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

[Jim Burton]

The problem common to this thread, others on this forum and what I witnessed in PCMA, is that people are putting too much faith in proposals that fully condone their own values and objectives.

I believe that I've personally been doing the exact opposite. There's no way my "own values and objectives" are perfectly in tune with my proposal of lowering the age of consent to 12 with the caveat that the youth aged 12-16 must always clearly initiate sexual activity with an adult.

I talk to an actual victim of CSA on a regular basis and integrate her perspective in my proposals. Do you?

As specified, I would like to see serious proposals as to how the examples I mentioned (not particularly yours) might be attainable via some middle ground. One possibility is that the example you mentioned (reducing the age of consent to 12 with proof of initiation) is a catalyst.

My challenge in return, would be that directly addressing sexual relations between minors and adults instead of the rights of youth in general, would be a wrong move, since it would be seen either rightly or wrongly as self-interested.

It could also be identified that by your own exacting standards, you are introducing a voluntarist legal norm and therefore inviting the risk that others may seek to "query" the explicit will of minors by introducing "tests", or diluting the revised age with close in age exemptions to lawyer out the "ick" factor.

As for talking to those whose lived experience is that of a sex abuse survivor, I have serious reservations about whether those kind of experiences will be a limiting factor for legal reforms, as much as say, lay concerns about the potential for abuse. Either way, I kind of tune out when participants in a debate start the process of anecdotal reporting, since there is nothing particularly methodical, insightful, and therefore indicative about it, unless the insight itself is useful.

[WavesInEternity]

One possibility is that the example you mentioned (reducing the age of consent to 12 with proof of initiation) is a catalyst.

That's the idea. My core belief is that we ought to engineer a legal and social context, in at least one jurisdiction, where harmless and positive consensual AMSC occurs on such a wide scale that it drowns out the few instances of abuse that will inevitably occur. Once this happens, we'd involve academia to prove that the reformist principles on which the system is built are pragmatically adequate, thus opening the door to further reform.

My challenge in return, would be that directly addressing sexual relations between minors and adults instead of the rights of youth in general, would be a wrong move, since it would be seen either rightly or wrongly as self-interested.

As a near-exclusive MAP myself, I don't think it's useful to pretend that the self-interest is nonexistent, but then again, my autism makes it effectively impossible for me to resort to deceptive or manipulative language.

It could also be identified that by your own exacting standards, you are introducing a voluntarist legal norm and therefore inviting the risk that others may seek to "query" the explicit will of minors by introducing "tests", or diluting the revised age with close in age exemptions to lawyer out the "ick" factor.

Yes, of course, the possibility is always there. My argument is that we're more likely to see a proposal be accepted in its undiluted form the closer it seems to existing legal norms.

As for talking to those whose lived experience is that of a sex abuse survivor, I have serious reservations about whether those kind of experiences will be a limiting factor for legal reforms, as much as say, lay concerns about the potential for abuse. Either way, I kind of tune out when participants in a debate start the process of anecdotal reporting, since there is nothing particularly methodical, insightful, and therefore indicative about it, unless the insight itself is useful.

It's not quite "anecdotal". My mother was very active in women's and CSA "survivor" (she loathes that term) groups. Precisely the kind of pressure groups that call for stricter laws regarding AMSC. She was expelled—quite literally, as in forced out the building—from the main one for asserting that, in some cases, involving the authorities may do more harm than good to the child. She is vehemently opposed to the fact that too many people who speak out against CSA haven't experienced it themselves nor are aware of the reality of it.

Most women of my mother's generation and the one before in my family were sexually assaulted; most of the men in my family are actual child rapists. Considering that my instinctive sexuality is similar to that of those men, I've spent over two decades of my life trying to understand the phenomenon of CSA and the fears and concerns that underlie the current legislative framework.

I can guarantee you that the "lay concerns" of the general public aren't all you should be concerned about with respect to obstacles to legal reform. The legitimate fears of the victims and their allies must be taken very seriously and addressed in any proposal we put forward.

[WavesInEternity]

I have serious reservations about whether those kind of experiences will be a limiting factor for legal reforms, as much as say, lay concerns about the potential for abuse.

It's just a hypothesis, but your impression in that respect may be due to the fact that you're more personally familiar with the gay/pederast side of the AMSC debate. The arguments against man-boy relationships do appear to be dominated by "lay concerns". With respect to man-girl relationships, the situation is different in the public sphere: the voices of self-identified abuse victims and their allies are prominent.

[Apple_gun]

Age of consent laws are pretty reasonable. The adult can certainly take advantage of the child and the adult taking advantage of the child is almost always the case. Also, children are very vulnerable beings both physically and psychologycally, it's too risk to let them have a relationship with someone who is 10x larger and 10x more experienced than them. Depending of the child's age, just penetration can cause severe damage to their little bodies. There is a natural power dynamic between adults and children, since the adult is responsible for the child's well being and the child is naturally weaker physically and emotionally. It's not reasonable to let a 45 year old have a relationship with a 7 year old, it exposes the 7 year old to have several risks of getting fucked up. Plus, the child as they are still learning about the world, what is right and what is wrong and how to regulate their emotions would make the adult tired after a few times of the relationship, it's not realistic to want to have a romantic relationship with them and a relationship as serious as marriage. Children can't deal with so many responsabilities at once, it would be really bad for them and they would have no one to protect them if the adult wants to abuse them. Hell, even with CPS and age of consent laws the abuse rate doesn't go down and children barely have any support, imagine how it would be without any of that. I believe at maximum they could consent between each other. Children should be having sex ith each other at maximum, not with adults. Adults expose them to many risks.

[WavesInEternity]

Age of consent laws are pretty reasonable.

They do have a clear and obvious reasoning behind them, but they also have many shortcomings. For starters, there's a lot of variation in the rate at which people mature. At 13, I was already more mature than 99% of 18-year-olds.

Even ignoring that, a strict age of consent of 16 or 18 is simply too high. Most teenagers are already sexually active by then, and it's quite harmful to force them to select their partners only among their peers. It causes a pooling of ignorance and inexperience that sets up early relationships for failure. Not to mention that many teenagers, especially teenage girls but also some boys, are preferentially or even exclusively attracted to older adults. Why should they have to wait until they're 16 to have an intimate relationship? Teenagers themselves would likely prefer a lower age of consent, as evidenced by Generation Wicked, a group of teenage girls in the UK in 2000 that was tasked by the government with coming up with policy recommendations, and who suggested lowering it to 12. 87% of teenagers later surveyed agreed.

I strongly recommend reading Tom O'Carroll's seminal 1980 book Paedophilia: the Radical Case: https://www.ipce.info/host/radicase/rad ... eaned1.pdf

The adult can certainly take advantage of the child and the adult taking advantage of the child is almost always the case. Also, children are very vulnerable beings both physically and psychologycally, it's too risk to let them have a relationship with someone who is 10x larger and 10x more experienced than them.

It depends on what you mean by "taking advantage" ("grooming" is often just another word for ordinary seduction when society disapproves of the age gap), and it depends on what age you're referring to. Obviously, given that you're a nepiophile, you can well say that the children you're attracted to are indeed vulnerable and that you're "10 times" larger and more experienced. However, in terms of the "experience gap", a 10-year-old dating a 30-year-old would be no different than a 20-year-old dating a 60-year-old. In fact, the gap is arguably twice as large in the second case (40 years instead of 20), so it should be twice as problematic?

Physical size should largely be a non-issue. I've always preferred to date petite women, is that problematic in any way?

In any case, if you ignore cases of opportunistic sexual abuse that generally occur within the child's family, there are many instances where the child is a willing participant, or even makes the first move. Obviously, the older the child, the more common such instances are.

Depending of the child's age, just penetration can cause severe damage to their little bodies.

The overwhelming majority (95%+) of non-coercive sexual contact between adults and children under 12 is non-penetrative. In fact, studies show that such contact tends to reflect sexual play between children of the age involved, suggesting that the paedophile has a keen awareness of what the child finds appropriate and inappropriate. The vast majority of such paedophiles (who have "offended" without violence, coercion, or manipulation) will tell you that they genuinely loved and cared for the child, and that the last thing they wanted was to hurt him/her. Other studies show that paedophiles have more empathy for children, and yet others suggest that paedophiles are more aroused by seeing the child's sexual pleasure than by directly getting pleasure of their own.

You also have to ask yourself: if a 7-year-old girl gets her private parts fondled to orgasm by the 40-year-old neighbour she loves and has a lot of fun with, what's more potentially harmful: the fondling, or getting the authorities involved after the horrified and angry reaction of the parents? The latter is what we call secondary harm, and a robust body of evidence demonstrates that its magnitude is generally much greater than that of the harm from the sexual contact that occurred.

There is a natural power dynamic between adults and children, since the adult is responsible for the child's well being and the child is naturally weaker physically and emotionally. It's not reasonable to let a 45 year old have a relationship with a 7 year old, it exposes the 7 year old to have several risks of getting fucked up. Plus, the child as they are still learning about the world, what is right and what is wrong and how to regulate their emotions would make the adult tired after a few times of the relationship, it's not realistic to want to have a romantic relationship with them and a relationship as serious as marriage. Children can't deal with so many responsabilities at once, it would be really bad for them and they would have no one to protect them if the adult wants to abuse them.

I certainly don't approve of any sexual relationships between a child and a parent or tutor, or any other adult in a position to provide for a dependent child. That is abuse of power, similar to an employer that would condition career advancement on the provision of sexual favours, and it's wrong at any age.

I also don't think that the vast majority of children are ready for committed relationships and marriage. That is perhaps the greatest mistake made by antis: viewing adult-child sexual intimacy from the lens of adult-adult sexual relationships. Sexual contact between adult and children is, in the vast majority of cases, casual and uncommitted. Adults who choose to have such sexual intimacy, and (again) do so without coercion, generally make a real effort to understand the unique nature of their young partner and what such a relationship entails. They simply do not treat it as they would treat a relationship with an adult.

Hell, even with CPS and age of consent laws the abuse rate doesn't go down and children barely have any support, imagine how it would be without any of that.

There are many arguments that suggest the situation would be better with less restrictive laws. I'm not necessarily calling for the abolition of age of consent laws altogether, at least not at this stage, but a lower age (or non-prosecution below a certain age) could in fact be helpful by avoiding relationships between adults and younger adolescents being hidden by default.

The current system is a vicious circle that pushes MAPs towards desperate predatory behaviour, and makes young people that seek out sexual contact with adults more likely to end up with partners that care little about their well-being.

What society really needs to prevent child sexual abuse is comprehensive sex & relationship education from an early age. Children need to learn what it really means to say "no", but as that would necessarily involve teaching them what it means to say "yes", society is unwilling to accept that.

[Bookshelf]

it's too risk to let them have a relationship with someone who is 10x larger and 10x more experienced than them

The reply above mine addressed most of this comment, but there is one point I'd like to make in addition.

Why is an experience gap necessarily a bad thing? It's quite a sexceptionalist point of view to imply that sex is harmful if two people have different levels of experience. Sex is the only area in life where engaging with someone who has more experience is somehow considered a bad or harmful event. When you're learning how to drive a car, you aren't thrown in a car with someone as equally inexperienced — you get in with an instructor, or someone experienced you know and trust. When learning anything new, the help of an experienced person is always seen as positive.

If anything, isn't forcing young people to engage with other inexperienced young people more risky? By criminalizing experienced involvement, all you have are two people who don't know what they're doing having sex; whatever issues there are around risk like STDs and pregnancy are increased significantly. They're less likely to use protection precisely because of that lack of experience, for example. A more experienced person can correct that. Like the above analogy, it's the equivalent of putting two people who can't drive in a car for alleged safety, then being surprised when they crash.

Above that, how do we handle experience differences in people of the same age? Is it harmful if a 26 year old virgin has sex with a 26 year old woman who's had 9 partners since turning 18? Must two teenagers/kids who sexually engage with one another be virgins otherwise there is going to be harm? Is it harmful towards a virgin adult if a sexually active 15 year old has sex with them? If experience is central to the issue, is a kid who's been sexually active with peers or maybe an adult since he was 8 good to have sex with when he's around 13?

Experience is never going to be a good argument because you can't argue that you're particularly experienced at certain ages. People lose their virginity at wildly different stages in life; people have different amounts of partners, and have tried different sexual experiences and kinks at different points in their life, and so on. Some people get into their 30s and 40s and still don't know what they're doing, like the plenty of 'straight' men realizing they're gay after an experience far later in life.

Everyone you have sex with is going to have a different level of experience than you, but this is only argued to be a bad thing when certain ages are involved, in addition to it only being a bad thing in terms of sex. It implies that experience is not a valid argument, rather an excuse.

[Fragment]

I don't see where a libertarian argument is going to succeed given the above social norms you just acknowledged. Nor would lawmakers support an uncomplicated law reform that reduces the number of transactions that can be legally gamified or managed by bureaucrats - look at how assisted dying is being legalized for example.

So what if sex is uncomplicated? Only liberals who are not erotophobes will come close to acknowledging that, since consent mantra is the resort of phoney liberals.

Or look at drug legalization- accomplished by a harm reduction model. Libertarians can't even win drug reform based on libertarian grounds. What chance do libertarian arguments stand when it comes to sex?

Reform, whether 16/12 or another model such as "emancipation certificates", will need to be framed, as Jim says, as a kind of "harm reduction" approach. Protectionist, paternalist prohibition is not a functional way to achieve the goals of reduced harm- it pushes harms underground and silences victims of abuse. A harm reduction approach would actually better empower youth, especially teens, to take control of their experiences and the narrative around them. It would remove the 'chilling effect' that causes so many cases of abuse to go unreported. Punishing offenders rarely helps victims when it comes to AMSC.

[WavesInEternity]

Or look at drug legalization- accomplished by a harm reduction model. Libertarians can't even win drug reform based on libertarian grounds. What chance do libertarian arguments stand when it comes to sex?

That's not really accurate. In North America, especially the USA, cannabis and psychedelics legalization was first pioneered by activists from both the right and the left, combining both right-libertarian values and progressive harm reduction arguments. Either side would never have won the fight alone. In the states that first made the bold move, starting with Colorado, it was very much a "bipartisan" issue.

Most importantly, drug legalization actually happened because drug use kept increasing despite prohibition. Widespread illegalism was a critical factor. And some countries like the UK are still choosing to double down with ever more absurd laws.

I do agree that a harm reduction perspective has a place in MAP rights and youth rights, but it's not sufficient to dismantle the dominant narrative. We must use multiple arguments, fight on multiple fronts simultaneously, and appeal to many different audiences to find common ground. Thus why we need to avoid divisiveness like the plague, which the MAP movement has been egregiously bad at until now.

[Fragment]

That's not really accurate. In North America, especially the USA, cannabis and psychedelics legalization was first pioneered by activists from both the right and the left, combining both right-libertarian values and progressive harm reduction arguments. Either side would never have won the fight alone. In the states that first made the bold move, starting with Colorado, it was very much a "bipartisan" issue.

I'm thinking more of harder drugs. And Europe more than the US. Injecting rooms have very little to do with libertarian arguments, they're almost exclusively coming from a harm reduction perspective.

Most importantly, drug legalization actually happened because drug use kept increasing despite prohibition. Widespread illegalism was a critical factor. And some countries like the UK are still choosing to double down with ever more absurd laws.

This is one of the arguments I believe is strongest for decriminalization of AMSC. Have stricter laws actually reduced CSA by much if at all?

I do agree that a harm reduction perspective has a place in MAP rights and youth rights, but it's not sufficient to dismantle the dominant narrative. We must use multiple arguments, fight on multiple fronts simultaneously, and appeal to many different audiences to find common ground. Thus why we need to avoid divisiveness like the plague, which the MAP movement has been egregiously bad at until now.

I'm sorry if I sounded like I see it in purely binary terms with only one path forward. I agree that unity, but diversity is the path forward. Respecting a variety of approaches and tackling issues from multiple angles without acting as if those who take a different approach are the "enemy". I was more just agreeing with Jim that a purely libertarian line of reasoning is likely to fail and that it's more likely to be a "public health" approach that leads the charge. And I say this as someone who is fairly libertarian leaning and wishes society would be more freedom-loving.

I don't wear the "Communications Officer" hat for Mu right now. My unstable legal situation and mental health got me to take a step back. But even without the title I still see my role as trying to unite the community and bring various threads together. We're so scattered across gender preference, contact stance and generation. We don't all need to part of the same forums, but I wish each group knew a little more about what the other groups are doing. BoyMoment and the pediverse, for example, seem to be a Venn diagram with zero overlap.

[WavesInEternity]

I'm thinking more of harder drugs. And Europe more than the US. Injecting rooms have very little to do with libertarian arguments, they're almost exclusively coming from a harm reduction perspective.

I'm not sure this is a good comparison. Considering that I personally suffer from opioid addiction (I'm still on methadone), have overcome other severe addictions, and have seen a friend lose years of his life and $300 000 on cocaine, I do not support the legalization of "hard drugs", only the decriminalization of possession in small amounts. Those are extremely dangerous substances and will remain so no matter how society changes.

Using injecting rooms (which I have done) is definitely not something I'd compare to the approach I advocate regarding AMSC. The legalization of psychedelics is more similar: I believe that, with proper safeguards in place and with appropriate change in people's mindsets, psychedelic use can become something that a substantial minority of people do with positive outcomes and without harm in the vast majority of cases.

I'm sorry if I sounded like I see it in purely binary terms with only one path forward. I agree that unity, but diversity is the path forward. Respecting a variety of approaches and tackling issues from multiple angles without acting as if those who take a different approach are the "enemy". I was more just agreeing with Jim that a purely libertarian line of reasoning is likely to fail and that it's more likely to be a "public health" approach that leads the charge. And I say this as someone who is fairly libertarian leaning and wishes society would be more freedom-loving.

I don't wear the "Communications Officer" hat for Mu right now. My unstable legal situation and mental health got me to take a step back. But even without the title I still see my role as trying to unite the community and bring various threads together. We're so scattered across gender preference, contact stance and generation. We don't all need to part of the same forums, but I wish each group knew a little more about what the other groups are doing. BoyMoment and the pediverse, for example, seem to be a Venn diagram with zero overlap.

Agreed entirely. The "public health" approach will appeal to the liberal-minded individuals who are likely to be the first to change their minds on such a contentious topic. This sort of discourse is also what's needed to address the legitimate concerns of CSA victims and their advocates.