16/12: Pro-Reform's position on AMSC

[WavesInEternity]

I've worked with kids of pretty much all ages. I am aware of the reality, but we can't change the world overnight.

On the whole, we appear to be in agreement in all key respects: if we are to change society, we ought to start somewhere, and this initial change must take into account the limited range of possibilities that are realistic to envision in practice.

We can move towards more fundamental change afterwards once we've obtained evidence for widespread consensual AMSC that is demonstrably harmless and positive.

What do you think of my idea, briefly mentioned elsewhere, that we should prioritize reaching the point where the law in at least one jurisdiction would allow for the existence of a specialized dating website for MAAs & AAMs (12+ or 13+) with the participation of authorities and academics, preferably non-profit and perhaps with dedicated social workers? In any case, we first and foremost ought to prove that consensual AMSC works.

My AoA is 8-14, so the proposal would be far from perfect from a purely selfish position, if implemented.

My apologies. The unfortunate fact, then, is that most paedophile GLs would effectively be sidelined by this proposal, but hopefully it would serve to facilitate further change in the future.

[BLueRibbon]

What do you think of my idea, briefly mentioned elsewhere, that we should prioritize reaching the point where the law in at least one jurisdiction would allow for the existence of a specialized dating website for MAAs & AAMs (12+ or 13+) with the participation of authorities and academics, preferably non-profit and perhaps with dedicated social workers? In any case, we first and foremost ought to prove that consensual AMSC works.

As of several years ago, the Hungarian version of Grindr allowed 14 year olds to join, consistent with the Hungarian AoC. However, according to the person who relayed this information, the teen boys would all write on their profiles that they didn't want old men to bother them.

Any proposal to create a matchmaking service specifically for MAPs and AAMs would be immediately shot down, in my opinion.

[WavesInEternity]

Any proposal to create a matchmaking service specifically for MAPs and AAMs would be immediately shot down, in my opinion.

Oh, in the current context, I'm sure. I'm not referring to an overt proposal to do so. I'm speaking as a matter of legal strategy, the argument being that genuine (preferential or exclusive) MAAs and AAMs are small enough numbers that such a platform is more or less necessary if harmless, consensual AMSC is to actually occur on a significant enough scale, especially without children being bothered by old men (speaking as an old-ish man), for a more fundamental change in social attitudes to occur.

Any legal change that doesn't involve the possibility for various practical means for MAAs and AAMs to find each other would be, in my view, ultimately pointless. Something we must keep in mind is that in any system, actual abuse will inevitably occur, which means that the number and visibility of positive instances must drown out the egregious negative ones.

The youths' rights perspective could include the first step of allowing matchmaking services for youths among themselves. I definitely would have liked to try out one as a young teenager (one of my greatest regrets in life is to have missed out on romance/sex with girls in my AoA when I was that age myself). Romantically/sexually active minors are currently effectively restricted to a very small pool of potential partners, which sets them up for failure. I've lost count of the young women who told me that their early romances with schoolmates were unfulfilling and awkward. My two girlfriends both said they'd have preferred to date me as an adult back while they were in my ideal AoA.

[Fragment]

Pro-Reform isn't necessarily about what is morally justifiable. It's about law, and therefore legal considerations need to be taken into account.

You mention differentiating penetrative and non-penetrative sex. That already does happen, at least on the level of sentencing, and in many jurisdictions the crime of indictment. I was sentenced for a crime that has a minimum 6 month sentence, but if penetration had been involved it would've been a minimum 5 year sentence (I'm very lucky that I considered a blow job might be "too much" for an initial sexual encounter).

Another legal consideration is "how easy will this be to prosecute?", "is it ambiguous?", "will there be extra false positives?", "or false negatives?" In general we (well, society) don't want more bad guys to go free, not when it comes to hurting kids.

A final thing I think is key to pro-reform is "can this system actually reduce the amount of abuse in society?" We have extremely harsh penalties in place for AMSC, yet sexual abuse is still pretty common. My belief is that better sexual education, better recognition and acceptance of (at least) teen-adult relationships and more discussion of how to say "yes" (not just "no") would actually lead to healthier sexual relationships in general with an ability to see abusers called out for it, instead of protected by the veil of shame that benefits them now.

Just a few brief thoughts as I try to get back into the swing of posting.

[WavesInEternity]

Pro-Reform isn't necessarily about what is morally justifiable. It's about law, and therefore legal considerations need to be taken into account.

Indeed. It is relatively easy to come up with utopias based on certain moral principles and applying them without regard for the practical complexities of society as it is. It is much harder to formulate pragmatic proposals that might 1) be acceptable for the majority of the population in at least one liberal democracy; 2) be fully applicable in practice without becoming distorted or having unintended consequences.

You mention differentiating penetrative and non-penetrative sex. That already does happen, at least on the level of sentencing, and in many jurisdictions the crime of indictment. I was sentenced for a crime that has a minimum 6 month sentence, but if penetration had been involved it would've been a minimum 5 year sentence (I'm very lucky that I considered a blow job might be "too much" for an initial sexual encounter).

Damn... a 5 year minimum sentence for fellatio. Is cunnilingus in the same legal category?

I wouldn't include oral sex among "penetrative" practices. In fact, if we were to truly base our laws on objective risk of harm, it's really only vaginal penetration that's particularly problematic because the vagina is configured differently before puberty (the walls are initially smooth, but folds start to form during puberty to accommodate penetration). Sodomy when properly practiced is generally physically harmless, even for quite young children, but that's something the world is most definitely not ready to hear...

Another legal consideration is "how easy will this be to prosecute?", "is it ambiguous?", "will there be extra false positives?", "or false negatives?" In general we (well, society) don't want more bad guys to go free, not when it comes to hurting kids.

One notion I'm currently exploring is that the age of consent could be lowered to 12 with the caveat that if a minor between the ages of 12 and 16 is to have legal sexual contact with an adult, it's always the minor that must make the first move and initiate sexual activity clearly and unambiguously, ideally with recorded proof. Adults would be allowed to openly disclose that they are MAPs, but they wouldn't be allowed to ask children for sex. All AMSC within the child's family would remain illicit.

The true practical goal of such a system would be to enable the creation of legal platforms for MAAs and AAMs to find each other, such as dating websites.

A final thing I think is key to pro-reform is "can this system actually reduce the amount of abuse in society?" We have extremely harsh penalties in place for AMSC, yet sexual abuse is still pretty common. My belief is that better sexual education, better recognition and acceptance of (at least) teen-adult relationships and more discussion of how to say "yes" (not just "no") would actually lead to healthier sexual relationships in general with an ability to see abusers called out for it, instead of protected by the veil of shame that benefits them now.

I am in complete agreement with this. In fact, I strongly believe that a society without any age of consent laws whatsoever, only the laws prohibiting rape and assault, but with better sexual education from an early age, would have significantly lower rates of sexual abuse (not just that of children, either) than our current society.

[Fragment]

The question I have regarding total abolition is:
"Are there any situations where sexual contact itself could be said to be worthy of prohibition?"
I'm sure there's a lot of arguments for this, and just as many rebuttals.

The next question I have is:
"Are there situations where it is worth a law being overly broad to make sure bad guys are punished?"
Making the sex itself illegal means that abuse doesn't need to be proven. This drastically reduces the burden on victims and prosecutors. Just proving the sex happened is all they need. If the prosecution has to prove a lack of consent then quite a few abusers will walk free.

Damn... a 5 year minimum sentence for fellatio. Is cunnilingus in the same legal category?

Any act of penetration (in either direction) by the penis (of any orifice) or by a part of the body or an object (of a vagina or anus) is an act of "intercourse". The minimum penalty for non-consensual intercourse is 5 years. The other offense is non-consensual indecency, which includes non-penetrative touching (in some rare cases even kissing or hugging with sexual intent!). A prosecutor might charge for indecency rather than intercourse if there was licking but the tongue didn't penetrate the vagina. I'm not sure. Prosecutors like rock solid cases here, though. So they very frequently drop charges to ensure a conviction. One of the cases that actually led to the recent change in laws was of a father raping and molesting his teenage daughter for 6 years. The prosecutor was over ambitious and tried to charge him for forced intercourse, but under the old law the victim had to resist. However they still could've got a conviction if they charged him for a "child welfare violation", which still carries a tough maximum penalty. The old laws were actually tiered in a way that made sense. Now- giving a blow job to a teen boy and forcibly penetrating a 5 year old are technically the same crime. The sentencing range is wide, so of course the punishment will differ, but the crime is the same. Even in my case, one handjob counts as "non-consensual indecency" (minimum 6 months), the other counts as "violation of the healthy upbringing of youth ordinance" (maximum one year, a fine is possible). The latter crime now only basically applies to 16-17 year olds, rather than 13-17 year olds. I don't see how even a (reasonable) anti-c viewpoint can think that this change was necessary or beneficial.

One notion I'm currently exploring is that the age of consent could be lowered to 12 with the caveat that if a minor between the ages of 12 and 16 is to have legal sexual contact with an adult, it's always the minor that must make the first move and initiate sexual activity clearly and unambiguously, ideally with recorded proof. Adults would be allowed to openly disclose that they are MAPs, but they wouldn't be allowed to ask children for sex. All AMSC within the child's family would remain illicit.

The true practical goal of such a system would be to enable the creation of legal platforms for MAAs and AAMs to find each other, such as dating websites.

I understand the goal of increasing the amount of AMSC so there can be proper research of the topic, so in that sense, even extremely restrictive legalization could be a good thing. But having seen how the court system plays out, this idea would never work. Proving that someone initiated an action, especially "clearly and unambiguously" leaves so much room for judicial interpretation. Recorded proof just wouldn't happen in most cases, so you'd end up with a situation arguably worse than now because you wouldn't have a clear sense of what you're doing is illegal or not until after the fact (arguably 16/12 struggles with that, too, though). A similar, but much simpler solution would simply be to make "minors can't consent" a rebuttable presumption, so evidence of consent is a legal defense. Much like in Uruguay. We discussed that when drafting 16/12 as one potential option, but were too skeptical about judicial interpretation.

[WavesInEternity]

[I'll come back to your two questions later, maybe in a couple days. I'm out of time. It's worth mentioning that I don't necessarily support total abolition, I was making a rhetorical point.]

Now- giving a blow job to a teen boy and forcibly penetrating a 5 year old are technically the same crime. The sentencing range is wide, so of course the punishment will differ, but the crime is the same. Even in my case, one handjob counts as "non-consensual indecency" (minimum 6 months), the other counts as "violation of the healthy upbringing of youth ordinance" (maximum one year, a fine is possible). The latter crime now only basically applies to 16-17 year olds, rather than 13-17 year olds. I don't see how even a (reasonable) anti-c viewpoint can think that this change was necessary or beneficial.

So many ridiculous elements here. There are so many ways in which our laws regarding AMSC have become worse than they used to be.

I understand the goal of increasing the amount of AMSC so there can be proper research of the topic, so in that sense, even extremely restrictive legalization could be a good thing. But having seen how the court system plays out, this idea would never work. Proving that someone initiated an action, especially "clearly and unambiguously" leaves so much room for judicial interpretation. Recorded proof just wouldn't happen in most cases, so you'd end up with a situation arguably worse than now because you wouldn't have a clear sense of what you're doing is illegal or not until after the fact (arguably 16/12 struggles with that, too, though). A similar, but much simpler solution would simply be to make "minors can't consent" a rebuttable presumption, so evidence of consent is a legal defense. Much like in Uruguay. We discussed that when drafting 16/12 as one potential option, but were too skeptical about judicial interpretation.

I disagree with several of your assumptions here.

For starters, "clear and unambiguous" already reflects the sort of language used in "affirmative consent" laws, which were my direct inspiration. Although such laws do raise multiple issues regarding policing and enforcement, none of those issues appears to me to be a deal-breaker in the case of AMSC, precisely because the aim is to require a greater level of care and caution relative to AASC, especially from the adult participant.

It's also intended to switch the discourse around AMSC from "consent", which I find has now become too loaded with additional conceptual baggage, to simple "willingness", which is what I think should actually matter.

Ultimately, though, the core underlying idea of my proposal, in addition to being that of simply increasing the occurrence of AMSC for proper research to take place, is to induce a paradigm shift in how AMSC happens.

In the current context, AMSC mostly occurs between people who already know each other, who are already close, but who had never expressed an interest in sexual intimacy. The adult nearly always makes the first move, which is what makes such occurrences so vulnerable to accusations of "grooming", "manipulation", "corruption of minors", and so on. I'd call this current paradigm, with a healthy dose of sarcasm, "old(er) men/women bothering kids". I believe that if AMSC is ever to be socially acceptable, a new paradigm must become the norm: "horny teens seeking out old(er) men/women". This would mean that MAPs would no longer look for partners among their immediate surroundings, but would instead search for young people with a preexisting interest in intimacy with adults.

In a world where everyone uses the Internet and smartphones, having "recorded evidence" seems to me like it would be quite trivial, assuming that MAPs go along with the paradigm shift. A purpose-built dating website could enforce having the minor make the first move and make it clearly legally binding. There are already "consent Apps" popping up, so in unusual circumstances such as a sudden escalation of the intimacy level in person, "willingness App" counterparts could be used as well.

Since MAPs would generally be choosing their partners among the relatively small pool of enthusiastic AAMs, it is highly likely that most would meet them online.

[Fragment]

I understand what you’re trying to achieve. But I think that overall, I prefer 16/12 as the policy pro-reform activists should be pushing. I understand making relationships between more about minors who are actively pursuing adults, but I think this would exclude a lot of BL-YF relationships. The relationship dynamic between a BL and boy often is not symmetrically romantic. The boy is often straight, but enjoys having a sexual experience with whoever. Such a boy wouldn’t actively look for a man to have a sexual experience with. BL relationships often emerge more organically than what your app would allow.

Your proposal only really holds interest to me based on one factor- “it is more likely to be accepted by society than 16/12?” If so, as a transitional measure it could be worthwhile. But I don’t see that. So I’d rather directly lobby for 16/12.

So many ridiculous elements here. There are so many ways in which our laws regarding AMSC have become worse than they used to be.

I’ll come time and time again to the soccer coach from Tokyo who had an ongoing “messing around” relationship with a teenage boy in his club. One time he fingered the boy while masturbating him. If it was 10 days earlier it would’ve fallen under the old law (max 1 year), but he did it after the law changed so got a minimum 5 years. He had done things with other boys and taken videos of it so in total he got a sentence of 10 years. For things that, from all reports, seemed to involve horny boys willingly messing around with an “older brother” figure.

This wasn’t about protecting kids from predation. It was about “protecting” teens from sexuality.

[BLueRibbon]

This wasn’t about protecting kids from predation. It was about “protecting” teens from sexuality.

So not much different from American states raising the AoC in the 1880s-1920s.

[WavesInEternity]

I understand what you’re trying to achieve. But I think that overall, I prefer 16/12 as the policy pro-reform activists should be pushing. I understand making relationships between more about minors who are actively pursuing adults, but I think this would exclude a lot of BL-YF relationships. The relationship dynamic between a BL and boy often is not symmetrically romantic. The boy is often straight, but enjoys having a sexual experience with whoever. Such a boy wouldn’t actively look for a man to have a sexual experience with. BL relationships often emerge more organically than what your app would allow.

Your proposal only really holds interest to me based on one factor- “it is more likely to be accepted by society than 16/12?” If so, as a transitional measure it could be worthwhile. But I don’t see that. So I’d rather directly lobby for 16/12.

My proposal would restrict the pool of available partners, yes... perhaps especially for BLs, I do admit that I don't have enough information in that respect. Crucially, it would require all MAPs to change the way they search for partners and become intimate with them. The way you're speaking seems to be to simply assert that you're unwilling to make any such change, or perhaps that you believe it would be impossible? The latter seems quite unlikely to me. Many potential partners would still be available, just not straight young boys that were uninterested in sex with men in the first place. Or girls who'd rather have dated their peers but find themselves feel pressured into a relationship by an older man (something that many older women told me used to be very common).

Part of my point is that BL-YF relationships such as those you describe are unlikely to be accepted by society any time soon. They're going to keep being described as "grooming" and the like until radical social change occurs. We should think about how to get there.

My problems with 16/12 are that: 1) It refers to vague "additional protections" for minors between 12 and 16 in relationships with adults, but said "protections" aren't properly described anywhere. It's effectively very close to the system that existed in the Netherlands quite recently, but that system failed to result in any actual change and was quickly overturned. 2) I see no reason why the proposition would have a genuinely transformative effect on society regarding the acceptability of AMSC.

My contention is that while 16/12 might be marginally more likely to be accepted by society (and I'm not sure of that at all, considering some conversations I've had with antis and anti-adjacent family members), the socially transformative benefits of my proposal might make it worthwhile to promote it.