MAP Forum

Kylelomaz wrote: Tue Mar 11, 2025 6:31 am

Lennon72 wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 4:34 pm Well, I do suppose it somewhat better then having age of consent law. But under what criteria would it be considered permissible should something like what you propose go into effect? Also, we would still be asking the government for permission and the government would be making the rules. No different then now, Frankly, I want as little government involvement as reasonably possible.

Well what would your ideal age of consent law be would you like it if there were no age of laws?

Yes, I think we are better off without those.

Jim Burton wrote: Thu Mar 13, 2025 9:18 pm I am proposing an assessment of basic capacity as precursor to minors having elective adult rights, and not a "consent test" or any such thing.

Well then, that sounds a whole lot like what my 13-year-old self used to advocate more than two decades ago. I wish I could share my old essays on the matter here, but alas, they're publicly available under my legal name.

Here are a couple key questions that come to mind:

- What would the test apply to? Sexuality with adults only, or also sexuality with other minors? Would it cover non-sexual matters such as voting, marriage, and entering binding contracts? What about risky, "sinful" behaviour such as gambling or drug/alcohol use? Would there be a single test, or several for each category?

- Who would be tasked with creating the test, and how exactly would it be created? I don't find myself particularly amenable to the notion that the current political class could come up with a reasonable procedure, and academics who might be capable of doing unbiased work in that respect would doubtless be censored and vilified (see Rind et al.).

Jim Burton wrote: Thu Mar 13, 2025 9:18 pm The argument that e.g. feminists would swoop in and corrupt the system beyond what is initially proposed, can also be used against straightforward consent laws. This does appear to be what has happened, with multiple jurisdictions each clinging to their own magic age lines, below which no "child" is capable of consent.

Exactly, but when we discuss the prospect of changing the law, we ought to take into account how competing propositions might have variable susceptibility to such corruption, in addition to the particular circumstances in which a proposal for reform might come to pass.

I can't shake off the impression that a test that would currently be deemed acceptable by the powers that be would be geared not only towards older teenagers, but also towards a certain sex-negative way of life and understanding of sexuality, and the majority of "children" that doesn't pass the test could very well be shown the brainwashed minority of young children who does pass as "proof" that the system is fair. "See, they understand the dangers and complexity of sex. You don't."

Jim Burton wrote: Thu Mar 13, 2025 9:18 pm With "children" of multiple ages each consenting within the same effective jurisdiction, you at least have the possibility of open deliberation over the subject matter, with that being the individual, their circumstances, their ability to understand what is happening, rather than an arbitrary consent line. With the present system, we don't discuss the circumstances, because they are very easy to dismiss with a simple test of age.

The issue remains that society would be irremediably hostile to such a proposal in the first place. The benefits you describe for our cause, as highly probable as they may be, hinge upon the actual implementation of the system.

One possible middle ground or transitional system, which I briefly mentioned in the thread on the 16/12 proposal, could be to introduce the possibility for children to acquire the right to sexual activity as adults through special judicial permission, which the child would request him/herself.

At 11, I managed to convince a judge (through a 21-page letter and an interview) to give me rights pertaining to a custody battle that are otherwise legally reserved for 12-year-olds. There didn't exist a preexisting framework for me to request this early recognition of additional rights. I simply swayed the judge through my arguments.

There would be no test of "ability to consent", and what would instead be used is an assessment of competence by a medical professional or social worker. Consent is a legal right, not an abstract property, and for the purposes of an elective rights system, all that would be necessary is for the minor (above a set age, say 12, 14) to volunteer themselves free of coercion and be deemed basically competent.

In other words, they would be able to understand and consider the basics of each applicable scheme of rights, with a responsible adult. They might be asked to consider the implications of drug use, or regret within the sphere of sexual relations, but ultimately the standard here is an ability to understand the topic to the same level 99% of willing applicants would. It is not a standardized test, nor an attempt to completely negate bad experiences.

The licensing rights a minor has elected for would be databased and categorised (finance, education, etc, just as I have said). This could be verified via an ID system available to adolescents within a set age range covered by the scheme (say 12-21), could be built into a smartphone app, etc.

Jim Burton wrote: Thu Mar 13, 2025 10:58 pm There would be no test of "ability to consent", and what would instead be used is an assessment of competence by a medical professional or social worker.

You are completely disregarding the way medical professionals and social workers actually work when they are tasked with evaluating certain objective criteria: through standardized testing! I would most definitely not be willing to give up my childhood rights in accordance with the subjective, personal, biased judgment of each individual professional.

As for the rest of your proposal, you have reached conclusions that are similar to my own back then: different tests for different rights along with an ID-based system.

Lennon72 wrote: Mon Mar 10, 2025 4:34 pm Well, I do suppose it somewhat better then having age of consent law. But under what criteria would it be considered permissible should something like what you propose go into effect? Also, we would still be asking the government for permission and the government would be making the rules. No different then now, Frankly, I want as little government involvement as reasonably possible.

The test could just be an informal chat with a doctor or sexologist who goes through scenarios, makes sure you understand about consent and sex and advice on how to handle certain situations and be safe etc. If they feel you are fine, they will just sign a paper/and form and done. The idea is an alternative to age of consent, trying to make sure people can engage in such activities with whoever they like and protect vulnerable people and ensure it is not ageist and fair for all. If the doctor doesn’t feel you’re ready, then you just study more
and then come back for another assessment.

Grunko wrote: Thu Mar 13, 2025 11:12 pm If they feel you are fine, they will just sign a paper/and form and done.
[...]
If the doctor doesn’t feel you’re ready, then you just study more and then come back for another assessment.

No such system should ever rely on the "feelings" of a particular doctor (or sexologist, social worker, etc.) at a particular moment. Thus why a standard test is of paramount importance.

Well, then, basic competence is the only standard. It is in effect an elective emancipation system with protections for minors who have been coerced, or exhibit a pronounced lack of mental competence. The doctor or social worker would be tasked with identifying and detailing extraordinary negating circumstances in the event an applicant was refused, and their record would not be above reproach.

Where are rights being given up under such a system, given that statutory ages of license are already in effect for alcohol, gambling, training under a work scheme, etc? Above those existing ages, perhaps there could be a minor's application for protection under an elective scheme, but that is an entirely different matter.

Jim Burton wrote: Thu Mar 13, 2025 11:34 pm Well, then, basic competence is the only standard.

Are you saying that the very same standard of "basic competence"—something for which an appropriate, universal test doesn't exist, and which would likely vary from one culture to another—should apply to sexuality, voting, gambling, alcohol, "soft" drugs, and so on?

I think many if not most people who might otherwise approve of AMSC in limited cases and with additional protections would be wary of giving children such a right if it also entailed that they automatically get voting rights and can drink liquor. Myself included.

If you are to suggest such a far-reaching legal change, you must be very specific as to what its implementation would be like.

Jim Burton wrote: Thu Mar 13, 2025 11:34 pm It is in effect an elective emancipation system with protections for minors who have been coerced, or exhibit a pronounced lack of mental competence. The doctor or social worker would be tasked with identifying and detailing extraordinary negating circumstances in the event an applicant was refused, and their record would not be above reproach.
[...]
Above those existing ages, perhaps there could be a minor's application for protection under an elective scheme, but that is an entirely different matter.

Implemented in such a way, unless you're saying that a child of any age could apply for these elective rights*, I'm not sure that I see how it's sufficiently different from a change in age of consent to be worth defending (at this point in time), especially considering how it's so radical in appearance that it's likely to really put off those among our adversaries who are open to discussion and new ideas. For 99%+ of children, the situation would be the same in practice with respect to sexual consent.

In fact, under the current system, individuals above the age of consent who demonstrate a need for additional protection do receive such protection in most jurisdictions. Ultimately, the only practical difference I see is that instead of a presumption of competence (with a lower age of consent), this system relies on a presumption of incompetence.

Jim Burton wrote: Thu Mar 13, 2025 11:34 pm Where are rights being given up under such a system, given that statutory ages of license are already in effect for alcohol, gambling, training under a work scheme, etc?

I meant relative to a lower age of consent, as explained above.

------------------------------------------------

* The system I had in mind as a teenager (in the end, after ~3 years of reflection) was indeed one where children of any age could apply for additional elective rights, and a specific test existed for each right. At 18, all rights were automatically given unless there was evidence that competence was lacking.

Jim Burton wrote: Thu Mar 13, 2025 10:58 pm Well, then, basic competence is the only standard.

What I'm trying to get across is that this won't make a difference — because competence is already the standard. The test to prove you meet that standard at the moment is that you reach an age of consent. This is the agreed upon standard for basic competence* towards sex by current medical professionals, sexologists, social workers etc. Competence being proven through a test is pointless when ultimately an ageist and largely anti-sex society has to approve of those tests.

The reliance on these people to create and administer a test is flawed because this has never been an issue of true basic competence. Every excuse made by society in favor of an age of consent is just that; an excuse. Ageist ideals are what come first, and any tests accepted by society at this point in time will need to meet these ageist standards before ever being accepted. Therefore, a test is practically guaranteed to just keep us in the same spot (or worse). We know that because all the tests of competence we have at the moment, accepted by professionals, says that a country's arbitrary age of consent is the age needed to be declared competent (and in some subcultures, that's not even enough).

We have to make progress towards dismantling the idea that sex is a complicated procedure and try to tackle youth purity ideology. Having the right to get a blowjob be a matter of a license that you need to take a test for just tosses that to the side.

Edit to make a point:
There are parents out there who would leave their son alone at home all day himself; they would consider him competent enough to cook his own meals, and do his own chores; they might even take him out hunting, teach him how to shoot a gun, ride a motorbike etc despite the associated risks. These same parents are unlikely to agree that he's competent enough for sex, and that the risks associated with sex are significantly worse than those associated with motorbiking or shooting.

People generally already know that kids/teens are competent. Lots of parents trust their kids to do risky things. *Sex, however, is placed on a special platform that you need special competence to be allowed to do it. A basic competence test will never be accepted as a standard for sex in our current social climate. If one is released and kids/teens can pass it, it'll not be good enough and need rewritten; and if one is released and they can't pass it, it "proves" their point that kids/teens can't have sex.

Bookshelf wrote: Fri Mar 14, 2025 4:39 am We have to make progress towards dismantling the idea that sex is a complicated procedure and try to tackle youth purity ideology. Having the right to get a blowjob be a matter of a license that you need to take a test for just tosses that to the side.

I agree with your assessment for the most part, although I still think that lowering the age of consent (see BLueRibbon's 16/12 proposal) would be a small step in the right direction, if only to make it so that positive AMSC actually occurs on a wide scale, the aim being to make it an unavoidable reality of life. Even if the children involved aren't any younger than 12, it's still a valuable element of progress.

Along with any such legal change, important cultural changes do need to occur, as you rightly acknowledge. That said, I believe you put too much emphasis on ageism. The religiously informed notion of "children's innocence" ("youth purity") is definitely something we must dismantle. However, parenting mores must also change radically if children are to be allowed to be intimate with adults. Finally and most importantly, I reiterate that you don't give enough credit to the role of fear in making the current state of affairs what it is. Perhaps you should spend some time conversing with our most vocal and influential adversaries for whom opposition to AMSC isn't a matter of religious faith: CSA victims and feminists.

Bookshelf wrote: Fri Mar 14, 2025 4:39 am Lots of parents trust their kids to do risky things. Sex, however, is placed on a special platform that you need special competence to be allowed to do it. A basic competence test will never be accepted as a standard for sex in our current social climate. If one is released and kids/teens can pass it, it'll not be good enough and need rewritten; and if one is released and they can't pass it, it "proves" their point that kids/teens can't have sex.

I fully agree with your point here. The fact is that sex is viewed as totally unique in so many ways in our society. For instance, it is only when it comes to fantasies of having sex with children that liberal Western countries resort to prohibiting thoughtcrimes.

In accordance with what you wrote, it's also worth keeping in mind that, pragmatically speaking, parents are among our fiercest and most dangerous adversaries. As I pointed out previously, many parents would choose to control their child's sexuality (and relationships) for life if they could. My ex-girlfriend's Christian father tried to forcefully keep her away from me, and she was an adult in her early 20s!

Edit:

In the most concrete terms possible, our #1 goal in my opinion should be to bring laws to the point where, for example, a dating website for MAAs & AAMs (12+? 13+?) would be legal in at least one jurisdiction, with direct supervision from authorities and built-in protections for children such as enforcing the fact that the child must make the first move. Academia could also participate by that point. It might sound utopian, but as long as we don't get to such a stage in society, it'll be clear that we can't attain genuine sexual liberation for MAPs and children alike.