Essay: The Draft Argument For 12+

[BLueRibbon]

This is the final essay written to introduce my third-wave framework to the MAP community. It elaborates the 12+ position that is being developed by Fragment and I. It's published as a draft, and constructive feedback is welcome!

https://wiki.yesmap.net/wiki/Essay:The_ ... _For_12%2B

[WandersGlade]

Our opponents will talk about 'power imbalances' with adult-teen relationships, but these are often present in MMSC and AASC, too.

I wasn't familiar with these terms.

One of the arguments used against AMSC is that there is a power imbalance. It is said that children are eager to please, powerless against adult authority, and easily manipulated. While this may be partly true when talking about children, these are not words that we typically use to describe teens. Except when we talk about AMSC, adolescents are typically described as disobedient, rebellious, antagonistic, unwilling to yield to authority figures, and highly skilled at manipulation.

I think this is the major issue: adults are supposed to be responsible for minors, even going against what they want at times, for their own well-being. Much in the same way we would be uncomfortable with a psychiatrist having sex with their patient. Children are told repeatedly to trust and respect adults, through out their upbringing, because they learn the boundaries of acceptable behavior adults. The adult would be setting the "rules of the game", at the same time as having a vested interest where those boundaries are set.
The only way around it, I can think of, would to be to have culture with less strict sexual boundaries generally, but that's not exactly realistic. Otherwise you have to show how consent could be attained within a paternalistic context, because I think it's wishful thinking that adults don't have to be the ones to set boundaries for minors a lot of the time,

There has to be some benefit, from a group selection perspective, to attraction to minors and possible AMSC; otherwise, widespread minor-attraction would not have survived the long period of human history prior to postpubescent AoC laws.

That's an interesting argument, has there been anything else written about it?

[kodicev]

I think that ignores the current sociopolotical climate. Tensions are high and tribalism is such that we can talk about political sectarianism at this point. What I mean is, the voice of reason isn't exactly the most popular at this time and that shows in our society. In this post-truth era, only a select few intellectuals are even able to engage in truly good faith debate at all, especially when it comes to sexual topics. People are radical these days and that's why I don't think a middle ground proposal would be appealing to them. Especially since both sides currently use pedophilia as a weapon to vilify the other side.

I'm also not convinced by this Push narrative. You noted yourself that you are surprised it hadn't already happened. Such a significant ammount of violence can only be achievied by a group that has power (there are many forms of power: social power, influence power, financial power, ideological power, political power, raw power...etc). MAPs however currently have very little power, not even cohesion as a group due to any serious though about MAPs being silenced. The vast majority of MAPs probably aren't even aware they are MAPs and didn't question the narrative about MAPs being monsters (in my case for example, I could only start to truly question the narrative after being exposed to MAPs talking points, if I never stumbled upon them I would have remained clueless). So that's why I think MAPs are pretty harmless since they don't have power. Without power, MAP-led violence can't go further than isolated cases. There are a lot of things more threatening.

I definitely think it's effective to continue academic engagement with tactful ragebait and media manipulation though.

[Jim Burton]

I changed the lede as it read wrong.

Also

For homosexual men, attraction to adolescents is the most common, followed by attraction to prepubescent boys and then attraction to adult men being the least common. A BL sexual orientation is more common than a gay orientation.

Perhaps that is the case for "male homosexuality", but probably not "homosexual men".

Additionally, people attracted to children and teens in a world with an AoC of 10-12 (much of the past thousand years) would have been encouraged to engage in sex with adolescents instead of children, thus offering a protective benefit to younger children.

Looks like you are making the argument to sacrifice teens for children!

If the Age of Consent were set at 12+, MAPs with an AoC that straddles prepubescence and early adolescence would face extreme pressure to avoid sex with prepubescents. With an AoC of 12+, they would be encouraged to engage only with adolescents who possess greater competence for a sexual relationship and remain supported by special protections, reducing the risk of harm. This is preferable to the current situation of MAPs being forced to avoid AMSC entirely, or encouraged to prioritize 'safety' in partners rather than 'older' or 'most interested in and ready for sex'.

This is the better way of putting it. If antis argue that adults have all the power, they have to accept that "safety" is about what benefits the powerful adult, rather than the minor's welfare. That might mean the adult picks a less informed, younger or easier to manipulate child, as opposed to a youth with competences and legal rights.

As elimination has failed, from a child protectionist perspective, it makes sense to have an "accessible" subset of older minors with legal rights and protections. This holds even if we are to assume that power imbalances lead to exploitation.

One trait of teens that may be used against us is the fact that teens are inherently reckless.

You could say "seen as reckless". There is no scientific support for the idea this character trait is particularly pronounced, or inherent. The easiest thing to do is link Epstein and link the article in the lede of the linked article. There are also arguments that the period of learning you go on to mention is adaptively potentiated by some low-level risk-taking behaviors in teens (such as sexual proclivity).

The concept of 'adult rights' is simply too ingrained and would require an even greater cultural shift than the reform of attitudes toward AMSC. It is unrealistic to think that we can push through AoC adjustments piggybacked onto lowering age limits for other rights and vices.

Isn't the death of one in fact essential for the other to happen? See my critique of Lecter on this topic.

The danger here, is that you are seen as doing something far worse than even NAMBLA did in the 80s. In other words, confirming that you wish to pursue legalization of adult-minor sex without addressing the rights and status of young people as a whole. Arguing that one can be done without the other, or is even somehow "more realistic" looks self-serving to me.

This perspective is also likely to fall by the wayside as minors gain incremental rights to other things - medical procedures, drug use, personal finances, etc before anything happens on AMSC.

What might make sense (and not undermine your perspective) is a passage worded as follows:

Since it's clear the concepts of "adult" and "parental" rights are deeply ingrained in society, it naturally follows we must undermine these norms in order to effect radical and lasting change on the rights of young people in general. Parental authority and the predator stigma exist in a kind of self-reinforcing symbiosis, meaning that radical pro-c MAPs stand to benefit from youth rights and youth liberation initiatives. But there do exist a surprising number of modern examples in which reduced ages of consent were successfully trialed for medical (Peru), judicial (New Jersey) and cultural (The Netherlands) reasons; without any broader appeal against paternalist attitudes/lawmaking.

[Fragment]

Many of us know why reform would be beneficial, both for MAPs and for minors alike.

The problem in presentation is arguing why normal people should care. MAPs are still seen as morally corrupt and not worth helping (hence bans on child sex dolls, etc). Yet an approach focused on youth autonomy 1) seems disingenuous, 2) hasn't been successful in the past.

The Push, focusing on MAP massacres, is probably not only useless as a motivator, but risks reinforcing memes of MAPs as dangerous.

I think perhaps we'd be better off developing the "secret sex is dangerous sex" part of the argument and clearly stating that our plan is to try and empower minors, so it's easier for them to decide how sex should be treated, without taboo, including it being easier for them to come forward when they are abused. That seems not just the strategically most sound path, but also the most ethical one.

WandersGlade wrote a little about this on B4U-Act just a while ago. Regarding the chilling effect in coming forward.

[BLueRibbon]

There has to be some benefit, from a group selection perspective, to attraction to minors and possible AMSC; otherwise, widespread minor-attraction would not have survived the long period of human history prior to postpubescent AoC laws.

That's an interesting argument, has there been anything else written about it?

Unfortunately, there are no researchers brave enough to investigate this.

I think that ignores the current sociopolotical climate. Tensions are high and tribalism is such that we can talk about political sectarianism at this point. What I mean is, the voice of reason isn't exactly the most popular at this time and that shows in our society. In this post-truth era, only a select few intellectuals are even able to engage in truly good faith debate at all, especially when it comes to sexual topics. People are radical these days and that's why I don't think a middle ground proposal would be appealing to them. Especially since both sides currently use pedophilia as a weapon to vilify the other side.

Everything is polarized, both inside and outside the MAP community. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try to go for a more balanced approach.

I'm also not convinced by this Push narrative. You noted yourself that you are surprised it hadn't already happened. Such a significant ammount of violence can only be achievied by a group that has power (there are many forms of power: social power, influence power, financial power, ideological power, political power, raw power...etc). MAPs however currently have very little power, not even cohesion as a group due to any serious though about MAPs being silenced. The vast majority of MAPs probably aren't even aware they are MAPs and didn't question the narrative about MAPs being monsters (in my case for example, I could only start to truly question the narrative after being exposed to MAPs talking points, if I never stumbled upon them I would have remained clueless). So that's why I think MAPs are pretty harmless since they don't have power. Without power, MAP-led violence can't go further than isolated cases. There are a lot of things more threatening.

I think it's only a matter of time. The younger MAPs are a bit more radical and aggressive. I won't endorse it, but I won't condemn it either.

I changed the lede as it read wrong.

Thanks.

For homosexual men, attraction to adolescents is the most common, followed by attraction to prepubescent boys and then attraction to adult men being the least common. A BL sexual orientation is more common than a gay orientation.

Perhaps that is the case for "male homosexuality", but probably not "homosexual men".

Could you explain the difference?

Additionally, people attracted to children and teens in a world with an AoC of 10-12 (much of the past thousand years) would have been encouraged to engage in sex with adolescents instead of children, thus offering a protective benefit to younger children.

Looks like you are making the argument to sacrifice teens for children!

Good point. Edited.

Additionally, people attracted to children and teens in a world with an AoC of 10-12 (much of the past thousand years) would have been encouraged to engage in sex with adolescents instead of children, thus offering a protective benefit to younger children, without causing harm to teens.

One trait of teens that may be used against us is the fact that teens are inherently reckless.

You could say "seen as reckless". There is no scientific support for the idea this character trait is particularly pronounced, or inherent. The easiest thing to do is link Epstein and link the article in the lede of the linked article. There are also arguments that the period of learning you go on to mention is adaptively potentiated by some low-level risk-taking behaviors in teens (such as sexual proclivity).

Edited as suggested.

The concept of 'adult rights' is simply too ingrained and would require an even greater cultural shift than the reform of attitudes toward AMSC. It is unrealistic to think that we can push through AoC adjustments piggybacked onto lowering age limits for other rights and vices.

Isn't the death of one in fact essential for the other to happen? See my critique of Lecter on this topic.

The danger here, is that you are seen as doing something far worse than even NAMBLA did in the 80s. In other words, confirming that you wish to pursue legalization of adult-minor sex without addressing the rights and status of young people as a whole. Arguing that one can be done without the other, or is even somehow "more realistic" looks self-serving to me.

I understand your concern. But AoC laws don't track the age of majority like many other legal rights. Sexual rights would be better re-framed as adolescent rights.

This perspective is also likely to fall by the wayside as minors gain incremental rights to other things - medical procedures, drug use, personal finances, etc before anything happens on AMSC.

What might make sense (and not undermine your perspective) is a passage worded as follows:

Since it's clear the concepts of "adult" and "parental" rights are deeply ingrained in society, it naturally follows we must undermine these norms in order to effect radical and lasting change on the rights of young people in general. Parental authority and the predator stigma exist in a kind of self-reinforcing symbiosis, meaning that radical pro-c MAPs stand to benefit from youth rights and youth liberation initiatives. But there do exist a surprising number of modern examples in which reduced ages of consent were successfully trialed for medical (Peru), judicial (New Jersey) and cultural (The Netherlands) reasons; without any broader appeal against paternalist attitudes/lawmaking.

Why do you think that parental authority is such a major issue?

Many of us know why reform would be beneficial, both for MAPs and for minors alike.

The problem in presentation is arguing why normal people should care. MAPs are still seen as morally corrupt and not worth helping (hence bans on child sex dolls, etc). Yet an approach focused on youth autonomy 1) seems disingenuous, 2) hasn't been successful in the past.

The Push, focusing on MAP massacres, is probably not only useless as a motivator, but risks reinforcing memes of MAPs as dangerous.

I think perhaps we'd be better off developing the "secret sex is dangerous sex" part of the argument and clearly stating that our plan is to try and empower minors, so it's easier for them to decide how sex should be treated, without taboo, including it being easier for them to come forward when they are abused. That seems not just the strategically most sound path, but also the most ethical one.

I feel that the arguments outlined by The Push give people a serious motivation to care. They need a selfish reason. I understand the concern about reinforcing the idea that MAPs are dangerous. That's why I think we should be really clear about the fact that MAPs aren't inherently dangerous, but are being bullied to such a severe extent that anyone would snap.

[BLueRibbon]

For my presentation to the public, I will be renaming this 'AoC of 16/12'.

[Strato]

This is the final essay written to introduce my third-wave framework to the MAP community. It elaborates the 12+ position that is being developed by Fragment and I. It's published as a draft, and constructive feedback is welcome!

https://wiki.yesmap.net/wiki/Essay:The_ ... _For_12%2B

BLueRibbon, in your essay you mention the following: “Biologically, teens have undergone the shift from child sexuality to adult sexuality, and therefore demonstrate sexual interest in adults, watching adult pornography and covering their walls with posters of sexually appealing adult entertainers.”

However, nowhere in your essay could I find mention of the word puberty, nor the shifting onset of puberty. I consider this phenomenon to be an essential topic for us ... highlighting the fact would in my opinion, strengthen the case for reducing the age of consent.

From Texas A&M University (2018), by Dominic Hernandez: ‘The age of puberty, especially female puberty, has been decreasing in western cultures for decades now. For example, at the turn of the 20th century, the average age for an American girl to get her period was 16 or 17. Today, that number has decreased to 12 or 13 years. It’s not just girls, a study from the American Academy of Pediatrics found that boys were starting puberty earlier than previously recorded. According to the findings, boys are now beginning puberty around, or a little before age 10. Previously, 11 years of age was the given number where boys began puberty.’

[Fragment]

I think part of my personal reform agenda is supporting greater agency in non-sexual areas for minors under 12. If adults refuse to recognize the general capabilities of pre-12, it seems ridiculous to imagine they'd recognize the more socially impactful capability to consent to sexual contact. Many adults won't even recognize the ability of a pre-12 minor to take the bus unaccompanied. So sex is definitely a non-starter.

Minors who are 12+, on the other hand, already have a lot of their capabilities acknowledged. The line between elementary and middle school (in many places) assumes that there is a big jump in ability that comes at the start of puberty. There are published studies on the ability to consent to surgery, arguing that a minor of "about 12" (one paper says 11.2) is of sufficient competence to give informed consent to medical procedures.

The age of 12 is also an age recognized in some places as being appropriate for criminal liability. It's also an age recognized in some places as being an appropriate age for sexual contact with a near-aged partner. In the state of Delaware a twelve year old is considered to have the capacity to consent to sex, as long as their partner is aged 16 or less. An AoC of 12+ is merely extending that logic to say "if you can agree to and enjoy sex with a 16 year old, it seems strange to think that it somehow automatically becomes traumatic because it is with a 26 year old".

While the primary beneficiaries of age of consent laws are MAPs who would currently face length prison times and up to a lifetime of registration, they shouldn't be the main target of the laws. I do not support a change in laws that would result in undermining the decision making of minors themselves. I will never support sex with toddlers, because I don't think toddlers have the capacity to properly determine what to eat for dinner, let alone to sexual consent. Abolition of the age of consent while introducing other restrictions to sex with toddlers might be possible- but a law allowing sex with toddlers would be a law that benefits adults at the potential expense of kids. I'm also not comfortable with the idea of "parents decide" because of the fact that most child sex abuse (and the most traumatic abuse) usually occurs in the context of the family home (step-dads being one of the most common perpetrators).

Down the line we might find a better way to draw the line in a way that balances the autonomy and agency of minors against their protection. But until then I think there is a reasonable bright line at the start of adolescence. It would suck to be an exclusive nepiophile. But even if we try to take into consideration most people's sexual interests, I don't think we can take them all into account. An exclusive biastophile (someone aroused by non-consent and rape) can never be allowed to act on their sexual desire. I think nepis fall into the same category. Thankfully totally exclusive nepiophiles seem vanishingly rare and most CLs have an AoA that extends to low adolescence or near-adolescence. Hebephilia also seems about 10 times more common than pedophilia in studies that have been done.

It may not be a perfect solution. I'm not sure there is one. But it seems about the best we can do. And even explaining it like this, it's going to be a stretch for 90% of "normal people". But I do feel confident explaining why 12 year olds are competent in a way I don't feel confident with younger kids.

Reposting from VoA an explanation of why, personally, I wouldn't be comfortable advocating for less than 12. I use the word adolescence over "puberty" usually, because I think it's the social aspects that are as, if not, more important than the physical ones. I don't believe pre-adolescents can never enjoy sexual contact- that'd be denying reality. But in terms of appropriate legal reform I think that recognizing the autonomy and agency of adolescents is the first major step. Incremental targets don't have to conflict with radical end-goals, though, for those that think the proposed reform is too weak.

[BLueRibbon]

This is the final essay written to introduce my third-wave framework to the MAP community. It elaborates the 12+ position that is being developed by Fragment and I. It's published as a draft, and constructive feedback is welcome!

https://wiki.yesmap.net/wiki/Essay:The_ ... _For_12%2B

BLueRibbon, in your essay you mention the following: “Biologically, teens have undergone the shift from child sexuality to adult sexuality, and therefore demonstrate sexual interest in adults, watching adult pornography and covering their walls with posters of sexually appealing adult entertainers.”

However, nowhere in your essay could I find mention of the word puberty, nor the shifting onset of puberty. I consider this phenomenon to be an essential topic for us ... highlighting the fact would in my opinion, strengthen the case for reducing the age of consent.

From Texas A&M University (2018), by Dominic Hernandez: ‘The age of puberty, especially female puberty, has been decreasing in western cultures for decades now. For example, at the turn of the 20th century, the average age for an American girl to get her period was 16 or 17. Today, that number has decreased to 12 or 13 years. It’s not just girls, a study from the American Academy of Pediatrics found that boys were starting puberty earlier than previously recorded. According to the findings, boys are now beginning puberty around, or a little before age 10. Previously, 11 years of age was the given number where boys began puberty.’

I will add this to the (delayed) Mu Perspectives article on 16/12. Thanks.