 or 7 and boys start as late as 13 or 14. A consistent legal standard would be challenging, but if an arbitrary line had to be drawn somewhere, it should be at 12. Most children would have started puberty by then.