An interaction I had with an anti-contact today

[PorcelainLark]

This is from an argument with a Virped admin on the b4um. I was arguing that fear of AMSC was the root of prejudice against MAPs, so even anti-contact MAPs should be opposed to sensationalizing it in the media.

From the end of my comment:

To be clear, all though I'd say I'm moderately pro-c, I still think the argument holds true for anti-c activists. Even if contact is bad, it is irrational to hold it to be as bad or worse than torture, murder, etc. This is, I think, the weakness of the anti-c approach, that it's too much on the back foot when it comes to tempering people's hysteria about about contact, but I digress.

Him:

Context: I'm 101.5% anti-contact

At it's heart, the fear of pedophilia is the fear of a child having any sexual interaction with an adult; as long as this is treated as some world-ending event that means a MAP is irredeemably evil, we will never be recognized as full citizens of society or full members of humanity.

What? How? Biastophiles aren't treated nearly as poorly and they have an attraction you and me both agree is wrong to act on (assumedly... Hopefully...please).

People aren't scared about children having sex, if anything I think society is more pointed towards your beliefs than mine. People are worried about "degenerate behavior", rather than sexual abuse. This is why many anti-maps victim blame and why many people defend child marriage.

Also for contact being "worse than murder and torture", I don't believe in trauma power scaling in any capacity, but isn't rape considered a form of torture? (Us anti-cs believe its rape to have sex with a child)

For comparison, if you kill someone by accident you have the category of manslaughter. The point is people need to have much more realistic expectations for MAPs.

The realistic expectation, for anyone, is never offending. That should go for anyone of any sexuality. I hate to say it, but if a MAP can't control themselves, they shouldn't be around children. Not be given a pass to sexually abuse others because thats the only thing they like sexually. I can't justify that in any capacity.

There should be support for people struggling with sex addiction and bad behaviors, sure, and we should treat all criminals (including sex criminals/offending maps) with dignity and human rights, with a hope to rehabilitate them, but we should never, ever, suggest "maps can't control themselves."

Plenty of us do, that type of rethoric could literally destroy our movement (it also makes us sound entitled tbh.)

Our, as anti-cs, position for maps would be society treats us like anyone else with immoral fantasies, and if we offend to be treated like any other sex criminal, unrelated to our status as maps. Of course many of us also have strong opinions on how sex crimes are handled in modern society, for both child abuse and adult abuse.

Me:

People aren't scared about children having sex, if anything I think society is more pointed towards your beliefs than mine.

I don't know what this means. People are disgusted by children behaving sexually.

Also for contact being "worse than murder and torture", I don't believe in trauma power scaling in any capacity, but isn't rape considered a form of torture? (Us anti-cs believe its rape to have sex with a child)

The difference is that statutory rape can be non-coercive, so there isn't necessarily trauma involved. A person that accidentally has sex with a 17 year old is not morally equivalent to a torturer.

The realistic expectation, for anyone, is never offending.

How's that realistic? Even if you think statutory rape is immoral, do you really think it's ever going to stop?

but we should never, ever, suggest "maps can't control themselves."

So, do you think there's no difference between someone like Josef Fritzl and someone that engages in non-coercive statutory rape?

Him:

People are disgusted by children behaving sexually.

Then you agree with my point, us anti-contacts aren't disgusted by children having sex, we are disgusted by adults having sex with children, which we view as rape. As you pointed out, society doesn't view it this way.

A person that accidentally has sex with a 17 year old is not morally equivalent to a torturer.

Ok, but is anyone, even non-maps, talking about borderline situations like 17 year olds? This isn't even a pro-c/anti-c position anymore since we are talking about the most border of borderlines. Plenty of anti-contacts believe the AOC should be 16, 18, 21, or even 25. Regardless, our opinions on what the AOC should be is based on what we think will protect the most vulnerable people in a population without restricting the freedom of non-vulnerable people. It's just that 18 happens to be what most people agree on is the most optimal number for this. There are more factors than age we consider, like disability, intoxication, etc. I personally have refused to do anything sexual with 18 year olds I felt were not ready for such things, because they go agaisnt my anti-contact morals.

so there isn't necessarily trauma involved

neither is rape? Plenty of people experience rape and say they had no trauma from it. I don't see how harm not happening 100% of the time is a factor here.

How's that realistic? Even if you think statutory rape is immoral, do you really think it's ever going to stop?

No, but neither is murder? We still expect people not to murder? I still expect every MAP to be non-offending and if they aren't, we as a society should force them to be however that has to be. Simple as, we should treat offenders with dignity, we also shouldn't let them be around children unsupervised.

So, do you think there's no difference between someone like Josef Fritzl and someone that engages in non-coercive statutory rape?

Do you think there is a difference between Hitler and the zodiac killer? Both people can be bad, one has done worse.

In your example, both have committed rape, one has committed more violent rape.

I don't see why I need to go, "ok, but this rape isn't that bad guys!"
I don't see why I need to make justifications or comparsions.

If someone has 'non-coercive' sex with a child, cool. They still committed rape. Sure they could of done worse things, I also fail to see how "I could of done worse to you" is a justification of any behavior ever.

Me:

neither is rape? Plenty of people experience rape and say they had no trauma from it. I don't see how harm not happening 100% of the time is a factor here.

So you think statutory rape causes trauma in the exact proportion as rape, less, or significantly lesser?

No, but neither is murder? We still expect people not to murder?

The difference is murder victims don't want to be murdered, statutory rape victims want to have sex, and the consequences of murder are far more impactful than sex.

I don't see why I need to go, "ok, but this rape isn't that bad guys!"
I don't see why I need to make justifications or comparsions.

Because the definition of statutory rape is different from other forms of rape. You can have exactly the same conditions with an adult (e.g. willingness, ongoing desire to participate) as with a minor and it wouldn't be treated as rape. Statutory rape is a legal fiction to protect minors, not equivalent to rape generally.

If someone has 'non-coercive' sex with a child, cool. They still committed rape.

Legally, yes; morally, not necessarily. Unless you think anyone in a position of power having sex with someone with less power is morally equivalent to rape, that's equivocation.

Sure they could of done worse things, I also fail to see how "I could of done worse to you" is a justification of any behavior ever.

It's not about justification, it's about proportional response. A person that steals a loaf of bread, isn't equal to a serial killer. That isn't a controversial take. The controversial point is about how bad statutory rape is, not whether if it wasn't bad it would be justifiable because it isn't as bad as other actions.

Have you guys had any luck getting through to anti-contact people about this? I really hoped the term "non-coercive statutory rape" could get around the whole "children can't consent" thought terminating cliche.

[Naugahyde]

Have you guys had any luck getting through to anti-contact people about this? I really hoped the term "non-coercive statutory rape" could get around the whole "children can't consent" thought terminating cliche.

The short answer to the question of any chance of convincing: very unlikely. Especially if it's within a public discourse of a community that iirc is lead by Anti-C's, I think they're going to keep sustaining their stance no matter how much it's challenged. They're always going to assert that all sexual interaction between adults and children is rape, and the expression of taking any nuance of that statement into consideration will end up being portrayed as ideological instability. I feel that the only chance you have is having a private conversation that requires trust in confidentiality, which is already difficult to pull off considering the current state of social oppression.

[PorcelainLark]

Update:

Him:

So you think statutory rape causes trauma in the exact proportion as rape, less, or significantly lesser?

Statutory rape is rape, so yes, it would be the same thing we are measuring.

If you are saying, 'is non-violent adult/child rape have the exact proportions as violent rape', I would say, "why would it matter." This is trauma powerscaling

We aren't playing with Goku and Saitama figurines asking 'Well, whats the worst type of rape'

The difference is murder victims don't want to be murdered

Proof? Plenty of people would accept being murdered, which is a sad fact of reality but a fact none the less.
If I got someone drunk and they started crying and saying 'please kill me' when they otherwise wouldn't, is that true consent to murder?

statutory rape victims want to have sex

Is 'wanting' something the only indiciation you need for consent? Because if so, then you believe consent is something that it simply isn't by any modern usage of the word. See above or below examples.

and the consequences of murder are far more impactful than sex.

At this point I wonder if we should actually get out little Naurto and Luffy toys, since you are more conerened on making comparsion to other crimes than asking "is this act wrong independent of itself?"
This is what I mean by 'Trauma Powerscaling', your attempts to judge if something is right or wrong is based on unrelated actions of others, not your own actions. Its a sneaky way to avoid accountability by pointing fingers and saying "what about that guy?!"

No offense but when I judge if I should or shouldn't do something, I don't think about what other people do that's worse, I ask if what I am doing is right or wrong.

Because the definition of statutory rape is different from other forms of rape

No? If I went to a bar and waited for someone to get seriously intoxicated to convince them to have sex with me when they otherwise would not, that's rape. or is that also 'legal fiction' to you

Should I have the right to go to bars and clubs and wait for women to alter their decision making skills via intoxication to get them to have sex with me? (The answer is: no)

Also why would minors have to be protected if there wasn't something inherent about their consent being invalid

Unless you think anyone in a position of power having sex with someone with less power is morally equivalent to rape, that's equivocation.

Have I mentioned 'power', a very ambuious term that isn't defined?

You are right social standings, even with adults, can muddy the waters of consent, and there are discussions to be had there.

That being said, my concern with children is their inability to understand, define, and enforce what values, wants, limits, boundaries, etc. they have are. Alongside having poor decision making skills in general. Similar to someone intoxicated or congitively disabled, people who I also think can't consent, adult or not.

Any "consent" you get from a minor is inherently exploitive, you have an advantage of having the ability to do such things while they cannot. In what capacity would this be a valid fair exchange of consent? Why take the words of a literal child as justification when you are the only one in the room who not only can fully understand the implications but also define and enforce your wants, needs, boundaries, and limits.

A person that steals a loaf of bread, isn't equal to a serial killer. That isn't a controversial take

Yes but if a thief says, "Why arrest me? There are serial killers, those are pretty bad, right?" I turn my head and ask whats with the whataboutism. If you have an issue with how offenders are treated in society, then argue for the rights of criminals, but making moral arguments on contact isn't doing that, its attempting to redefine the action as a crime.

The controversial point is about how bad statutory rape is

Correct, and seeing its a violation of consent, I say pretty damn bad.

Me:

Statutory rape is rape, so yes, it would be the same thing we are measuring.

Do you think you speak for all anti-contact people when you say that?

Proof? Plenty of people would accept being murdered, which is a sad fact of reality but a fact none the less.

OK, what do you think is wrong with murder then?

Is 'wanting' something the only indiciation you need for consent?

No, but it is a necessary condition.

This is what I mean by 'Trauma Powerscaling', your attempts to judge if something is right or wrong is based on unrelated actions of others, not your own actions. Its a sneaky way to avoid accountability by pointing fingers and saying "what about that guy?!"

I genuinely don't get what you mean by this.

No offense but when I judge if I should or shouldn't do something, I don't think about what other people do that's worse, I ask if what I am doing is right or wrong.

And if you're punishing someone, you treat every transgression equally severely? That doesn't make sense.

If I went to a bar and waited for someone to get seriously intoxicated to convince them to have sex with me when they otherwise would not, that's rape. or is that also 'legal fiction' to you.

I don't believe a minor is cognitively impaired in a way comparable to someone intoxicated. Take the minimal example, a 17 year old that has developed to the same level as the average 18 year old. Most people can accept there are people like that. The average person would have to accept statutory rape has to be a legal fiction in certain contexts, it's just a matter of scale. Normal people think it's narrower, pro-c people think it's broader, but no one realistically believes every 17 year old is less competent than every 18 year old.

Also why would minors have to be protected if there wasn't something inherent about their consent being invalid

What are you protecting them from? All the other laws about sex crimes would still be in place.

That being said, my concern with children is their inability to understand, define, and enforce what values, wants, limits, boundaries, etc. they have are. Alongside having poor decision making skills in general. Similar to someone intoxicated or congitively disabled, people who I also think can't consent, adult or not.

How are you supposed to learn those boundaries other than through experience?

Any "consent" you get from a minor is inherently exploitive, you have an advantage of having the ability to do such things while they cannot.

Then women in patriarchal religious communities can't consent either, and we're back to the issue of power dynamics.

In what capacity would this be a valid fair exchange of consent? Why take the words of a literal child as justification when you are the only one in the room who not only can fully understand the implications but also define and enforce your wants, needs, boundaries, and limits.

This is true of punishment and teaching norms in general. What's to stop a lazy parent from making their kids do all their work, or an angry parent from blaming children for things which they shouldn't be blamed for? I can't speak for every pro-contact person, but I still believe there are sexual boundaries (e.g. against incest) that should be taken seriously. I disagree with the idea that you can enforce the wants of child, children have a will of their own.
This is one of the reasons I think incest shouldn't be accepted: there is a conflict of interest between a parent that is supposed to be able to override the will of a child when it's in their own best interests (e.g. preventing a child from eating sugar because it leads to diabetes) and being able to cross sexual boundaries. Since the parent teaches the child to regulate their bodily boundaries (e.g. where to go to the toilet, what's appropriate level of modesty) even potentially against their will, this creates room for abuse.
However, between an adult which doesn't have the specific duty of care (of a parent) and a child, the child isn't obligated to listen to them, so the issue is primarily about power, rather than the role of the adult in that context, in my opinion.

If you have an issue with how offenders are treated in society, then argue for the rights of criminals, but making moral arguments on contact isn't doing that, its attempting to redefine the action as a crime.

I disagree completely. The recognition of the rights of criminals is inseparable from the perceived morality of the crime. Otherwise we would punish all criminals equally, regardless of how serious we took their crimes to be.

Correct, and seeing its a violation of consent, I say pretty damn bad.

If you gut the concept of consent of desire, I say it's a pretty empty concept.

Anyway, I expect the whole disagreement could be solved by saying "even some anti-contact people should care" instead of just "even anti-contact people should care". Even if there's no common ground between you and I, I'm not going to rule out common ground with anti-contacts in general.

[gingedu]

First of all, never argue that rape is even slightly okay, not even statutory rape. It's wrong and you will only make yourself look worse.

Second, people arguing against this topic will often make the choice (intentional or not) of employing question-begging terminology, which are words that presuppose the correctness of their position. In this case, your interlocuter is using the legal definition of the word rape in his arguments which assumes that all sexual contact with minors is non-consensual. Since he hasn't proven that the law is justified in asserting that all sexual contact with minors is non-consensual, he isn't justified in using this word to make a moral argument.

This is a dishonest tactic that you will often see, and you need to keep a sharp eye out for it. If your opponent was debating with you honestly, he would use neutral language that doesn't question-beg and is detached from the law and cultural stigma, and be able to prove his position from the ground up using arguments supported by reason and logic. He would start out by calling it sex, and then prove that consent is impossible regardless of what the law says, thereby demonstrating that it should be called rape. And if it is rape, then it's truly immoral and you lose.

So it's important that you HALT the conversation the minute you notice it, and ask your opponent to define his terms so you can scrutinize them. If you continue to debate before agreeing to the definitions of your terms, it is pointless and you will never win.

In this case, if he responds with the legal definition of rape (sex with a minor/sex below the age of consent) then it's your job to ask him questions that reveal contradictions in his definitions, which is very easy to do. The goal is to show how weak and subjective his legal-based definitions are as opposed to your objective and logic-based definitions, in particular rape being unwanted sexual contact.

If he responds that rape is sex with a "child", then you must drill further and ask him to define child. It's very important that you be as thorough as possible. A child is a prepubescent, but if by child he means minor then he has contradicted himself because some minors can consent by law.

Once you prove that the terminology by which he grounds his arguments are inherently subjective and contradictory, he will have no choice but to argue morality outside of a legal context, setting the playing field even.

I really hoped the term "non-coercive statutory rape" could get around the whole "children can't consent" thought terminating cliche.

Never concede to using their language. The only proper response you can give to the phrase "children can't consent" is to ask them what the terms children and consent mean, and then prove that those definitions are inconsistent or contradict the stated claim (either one is guaranteed to be true). It is important that you don't allow them to get away with using ambiguous language. Their positions are mostly built on stigmatized wording that simply needs to be examined and the house of cards will fall apart.

[Bookshelf]

It looks like the arguments he presented were just variants of "it's wrong because it's illegal; it's illegal because it's wrong".

[Harlan]

It looks like the arguments he presented were just variants of "it's wrong because it's illegal; it's illegal because it's wrong".

Yes.
What are they fighting for, to support the incorrect laws? To support the biased attitude towards MAP ? They don't even want to challenge the correctness of the law and don't consider it discriminatory not only against MAP, but also against minors. It's like talking to a gay man who believes that homosexuality is a sin, but God loves and forgives him because he doesn't have sex with men.

[PorcelainLark]

First of all, never argue that rape is even slightly okay, not even statutory rape. It's wrong and you will only make yourself look worse.

I can understand from an optics perspective why a person would thing this, but legally speaking consensual sex with a minor is "statutory rape". If I think consensual sex with a minor is morally acceptable, then I am saying statutory rape is morally acceptable. I'd rather bite the bullet, and confront people over whether statutory rape is really rape.

Second, people arguing against this topic will often make the choice (intentional or not) of employing question-begging terminology, which are words that presuppose the correctness of their position. In this case, your interlocuter is using the legal definition of the word rape in his arguments which assumes that all sexual contact with minors is non-consensual. Since he hasn't proven that the law is justified in asserting that all sexual contact with minors is non-consensual, he isn't justified in using this word to make a moral argument.

I agree, that's what I'm trying to draw attention towards; leaving aside the legal equivalence between statutory rape and rape, are they morally equivalent?

This is a dishonest tactic that you will often see, and you need to keep a sharp eye out for it. If your opponent was debating with you honestly, he would use neutral language that doesn't question-beg and is detached from the law and cultural stigma, and be able to prove his position from the ground up using arguments supported by reason and logic.

I know it's dishonest, my feeling is that he is inconsistent by his own standards.

If you continue to debate before agreeing to the definitions of your terms, it is pointless and you will never win.

I'm not sure about that. You can tell if a person is moving the goal posts without getting into arguments about terminology. For me, it's not about winning, though, it's about being right. In practical terms, preventing adults and minors from any sexual interaction by increasingly Draconian laws, requires a view of the world that is inaccurate. That sex is much more under human control than it actually is. I feel radical honesty is the antidote to the black and white thinking about this, and that there's something inauthentic about arguments based on the wording of the definitions of terms.

The goal is to show how weak and subjective his legal-based definitions are as opposed to your objective and logic-based definitions, in particular rape being unwanted sexual contact.

You see, I don't think he really believes that definition of rape. I think if he was more honest with himself (more subjective), he would know in his heart of hearts the legal formula isn't reflective of reality.

Never concede to using their language. The only proper response you can give to the phrase "children can't consent" is to ask them what the terms children and consent mean, and then prove that those definitions are inconsistent or contradict the stated claim (either one is guaranteed to be true). It is important that you don't allow them to get away with using ambiguous language. Their positions are mostly built on stigmatized wording that simply needs to be examined and the house of cards will fall apart.

My approach is different. I feel if you try to corner people too aggressively, it causes cognitive dissonance and they end up doubling down. They don't reason themselves into these positions, so I don't think you can argue them out of those positions either. You kind of have to play the role of a therapist; not looking for logical inconsistencies, as much as the emotional context of why they say what they say.
In this guy's case, I imagine he argues forcefully because he is afraid of being perceived as a predator and has probably gotten into fights with pro-contacts before; so rather than just picking apart his definitions, the key is try make him less afraid of being seen as a predator and to come to identify with someone who is pro-contact (rather than view them as an enemy).
There's the argument and there's the motivation for the argument. If you refute the argument without addressing the motivation, then a person will find another rationalization for the same motivation.

[Harlan]

I feel if you try to corner people too aggressively, it causes cognitive dissonance and they end up doubling down.

Just find a few videos on YouTube of children jumping with a parachute, show it to them and ask if this proves that children can give consent ? They weren't forced into the plane, were they ? Are they informed enough to give this consent ? Do they understand the risk that the parachute might not open and they might die ? How much more dangerous is this than kissing and masturbation ?

[Brain O'Conner]

I feel if you try to corner people too aggressively, it causes cognitive dissonance and they end up doubling down.

Just find a few videos on YouTube of children jumping with a parachute, show it to them and ask if this proves that children can give consent ? They weren't forced into the plane, were they ? Are they informed enough to give this consent ? Do they understand the risk that the parachute might not open and they might die ? How much more dangerous is this than kissing and masturbation ?

Exactly. Not only that, but kids as young six learn and know how to ride dirt bikes decently well. They know the risks of injury and possibly even death if they do not wear protective gear and/or not know how to operate the motorized vehicle well. Kids are not dumb as people make them out to be. It's strange that people can accept the fact the kids can understand the ramification on something like riding a motorized vehicle or going parachuting that is of high-risk of death and is more complex, but to turn around say they can't consent to something that is not only less complex and is of much lower-risk, but is a natural and innate thing for them to feel and desire at a pretty young age.

[Bookshelf]

Just find a few videos on YouTube of children jumping with a parachute, show it to them and ask if this proves that children can give consent ? They weren't forced into the plane, were they ? Are they informed enough to give this consent ? Do they understand the risk that the parachute might not open and they might die ? How much more dangerous is this than kissing and masturbation ?

This is an interesting way to approach it. Another way to look at it if this fails could be to compare it to food consumption;
Nutrition is complicated. Not even fully grown adults truly know how to navigate the toxic wasteland of western supermarkets in a healthy way. A good diet requires strict calorie counting, self control, and nutrition intake monitoring - if you don't do this, you're relying on the luck of what it is you happen to like and genetics. In short, maintaining a healthy body is complicated and comes with severe risk if not done correctly.

Yet, children are the primary target for McDonalds. Parents aren't shunned for taking their kids out to eat there; and while technically some people go in moderation, we know there's nothing stopping parents from taking their kid far too regularly despite the real, long term health impact we know it has. There's no law that says children can't eat fast food, and there's no one preventing children from buying chocolate at the shop because they don't know the risk or implications of what they're about to consume.

The standards we apply to children's ability to give informed consent don't appear to exist in many more circumstances that are significantly more complicated and risky than sex. A poor diet in youth can lead to incurable diseases for the rest of your life; yet we trust teenagers to know what they're doing with their own bodies when the crowd around McDonalds on Friday night. Those same teenagers that would allegedly be irreparably harmed by oral with someone a few years older on the basis that they 'don't understand it'.

I feel that the relevance of informed consent is applied at the convenience of what the parent wants to control. They don't want their kid having sex, so "fully informed consent" is needed for that. Parents have the right to be lazy though, so a quick cheap unhealthy meal is okay despite "fully informed consent" realistically being what you should need to consume something so hazardous (Although not really; I'm just using their standards to point out that they don't really care about consequences, it's just faux outrage).