MAP Forum

I recently read O'Carroll's "The radical case" book, and I found myself in strong agreement with the proposal there exposed, which involved the removal of the age of consent, with some well thought caveats. I think I should go back to the book to pull out the main points, even if probably many on this forum know them by heart. I will try to do that in the next few days and I would be interested to hear your criticisms about it.

Fragment wrote: Wed Jul 17, 2024 5:25 am In my case 12 is largely anecdotal and coincides with the end of elementary education. And it roughly correlates with an age where most youths have started maturing sexually (puberty). And it's the age that exists as an absolute age of consent in multiple English-speaking jurisdictions already.

If you ask "when do some kids naturally start playing around sexually?" most progressively minded people will admit that it starts to happen "around 12".

There are, of course, debates to be had about earlier ages. Some non-Western tribal cultures have practised sexual acts with pre-pubescents with no observable harms. Yet in our western context "12" is a pretty big deal. The Netherlands set it at 12 for slightly over a decade and the political move to change it from that "12" was not based on harms caused by the old system, as far as I'm aware.

Fair enough. I suppose it's stepping stone towards getting people thinking about whether sex is as big a deal as we make it out to be.

Fragment wrote: Sat Aug 03, 2024 4:37 pm Right now people don't even see teens as sexual- or do in some weird cognitively dissonant way. If they can't see teens as sexual, they'll never seen children as sexual. Even as a moderate pro-c I think that teen sexuality is closer to adult sexuality than it is to child sexuality.

If we're going to revamp sexual values in society in their entirety I think it has to start with breaking down some of the myths regarding who and what is sexual.

I suppose you've got to start somewhere.

I have asked youths what they think the age should be. Most of the time the number is a single digit.

I think it should be all about the will of the child. Take any age you want, some kids will have favorable or unfavorable outcomes to intimacy. Hell, we know some kids wouldn't kiss or like to be kissed by their parents. Some kids won't stop kissing or demanding kissing once one gets them going. Some kids develop no issues with their experiences and others do.

My own experiences were both good and bad. One of the youths I know had a bad experience and at his own admission with other youths had a good experience. AS a MAP, the only thing I care about is rather the youth(s) consented or not. If they did not consent I want to see the rapist put to death we have no room in this world where there are willing kids.

I have seen a video where kids would chase adults all over their community begging to be F'ed and wanting to be paid for it.
There are cases where the kids did want to criminal charges to happen to their lovers.
I think most kids who tell are looking for answers to their experiences not always trying to get someone in trouble. Sometimes kids are tricked into filing charges. They are later taught to hate and that is what people grow up to being all these anti-free-will towards children.

In an ideal world the AoC would be puberty, but girls start as early as 6 or 7 and boys start as late as 13 or 14. A consistent legal standard would be challenging, but if an arbitrary line had to be drawn somewhere, it should be at 12. Most children would have started puberty by then.

terminally_unique wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 10:16 pm In an ideal world the AoC would be puberty, but girls start as early as 6 or 7 and boys start as late as 13 or 14. A consistent legal standard would be challenging, but if an arbitrary line had to be drawn somewhere, it should be at 12. Most children would have started puberty by then.

What do you think about our 16/12 proposal? It's a bit less arbitrary, but still potentially acceptable to non-MAPs if framed the right way.

BLueRibbon wrote: Fri Nov 01, 2024 3:19 pm

terminally_unique wrote: Thu Oct 31, 2024 10:16 pm In an ideal world the AoC would be puberty, but girls start as early as 6 or 7 and boys start as late as 13 or 14. A consistent legal standard would be challenging, but if an arbitrary line had to be drawn somewhere, it should be at 12. Most children would have started puberty by then.

What do you think about our 16/12 proposal? It's a bit less arbitrary, but still potentially acceptable to non-MAPs if framed the right way.

I’m wholewheartedly on board with it even as a self-identified anti-contact MAP. I think it’s a very reasonable middle ground. The Netherlands had the same law as recently as 2002.

BLueRibbon wrote: Sat Jul 13, 2024 12:11 pm One thing I've been thinking about is how people talk of a power imbalance in AMSC. It may apply to young children, but I don't think it applies to teens. As I will explain in an upcoming essay:

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 traits that we typically associate with teens. Except when we talk about AMSC, adolescents are generally described as disobedient, rebellious, antagonistic, unwilling to yield to authority figures, and highly skilled at manipulation.

On the question of vulnerability to power imbalances, children and teens are simply not in the same league. Given the highly anti-social traits of teens, the likelihood of the exploitation of a power imbalance is no more of a risk than it would be in many adult relationships. Indeed, there are many countries that still have horribly poor attitudes to women, where men are firmly in charge, and these countries do not outright prohibit sex between men and women.

Why do people pretend that teens are like children, and so vulnerable to adults?

I think people think Power imbalances comes difference in age when in reality it comes more from difference in roles: For example, teacher and student, support worker and client, parent and child etc. I think a lot of people stereotype adults/people over a certain age to be mentors, authority figures, parents or some sort of position of trust because a lot of them are stereotypically older and hence possibly why they beleive relationships between minors and adults are unequal becuase they think all adults/people over a certain age are like their school teachers, parents, social workers etc.but in reality, that’s not the case and they are just individuals just like the child themselves. In the workplace, there are situations where there is an age gaps between your co-workers and one could be 16 and the other could be 37 but when they are together they feel like peers and don’t notice the age difference. Also I have seen support workers being 16-17 and working with vulnerable people who are older than them. I have seen 16-17 year support workers telling clients who are older than them what to do and telling them to behave or be like “is it appropriate behaviour?” and telling them off- so power imbalances can be reversed with the teenager having more power over the adult. Also if a teenager is in a cafe and another customer tells them not to smoke, the teenager would most likely ignore them or feel like the adult who doesn’t work there has no authority over them.

BLueRibbon wrote: Sat Jul 13, 2024 12:11 pm It may apply to young children,

It may when people limit or restric them instead of letting them express freely which helps them wide their mental and physical capabilities. Which is what happen with teens.

BLueRibbon wrote: Mon Jul 08, 2024 3:57 am What do you propose as an alternative to a flat AoC of 16 or 18? Or do you agree with the current system?

I actually don't like blanket bans for much if anything for a number of reasons:

1. They are impossible to nuance about in court, destroying any kind of presumption of innocence. Even in the (rare) case a youth rapes an adult, the adult is punishable for having had sex with the youth (against their will) because of the blanket ban.
2. They are discriminatory against youths: When a couple (or more!) of adults decide on sexual interaction, they only have to have consent from each other for the "abuse" label to be rightfully eliminated. When an adult and a youth have sex with each other, however, the government stepped in with the blanket ban and thusly in the best case, they will have to wait a couple of years before their first time. Without close in age exceptions, this even applies between youths.
3. They drive youths seeking youth-adult sexual relationships out of the pool of law-abiding adults who seek such relationships, effectively leading to them being far more likely to come into contact with a potential abuser.
4. They stigmatize general talk about youth-adult sex, including cases of actual CSA, because if such is spoken out about, the youth may be seen as 'irresponsible". Similarly, if a positive experience is talked about, parents/other adults still have ground to have the adult the youth had a relationship with arrested, effectively ending the relationship.

However, for the moment, given society's structures of parenting and education which are inherently coercive, one cannot assume that a youth of any age is truly able to say 'no' against an offer from an adult (they've been "trained" to obey adults every single day). Thusly, before I would almost abolish the age of consent, coercion of youths should in general be strictly forbidden under strict penalties which may range from extremely high minimum fines to life imprisonment if such is deemed necessary for the protection of the youth's liberties. Only if that happens can the age of consent be effectively abolished as a blanket ban. This can also generally ease the debate about the age of consent. Thusly, I would propose the following set of rules instead of the blanket ban:

• As a transition measure, sex between adults and youths under a certain age (like 12) is only allowed if the youth requests such or takes the initiative;
• Where roles lead to an inherent power imbalance (like caretaker-offspring or doctor-client), sex is absolutely forbidden for anyone of any age except if the subordinate role requests such or takes the initiative (this does not include a mentorship or a 'live-in caretaker' that the youth voluntarily accepted);

However, it is still very much possible to state an age below which youths are commonly unable to say 'yes' or 'no', which is commonly known to be the age of 2 (remember the 'terrible twos'? They're when a kid learns to say no and resist authority). If an age of consent is essential to passing this proposal, it should be no higher than this age.