Idea- replacing Age of Consent laws with Sexual Consent Certificate Scheme

[WavesInEternity]

While I initially found the idea to be interesting, I decided to ask the opinion of someone who lived through CSA repeatedly and with traumatic consequences (my elderly mother). I tend to view her as a litmus test for the general acceptability of any MAP-related proposition, given how she's precisely the kind of person who pushed for the existing laws.

She was immediately dismissive of the suggestion, essentially arguing that she disliked the notion of quantifying (through a "test") such deeply emotional matters. I retorted that the idea of an age of consent was no less an attempt to quantify those matters. I did get her to agree, in principle at least, that sexual consent shouldn't be about age but rather about love and respect. She also agrees that there's a vast grey area between what constitutes a "child" and an "adult", and that different people reach maturity in different respects at different ages.

The issue is that her reasoning starts from the premise that whatever benefits there may be from children enjoying sex are negligible in comparison to the potential risks of abuse by the adults who lust after them. Accordingly, laws should do whatever they can to prevent abuse, while giving effectively no importance to sexual freedom in the equation.

Jim Burton: with respect to Gillick, this isn't a medical issue, and the primary reasons for concern are not about objective, measurable risk. They're about complex power dynamics, manipulation, all sorts of "yes-means-no" situations already highlighted ad nauseam by the feminist movement, and so on. These are the issues we must take the most seriously if we are to instigate any sort of change on a societal level.

[...] create the spectacle of variation and competition that will ultimately force people to confront their biases as a result of brutal reality. A situation is thus engineered, in which our preferred topic can be given the right kind of attention for values to change. Youth rights is gamified and literally forced upon families as a dinner table topic of concern.

There already is immense variation with respect to age of consent laws throughout the world, to an extent that I didn't fully appreciate before I recently became more interested in the topic and saw my views become substantially more radical. Why do you believe the results would be any different if we were to introduce a sexual consent certificate scheme?

Society's opinion on minors having sex isn't a matter of mental incompetence; it's a matter of disgust, and the rationale around mental capabilities is just an excuse
[...]
I believe the ageism around these subjects comes first, and any and all arguments related to the topic come in to justify the existing ageism.

I think you're right in highlighting ageism as a central factor, but I don't think it's the only factor at play. Another is the paternalism that is foundational to most notions of parenting; parents seek to control the bodies and minds of their children for their own good, and in many cases, I'm sure they'd do it for life if they could.

Furthermore, I believe you're completely wrong in saying that disgust is the primary reason for it, at least for those people who are vocal in pushing for restrictive legislation and expressing their hatred of our mere existence.

It's not disgust, it's fear. The hardest force of all to overcome politically. I find myself in the interesting position of being a MAP in a family filled to the brim with child rapists and their victims. Accordingly, I've had the opportunity to discuss those topics at length with many victims of CSA, including two who are aware of my sexuality and are both very open to ideas about children's rights and autonomy (I was largely raised as a miniature adult, in part due to my high-functioning autism... sexuality was one notable exception).

What came out of those discussions was always an overwhelming fear of seeing other children go through what they did, along with a nigh-paranoid wariness of the self-interest inherent in any argument I might bring.

[Jim Burton]

There already is immense variation with respect to age of consent laws throughout the world, to an extent that I didn't fully appreciate before I recently became more interested in the topic and saw my views become substantially more radical. Why do you believe the results would be any different if we were to introduce a sexual consent certificate scheme?

The difference is that you confront the audience with the cognitive dissonance, and make it impossible to ignore as a topic with relevance to their childrens future.

What is in the assessment does not matter so much, as the evidence base behind self-determination - general lifetime outcomes. A voluntarist system like this does not seek to entirely negate bad decisions, or the risk of manipulation, but determine who is resilient enough to make such decisions with the attendant risks.

One tailwind behind the evidence base for these systems is volunteer competency bias. Young people who want to exercise their rights will generally be those who stand to benefit most from self determination.

[WavesInEternity]

The difference is that you confront the audience with the cognitive dissonance, and make it impossible to ignore as a topic with relevance to their childrens future.

I'm not convinced. I think people have such fear of contemplating the ethical and practical intricacies of this topic that they're capable of accepting a truly staggering level of cognitive dissonance. Our existing relevant laws are totally ludicrous in so many ways, but apart from vilified MAPs and a few rare youths and academics, nobody cares.

Drug laws are similar in that regard... see how hard it was to just change cannabis laws. It only happened because harmless consumption became too widespread to be stamped out or concealed. (This implies that the real goal should be to make harmless AMSC happen on a broad scale and be visible... quite the challenge.)

What is in the assessment does not matter so much, as the evidence base behind self-determination - general lifetime outcomes. A voluntarist system like this does not seek to entirely negate bad decisions, or the risk of manipulation, but determine who is resilient enough to make such decisions with the attendant risks.

The nature and content of the assessment is of the utmost importance if you wish to convince others of its practical legitimacy, which is of course necessary if such a proposal is ever to become law. See my traumatized mother's reaction: she simply does not believe that it's possible to "test" for the complex psychoemotional characteristics required for sexual consent.

Indeed, her former stance was to support an age of consent of 18, with very limited "Romeo and Juliet" exceptions, not because she assumed all adults to have the necessary emotional maturity (quite the opposite), but simply because they're legal adults and can engage in whatever stupid, risky and self-destructive behaviour they want. Throughout our conversations, she has become more sympathetic to a proposal like BLueRibbon's 16/12, although she believes the "added restrictions" on sexual contact with younger partners (e.g. between 12 and 16) should be quite strict and include at the very least the requirement for contact to be initiated by the child, never the adult.

Again, this isn't because she believes that an age of consent is an adequate way to quantify competency. She views it as a stopgap measure to prevent the most egregious cases of abuse, with the caveat that lots of abuse will occur nevertheless as far as she's concerned, and her real "solution" would be to drastically transform parenting and education customs so as to emphasize respect, autonomy, affirmative consent, etc. Like myself, she also favours an approach where the law would include some level of recognition of the gradual nature of sexual maturity, rather than corresponding to a single threshold.

One tailwind behind the evidence base for these systems is volunteer competency bias. Young people who want to exercise their rights will generally be those who stand to benefit most from self determination.

I most definitely agree with this part. The hardest part is to reach the point where we obtain this evidence.

One could envision an academic study to test the underlying hypotheses, but that would require actual AMSC to occur, and I doubt that would pass any Western university's ethics committee. (If it ever does, let it be known that I'd happily volunteer. )

[Bookshelf]

Given you agree that the underlying bias is unlikely to change, why were you originally arguing that the proposed policy's compatibility with those biases was a weakness?

Because I think a long term goal should be to tackle those biases, and instead I think the proposal of a test would reinforce them. We would have to concede to the common belief that sex so complicated that you practically need a license for it. That would kill any possibility of convincing people to dismiss their bias.

One of the core issues around youth sexuality is that society still views sex in a dogmatic light. Abstract notions of religious innocence are attached to it; and to justify that in the so-called rational mind of modern society, it's rationalized as sex being complicated. If we take any step that makes it look like we agree with that — ie, accept that people need to pass a test to give their consent — it'll be significantly harder to push for more acceptance of simple sexual encounters, not just with youth but with anyone in general.

If you tackle the excuse, you'll force people to have to be more honest about where their feelings come from. Some people will become more rational as a result, while others will stick with their guns — but a divide will form regardless.

1. Through brutal reality. When the truth hits you in the face, and it is impossible to deny. Compare gay rights.
2. Through latency or transfer of concern. When a topic of concern is no longer given the same type of media attention, and is therefore no longer a topic of concern. See racial hygiene, decline of the nuclear family.

I don't think proposing a test achieves either of these though. A test isn't going to hit anyone in the face because a test will not be accepted unless it first meets society's standards on sexuality. If anything, a test would more likely to be written to "prove" that kids/teens can't consent by including intentionally complicated theoretical questions around symbolism and such.

1. Other rights and responsibilities as central to the legal scheme

I agree that youth need more rights and responsibilities. Permitting most of those through tests, however, will only backfire — especially when more controversial tests have to be made.

[WavesInEternity]

Because I think a long term goal should be to tackle those biases, and instead I think the proposal of a test would reinforce them. We would have to concede to the common belief that sex so complicated that you practically need a license for it. That would kill any possibility of convincing people to dismiss their bias.

One of the core issues around youth sexuality is that society still views sex in a dogmatic light. Abstract notions of religious innocence are attached to it; and to justify that in the so-called rational mind of modern society, it's rationalized as sex being complicated. If we take any step that makes it look like we agree with that — ie, accept that people need to pass a test to give their consent — it'll be significantly harder to push for more acceptance of simple sexual encounters, not just with youth but with anyone in general.

Agreed.

Sex is also still closely associated with marriage and parenthood in the collective imagination. While sexuality is uncomplicated per se, long-term romantic relationships and parenting are most certainly complex. To get society to accept AMSC, we ought to dissociate simple sexual contact from the additional responsibilities that were historically associated with it in a religious society without contraception.

The fact that sexuality is harmless and uncomplicated is also why I'm sympathetic to the idea of decriminalizing non-penetrative sexual contact in all non-coercive cases from a very, very early age (as argued by Tom O'Carroll). However, I'm still unsure of the best way to prevent cases of abuse of power, especially in the context of incestuous AMSC. The idea I currently think has the most potential is to restrict AMSC with a child below a certain age to such contact outside the family and initiated by the child—but I'm looking for other suggestions.

[Jim Burton]

I can't accept the argument that assessing teenagers for basic mental competence (say, able and willing to exercise their rights, plus educationally in line with their peers) reifies liberal dogma against sexual relations with minors any more than a hard age line. Both are compatible with the dogma, and one has a potential upside (you know what one I favor).

An elective system at least accepts the possibility of consent, which is more than can be said for the present situation. And in accepting a possibility, it serves up real-life examples that might undermine the dogma.

I have to ask, to what extent do you really believe puritanism is still alive, and in what way do you think it can be challenged, if it is so all-consuming? To me, it is an idea that is already under attack, as we have created laws and regulations to cover up for it. The next set of rules and regulations I do not see as renouncing puritanism or it's secular forms entirely, but creating spaces in which it can be further undermined.

If anything, a test would more likely to be written to "prove" that kids/teens can't consent by including intentionally complicated theoretical questions around symbolism and such.

The obvious flaw here, is that if such an assessment were strictly worded (not my intention) it would also be impossible for adults to pass. Everything being relative, it's absurdity would be unmasked.

[Jim Burton]

My conclusion here is that because legalization of AMSC is a social libertarian issue, arguments in its favour are unnecessarily allergic to regulation or dismissive of legal replacement schemes.

Take the examples of black and women's liberation. These were tightly controlled in the initial phases, but ultimately the case for further gradual gains became unanswerable in light of lived reality.

[WavesInEternity]

An elective system at least accepts the possibility of consent, which is more than can be said for the present situation. And in accepting a possibility, it serves up real-life examples that might undermine the dogma.

Lowering the age of consent would have the same implication and the same impact, and as far as I can see (including in conversation with what I have closest to a MAP adversary I can speak to openly) would be much more likely to be accepted by the general population. As I mentioned above, I certainly do think that real-life examples are of critical importance to undermine the hegemonic narrative.

I generally agree with Bookshelf that any test viewed as acceptable by the current society would yield an average passing age around the current age of consent—likely above it to allay inevitable fears of the new system "going too far"—and thus the number of actual cases of AMSC would probably be significantly lower than if we were simply to lower the age of consent.

I should point out that, on a theoretical level, I do like the idea of a "Sexual Consent Certificate Scheme". I find it to be elegant and ethically compelling. As a precocious teenager under 18, I used to seriously advocate for an "adulthood test" to replace the current hard threshold. Many of the reasons that led me to abandon that idea also apply here. Those reasons are all essentially pragmatic in nature, related to the complexity of creating such a test that the general population would consider acceptable while also producing the transformative results I desire.

Take the examples of black and women's liberation. These were tightly controlled in the initial phases, but ultimately the case for further gradual gains became unanswerable in light of lived reality.

Perhaps a test for sexual consent would eventually be workable in a more enlightened society, but I don't think it's appropriate as a first step.

[Jim Burton]

I am proposing an assessment of basic capacity as precursor to minors having elective adult rights, and not a "consent test" or any such thing.

The argument that e.g. feminists would swoop in and corrupt the system beyond what is initially proposed, can also be used against straightforward consent laws. This does appear to be what has happened, with multiple jurisdictions each clinging to their own magic age lines, below which no "child" is capable of consent.

With "children" of multiple ages each consenting within the same effective jurisdiction, you at least have the possibility of open deliberation over the subject matter, with that being the individual, their circumstances, their ability to understand what is happening, rather than an arbitrary consent line. With the present system, we don't discuss the circumstances, because they are very easy to dismiss with a simple test of age. The flat age line leaves us with no contrary example that can be considered on its own merits, since the right to consent is bossed by age alone. This is problematic, with female teacher relationships being among the only examples that can break through the wall of denial.

[PorcelainLark]

Because I think a long term goal should be to tackle those biases, and instead I think the proposal of a test would reinforce them. We would have to concede to the common belief that sex so complicated that you practically need a license for it. That would kill any possibility of convincing people to dismiss their bias.

Not necessarily. Unless you're saying consent is completely subjective, showing that a child can perform the same cognitive process as an adult is quite important.

If we take any step that makes it look like we agree with that — ie, accept that people need to pass a test to give their consent — it'll be significantly harder to push for more acceptance of simple sexual encounters, not just with youth but with anyone in general.

Disagree. It's not about needing to pass a test as much as showing they can pass.

I don't think proposing a test achieves either of these though. A test isn't going to hit anyone in the face because a test will not be accepted unless it first meets society's standards on sexuality. If anything, a test would more likely to be written to "prove" that kids/teens can't consent by including intentionally complicated theoretical questions around symbolism and such.

What do you think about consent in general? Do you think there are people who aren't able to consent? I feel like saying it doesn't matter because it would need to first meet society's standards on sexuality, implies you don't take the concept of consent seriously in general.