Fragment wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2024 6:48 am
PorcelainLark wrote: ↑Tue Aug 27, 2024 8:53 pm
Therefore, I think the strongest current argument for the age of consent, would have to be on the basis of power dynamics rather than understanding-based consent, but that's a topic for a different thread.
I'm interested in this because I agree that the power disparity is the strongest argument anti positions have. In particular the ability to say "no" and refuse to engage.
The other argument is the argument about informed decision making. I think it's not just pregnancy and STDs that complicate sex but the emotional, social and relationship dynamics that can emerge out of a sexual encounter.
I also think that we need to stop seeing these two attributes as linked- they aren't really. In a sense "informed decision making" sets the lower age of consent where a minor knows enough about sex to engage it in but may need protections about exploitation (Romeo and Juliet laws in the current paradigm, or something like Germany offers for 14-15 year olds). "The capacity to say no" in a sense informs the older age of consent where partners are considered as being able to engage as equals.
I haven't fully developed this thought, but it aligns with BLR's pro-reform model where instead of an age of consent we are talking about
ages of consent based on the emerging capabilities of youth.
Sure, but even then does arguments by antis are flawed. While these social dynamics exist in intergenerational relationships, they aren't inherent to sex. In this sense, power disparities are inherent in all personal relationships, whether it's between adults and minors, or between peers. That minor-adult relationships have power imbalances doesn't taint it anymore than it taints to heterosexual relationships between peers. In that regard, antis are hypocritical in that they'll apply double standards to intergenerational relationships, even if the youth isn't that young. And also, there are multiple factors at play other than age when it comes to power dynamics, such as race, gender, class, and disability. Which one of those would be the most important in determining inequality would be subjective, as shown by how the existence of concepts like male privilege and white privilege are often debated continuously. And that's assuming intimate relationships are internal power struggles in the first place.
It can also be argued that many of the disparities are due to ageist policies such as the minority status that makes anyone below the age of majority the assigned guardian's ward. So, it can be argued that many of the disparities between minors and adults aren't really inherent, especially when it comes to capabilities w.r.t. to adults and older minors.
Which brings me to my next point: The biggest hypocrisy of antis (particularly of the leftist persuasion) is how men and women need to strive towards equality, only to be adamant when it comes to striving towards adult-minor equality, even if said minor is 15 years older or around that age. In this case, they'll say how any male-female inequality must be due to the patriarchy, only to have deterministic when it comes to age-based differences (legal or biological), even if age is arguable more fluid than gender.
So really, should we strive to eliminate as much as possible the environmental/social conditions that perpetuate adult-minor power disparities, or not? Should the dynamics in which sexual relationships occur be changed to make the social environment more favourable towards AMSC, or not? Because those are the relevant questions society must ask itself when it comes to dealing with power imbalances. Because if it can't arrive to such a debate, we activists will have a long way to go before actual acceptance occurs. And of course, we will also need to entertain this debate, in this case whether we want to change the dynamics towards a balance between protection and autonomy that is more favourable to youth autonomy, or just take for granted said dynamics however unjust they may be.