Fragment wrote: Wed Jan 08, 2025 1:45 am
I enjoy debate. So although I don't identify as anti-c, I'll throw some strong counter arguments your way so you can further refine your thinking.
Thanks, its good to be prepared for when im arguing wirh anti cs
1. Here's the definition of consent straight from the dictionary
“Permission for something to happen or agreement to do something”
So children are incapable of agreeing to things? Children are incapable of giving permission for things to happen? No child in the history of existence on planet earth has ever agreed or given permission to anything ever? Doesn't that directly contradict the argument that kids cant say no to adults? Kids are sentient human beings, not dolls, they agree to things all the time. Legally, no, kids have no autonomy or agency, legally kids cant consent, but thats the law, not a kids innate power.
This is pure equivocation. People don't use (sexual) consent in the way you're using it. Dictionary definitions are simplistic and often fail to capture much of a term's social nuance.
-I used the dictionary definition because every anti c has their own unique definition of consent. Its impossible to argue for or against something if your opponent can just change the definition every time they see fit
In a sexual sense consent is not just an agreement, it is an agreement that is informed and communicated clearly and freely.
-My argument is that kids should be informed and are capable of communicating their wants and needs, including sex, clearly.
If someone is pressured into doing something, that is not consent. If they don't know what they're agreeing to, that is not consent. If they are hesitant in their agreement, that is not consent.
-And if a kid ISNT pressured into doing something, it IS consent. If a kid is informed on what they are agreeing to, it IS consent, if they enthusiastically agree, it IS consent.
Kids cannot consent to a cell phone contract for many of the above reasons.
-Yes they can. For many of MY above reasons.
They cannot consent to many kinds of labor.
Yes they can.
Sex with an adult inevitably involves explicit or implicit use of the adult's power.
-Sex between a man and a woman explicitly or implictly involves the use of a mans physical strength or social power. Which is why women cant consent to men right?
2. So kids can comprehend artificial modern social concepts like calculus and Shakespeare and social niceties and long division, but an innate biological urge observed in even the human fetus(human fetuses have been shown masturbating to completion) is impossible for kids to comprehend. Sex is in fact so easy to comprehend that even bugs and frogs can comprehend it.
This again misses what we're talking about when we talk about sex. Does a kid have the relationship experience to understand the jealousy associated with sex? Do they understand how having sex with a man will impact how they are seen by others (as a slut if they're a girl, as a fag if they're a boy)? When someone says "kids don't understand sex" they are talking about the social baggage associated with sex (and virginity), not the physics of it.
-Which supports my argument that the harm is all social, not intrinsic. Me personally, I dont want children to be harmed, so I am agaisnt the social structures that harm kids. Call me, anti “anti c”
3. So inform them? Am I missing something?
We dont call educating a teenager on driving “grooming” despite the potential risk for permanant injury or death. We dont call supervising kids swimming “child abuse” despite the risk of injury or death. We dont call going horseback riding with your kid to bond with them trauma inducing, despite the completely unncessary risk to the child and the danger of 900 pound kicking machine that gets easily startled. No, we just educate the kids on the potential risks and benefits and either do it with them or supervise them to pleasurably bond and teach. All of these things are far more dangerous, life altering, and DEADLY compared to a child having a bad or neutral experience with sex.
Being aware of the risks of being abused doesn't mean you're immune to having it happen. Knowing that an adult man is 2-3 times heavier than you and can hold you down doesn't mean you now have the capacity to stop him. And anyway, information should be imparted in an age-appropriate manner. Topics like the nature of God and death are progressively explained to children as they age- we don't expect full understanding straight away.
-I never said kids where immune to risks or being abused, I just said the risks of sex, compared to the other examples listed, are far lower and if one should be accepted so should the other. Yes, an adult man is far heavier than the average woman or child, but we dont ban sex between men and woman. We create laws to make it easisier to hold men accountable if they do force themselves on a woman. Not to mention, this isnt linear. What about cases between a large 14 year old boy and a petite 20 year old woman? This only seems like an argument against male adult and minor sex, not an argument against female adult and minor sex, espcially female adult and male minor sex, since the average boy is equally strong or stronger than the average adult woman by middle school. Or maybe female minors CAN consent to male adults but only if the male has dwarfism. Maybe we can compromise and make a height of consent instead of an age of consent, or a BMI of consent, lol. And what is “age appropriate”? To an anti c sex isnt “age appropriate”, to me it is. If we are arguing based on whatever the artificial social use of “age appropriate” is then we will get nowhere, since “age appropriate” just depends on your individual philosophy, at least when it comes to sex. Children are fully capable of understanding that adults may be physically stronger than them, and the risk if an adult uses that strength negatively, but we arent banning adults from play fighting with kids or hugging kids are we? Despite the fact that a play fight or a hug can easily turn into coerced physical aggression that child doesnt have the capacity to stop that will scar them for life. And how can you understand things you aren't allowed to participate in? With God and death, kids are allowed to participate in church with adults(with is rife with religious abuse between adults and minors, and a good argument to raise the age of consent for religion and consider all forms of religious education “grooming”) and funerals with adults, but they are banned from participating in sex with adults.
4. What are “the consequences”? Seriously. That a baby gets in your tummy? Because we explain that to kids all the time. The risks of disease? Because we also explain the concepts of disease and disease prevention to kids all the time. Seriously, what are the consequences of sucking dick that are so severe and complicated that children can't grasp it but can grasp horses and automobiles and not getting stomped to death or run over?
You're conflating different levels of risk. The risk of getting an STI or pregnant from sex is higher than the risk of traumatic injury from a horse or car. And again, you're totally ignoring the social consequences. A teenage mother is tarred for life as a "whore". Maybe a sex-positive society would have different values, but in that case pushing pro-c before achieving that sex-positive society is reckless and mixing up priorities.
-Motor vehicle accidents are the second leading cause of death in minors, only after guns. Considering all the other ways people are killed, that makes cars pretty high risk to me. Not to mention the long term emotional trauma of being in an accident or having a loved one or peer in an accident. STIs can be fully or mostly prevented with condoms, and not all forms of sexual contact can even lead to an STI or pregnancy in the first place, yet the average anti c would argue that a handjob carries the same risks of unprotected vaginal penetration. For pregnancy, theres sex ed, birth control and abortion. Oh wait, minors “cant consent” to anything that would make sex SAFER for them can they? Even full sex education outside of the basic “this is a penis, this is a vagina” is considered “grooming” in most places and will get you a call from cps. Hell, now adays, since the definition of grooming is getting broader and broader, even the most basic sex ed is getting removed from schools or can only be taught when the parents consent. Minors are heavily discouraged from getting to birth control or an abortion until 18, and current laws are fixing to raise the age or ban it entirely, especially for minors. Thats extremely convenient isnt it? If you dont like something because you think its “inappropriate”, just argue that its “unsafe”, and if you are countered by practices that would make said thing more safe, just argue that is “inappropriate”, thats why the “age appropriate” argument is bull and so many pro cs complain about anti c arguments being circular. The rest of your argument is arguing in agreement with me. I agree that outside of easily preventable, non life threatning risk, the harm is all social, which is why I am fighting against the very social norms that harm these children in the first place. If you agree that the harm to minors is social but are fighting to keep the very same social standards that harm minors in the first place, any argument that you are trying to “protect the children” is bullshit. And no just “getting rid of all the pdfiles” and “stopping minors from sexualizing” isnt possible, at least not without harming minors even more than the sex your trying to prevent in the first place.
5. So are motor vehicle accidents, one of the leading cause of death and injury in children and teenagers, not to mention technically unnecessary due to other forms of transportation, but we don't ban kids from it due to the “risk” of harm, no matter how frequent or severe, because its a helpful skill to have and enjoyable. Poor diets are the leading causes of obesity in minors, yet we dont ban kids from eating candy despite the potential risks of getting infections, losing body parts, gaining a lifelong disability like diabetes. No,, we just educate, supervise, and participate directly, which is perfectly understandable when it comes to all these other examples but magically becomes a fate worse than death(literally) when it comes to sex.
Again, you're talking about different things. The physical dangers you mention are not the same as the emotional trauma that comes from sexual abuse. Sex functions differently to most other human recreation activities. If you doubt that, try inviting your buddies over for sex instead of fantasy football and see how they react.
-Good point, I forgot to bring up the emotional and social trauma from being ostracized from your peers for being overweight or having a disability like diabetes. The emotional turmoil of knowing you could loose your limbs or even die due to poor diet choices you made as a kid. Plenty of people have been traumatized into anxiety disorders, ptsd, or eating disorders due to the social shame, which is a good argument that kids cant consent to candy. Or the lifelong emotional trauma that comes from loosing a loved one or a peer in a car accident or being in one yourself. The ptsd that comes from nearly killing someone in a car accident or the constant shame from being overweight, both from peers, AND adults. And my argument is that sex SHOULDNT function differently from most human recreationally activities, which, I know, is a hard bargain in a majority christian society that views sex worse than death. The last sentence is once again just arguing that the problems are social, because my buddies would be 100% down for that.
6. So why do we constantly have to fight so tooth and nail against children trying to participate in sexual activities? Why does it take years, if not decades, to convince children that their sexual experience was bad? How come kids constantly go against our backs and have sex anyways even when we tell them time and time again what a sinful evil it is? If its so unwanted, then why do children themselves make up almost the majority of cases of csa, even without adult intervention or “grooming”? What nasty, highly prolific predator is running around grooming human fetuses into masturbating? Is their an army of nepis grooming babies and toddlers into humping their stuffed animals? How come its almost impossible to manipulate children into enjoying physical abuse or emotional abuse, but the minute any form of sex is involved, all it takes is simply informing them of what it is and the kid is brainwashed and ruined for life?
This is a strawman. Anti-cs don't deny that some kids are sexual and that some even would like adult partners.
-Yes they do.
However, the majority are more interested in age-appropriate partners.
-No they aren't. Kids are immediately dismissed whenever they show sexual or romantic interest in adults, since it would be “inappropriate” to reciprocate, and kids are age segregated and denied any opportunity to build meaningful relationships outside of their same aged peers or parents/teachers, why would kids bother making advances at someone if they know they will get shut down every time? And yet despite this, kids (at least teliophile kids) are SO interested in adults that they do it anyways. (And trust me, kids crush HEAVY on their teachers, when I was in middle school, we had a hot math teacher and half of the lesson was just our teacher turning down date requests and ignoring flirtation, he almost had to get the principle involved). And Antis dont say that kids cant consent to ADULTS, they say that kids cant consent PERIOD. If antis were interested in only “age appropriate” partners for minors, then they wouldn't slut shame even same aged peer relationships so heavily for sexual and even romantic encounters. They wouldnt fight for the age of consent to be 18 or higher, as people under 18 would be allowed to have same aged sexual and romantic relationships with others under 18. Even a 17 year old is a child rapist for having sex with another willing 17 year old, since it is inherently non consensual based on age alone. Minors aren't old enough to consent to sex, but are old enough to be branded as child rapists, because thats how much anti cs care about children. There wouldn't be so many minors on the sex offender registry, as young as FIVE, for “playing doctor” with other same aged minors if the average anti didnt think this way. The majority of minors being interested in same aged peers is impossible to disprove when minors are legally and socially forced to spend the majority of their life in a building where they are only allowed to interact with same aged peers or immediate authority figures like teachers or parents, and any relationship that doesn't follow this exact model gets dismissed as “grooming” or “inappropriate” by those very authority figures and forcefully broken up with threats of violence or prison time. I know that for myself, even in elementary school, plenty of my peers would have crushes on their teachers or cute adult celebrities. The majority of antis being interested in “age appropriate” partners for minors is a blatant lie. Unless by “age appropriate” you mean “no partners whatsoever until 18 or higher”. Which I find cruel and unusual, even if the antis don't.
The current laws might block some relationships that would be positive, but more than that they provide a solution for the many cases where a younger person didn't desire a relationship with an adult.
-And what about when it WAS desired? Why cant we just give kids the same protections as adults against forced sexual encounters instead of banning it entirely?
Anti-cs think it is more important to protect potential victims than to allow horny teens unrestricted sexual access.
-And what happens to those “horny teens” (and pre teens and small children, since they “play doctor” too) when they are found out for their mutually desired sexual encounter? They get sent to juvinelle detention or prison and get placed on the sex offender registry for statutory or mutally stautory rape for decades or possibly even life. They often have to drop out of their education permanently, without even having finished elementary, middle, or highschool. They cant find jobs once they turn 18 and have to permanently depend on their parents, if their parents even want to support a “rapist” in the first place. They cant get housing or accommodations and often end up homeless, before they are even old enough to consent to a cell phone contract. The sex offender label bars them from having “age appropriate” platonic relationships with their peers, or even be in a school zone. Not to mention by the time the reach the age of consent, it would be pretty damn hard to find a partner who would want to be with a “rapist”. Many of them end up committing suicide, life over before they're even old enough to buy a beer because they “might” have expiernced or caused a negative sexual encounter. This is protecting the children. This is keeping the children safe from harm. Sometimes the gap is as small as a 17 and 16 year old in places where the age of consent is 17. Sometimes they are the exact same age but both below their local age of consent. Are these children not victims to you? Is ruining a childs life both sexually and non sexually before it even began “worth it” because they “cant consent” and “MIGHT be harmed sexually”? Because thats the exact same logic used to justify this barbaric treatment. This isnt just spiting “horny teenagers”, this is destrying the life of any child under 18, “just in case” someone has a negative sexual encounter. And if you argue that minors CAN consent to other minors, what magical physical and emotional change happens overnight on ones 18th birthday that changes them from a potential partner to a “potential” predator? One thats not caused by the very same social and legal standards im fighting against? No minor is immune to these laws, as even children in kindergarten are victimized and get placed on the sex offender registry, incarcerated and labeled as “rapists” for (potentially) victimizing children. But victimizing both children and adults is all worth it to protect “””“potential”””” victims right? Not even actual victims, /potential/ victims. At what point does the very real and tangible harm given to children from these draconian punishments overwrite the “potential risk” of harm without them? How are anti c adults able to justify harming real children because they “might” be harmed by other children and adults? What next, should we just castrate all adults and minors preemptively because of the risk that a minor may possibly maybe potentially be victimized just in case?
7. Excuse me, what?! Has anyone who uses this argument ever even met a kid before? Trying making a toddler eat their veggies and see how blindly they obey you. Try making a teenager do their homework to see that blind adult/child obedience first hand. The whole thing with kids is that their own innate desires are so strong that it is extremely difficult to get a kid to do something an adult wants unless the kid genuinely wants it, yet when what a kid wants is sex, the act of sex is considered so dirty and impure that no “pure and innocent” kid would ever want it, so its written of as “grooming”. In fact, kids are so hard wired NOT to blindly follow adults that it takes physical coercion like beatings or spankings to make them follow the simplest of orders, which I agree is wrong, and I agree physical coercion into sex should be considered abuse. Heres the thing though, anti cs consider even non physically coercive sex, even when the child proposes the idea and willingly goes along with it(which antis deny ever happens despite the proof that it happens, and extremely frequently at that), a form of abuse. The very concept of grooming in most instances of AMSC is shaky at best. You could also say that its grooming for abuse, but without the coercion, whats the abuse? Is it the sex? Is sex innately abusive?
Sex is new and shocking to many kids so they don’t know how to react.
-And my argument is that it SHOULDN'T be.
They don't know they are supposed to say 'no' to it.
-Why are they “supposed” to say no? Why cant they say yes? That goes directly against what I am arguing, that kids SHOULD be allowed to say no OR yes if they desire, they shouldn't be forced by adults into saying no just like they shouldnt be forced by adults into saying yes. Pro cs arent arguing for “supposed to” in sex, only anti cs are
They act out of uncertainty and fear. Even if they aren't threatened, there is an instinctual fear of physical coercion in intimate situations.
-Of course they do, if they are taught from birth that sex is dangerous and wrong and will hurt them immensely and that every adult who desires sex with them is an evil predator who wants to physically coerce them and doesnt have their best interest in heart I would be scared too. The “stranger danger” and “abstinence only” form of sex ed for kids has been around for the past couple decades, where have you been? And even then, not all kids react with uncertainty and fear, plenty of kids eagerly and enthusiastically say yes to sex, yes after being informed, yes without physical coercion, but that is called “grooming”, and I have already argued against the concept of grooming with a lack of physical coercion and when proper sex education is given in my previous paragraphs.
Doing things because you're bribed goes against the idea of "freely given" consent.
-Who said anything about bribing? You still have the implicit belief that anyone who wants to have sex with a kid is trying to lure them into white vans with bribes of lost puppy's and candy, if the only form of adult minor sex you can conceive is an adult forcing a child in some way using either physical coercion or “bribery” then you have a very shallow mind.
and no hard feelings if I came off aggressive