MAP Forum

I will repeat again that I am proposing an assessment, not a test or certificate of "consent". The "test" is not part of my plan.

My challenge is that minors above the age of 12 or 14 would be deemed as "consenting" to voluntary acts if they first applied to exercise that right, and second, no extraordinary negating circumstances were identified in their application.

This, if proposed as part of a broad youth rights package, would appear to be more likely to pass than an outright reduction in the age of license with respect to sexual relations alone. Since in the latter example, you would need to combat the fundamental prejudice that legalising said acts were an attempt by adults to gain "sexual access" to children.

I proposed in this debate that one potential benefit of permitting a minor to exercise adult rights voluntarily, is that minors who actively sought to exercise a right would be the very people who stand to benefit most. A secondary benefit (from the MAP perspective) is that these examples would bias the base of evidence in favour of further liberalisation.

Jim Burton wrote: Fri Mar 14, 2025 2:46 pm I will repeat again that I am proposing an assessment, not a test or certificate of "consent". The "test" is not part of my plan.

Again, you seem to be disregarding the inevitable practical implications of the scheme you suggest.

Any objective assessment that is universally applied would lead to a standardized decision procedure, i.e. a test, if only to determine whether or not "extraordinary negating circumstances" exist. In the algorithmic era we live in, that is simply how medical professionals, social workers, etc. do their job. The only alternative is to rely on the professionals' momentary "feelings"... and that would still be a test, just a very unpredictable and informal one, thoroughly susceptible to such abuses as doctor-shopping and corruption (which would be a potential issue regardless).

Additionally, the result of that decision procedure (whether the child is given a right or not) would need to be formally recorded in a way that can be displayed to others, i.e. a certificate.

Accordingly, I think the notions of a "sexual consent test" and "sexual consent certificate" necessarily apply to your proposal, whether you like it or not.

Jim Burton wrote: Fri Mar 14, 2025 2:46 pm This, if proposed as part of a broad youth rights package, would appear to be more likely to pass than an outright reduction in the age of license with respect to sexual relations alone. Since in the latter example, you would need to combat the fundamental prejudice that legalising said acts were an attempt by adults to gain "sexual access" to children.

I also initially thought that our adversaries would be more sympathetic to the idea of children being able to apply for the right to have sex instead of being unilaterally given that right by authorities. However, my discussion on the topic with my elderly mother (the closest thing I have to a MAP adversary I can speak to) has made me reconsider. It seems that the idea that a professional can "evaluate and determine" a child's "readiness for sex" is something that a great deal of people would be extremely uncomfortable with, even more than simply a lower age of consent.

Maybe we could make it appear more appealing by wrapping it into a "broad youth rights package", but I'm afraid that our foes and thus the media would focus entirely on that part of the proposal, making the rest nigh irrelevant.

In any case, the practical complexity of the scheme make it a very difficult proposal to actually make in a way that's legally and pragmatically relevant. Jim Burton, should a child aged 12 be allowed to be "assessed" for the right to drink liquor? How about voting?

Jim Burton wrote: Fri Mar 14, 2025 2:46 pm I proposed in this debate that one potential benefit of permitting a minor to exercise adult rights voluntarily, is that minors who actively sought to exercise a right would be the very people who stand to benefit most. A secondary benefit (from the MAP perspective) is that these examples would bias the base of evidence in favour of further liberalisation.

I do agree with this.

If described as so, a "standardised test" as you just acknowledged, would be to rule out extraordinary circumstances. Such circumstances include clear evidence of abuse, or mental disability. So I don't see how that supports your conclusion that my proposal is in practical reality something that it isn't, or would transmute towards some kind of convoluted examination most adults would fail. It's a possibility, but not a unique one. We could, as a thought experiment, propose that the system were entirely voluntarist in nature, and involved no assessment or safeguards. I still think this would be more likely to succeed as policy than the fatal strategy of addressing Age of Consent laws "head on", with no close in age exemption (one such "corruption" or "transmutation" of conventional magic age lines).

Every system, as I identified earlier in the thread, is subject to corruption and modification, especially under "emergency measures", a rape-murder or outrageous-outlier as in the Dutch or Spanish examples. What is important, is that when a legal norm is challenged, the individual and their circumstances are front and center - impossible to ignore. I fail to see how straightforward consent laws do anything but a) Stifle discussion of liberalisation (contrary examples will be, by definition, criminal acts) and b) Validate appeals to tightening (under the precautionary principle).

More modern, voluntarist appeals, especially when coupled with public health arguments, have been just about the only arguments (bar gay equality) used to support proposals of conventional consent law liberalisation and nuanced contemplation of individual rights, as in India and Peru. So, given the failure of conventional consent law liberalisation, to me, it would now make sense to adapt the successful arguments into a system that engineers discursive space where individual differences and young peoples' demands are put into focus.

If the "test" were to be standardized, I also suspect safeguards such as "two qualified professionals" requirements, multiple assessments and a cooling off period would be introduced. Systems can be refined as well as corrupted.

I have already made one suggestion as to how the system could be documented, and this was via ID and online apps, not a "consent certificate", which I gather is a derogatory meme used against feminists on social media.

As a tangent, are you philosophically opposed to legal codes or strategies that permit something without condoning it, opposed to decriminalisation/regulation in general, or just think these solutions will be unsuccessful in their proposed form/lawyered into irrelevancy?

If I were to look at the idea of educating young people about "consent", and establishing a convoluted "test of consent" from a conservative perspective, I would be very fearful this was a Trojan Horse to usher in underage and intergenerational sex. The evolution and corruption of law I, as a war-game conservative am wary of, would be favourable to MAPs.

Jim Burton wrote: Fri Mar 14, 2025 7:36 pm If described as so, a "standardised test" as you just acknowledged, would be to rule out extraordinary circumstances. Such circumstances include clear evidence of abuse, or mental disability.

So I don't see how that supports your conclusion that my proposal is in practical reality something that it isn't, or would transmute towards some kind of convoluted examination most adults would fail.

That wasn't originally my argument, it was Bookshelf's. I think there is some merit to it, but also agree with you that it's only a possibility. Still, it's a possibility that I feel you're too quick to dismiss.

My primary concern is really that people are highly refractory to novelty in the social realm. Even if your proposal is in fact more moderate than lowering the age of consent to 12, it appears radical because it's more different. This fear would lead the powers that be to do everything they can to make its implementation "safe" (i.e. the precautionary principle applies here too, and perhaps even more so).

Here's one very simple and plausible hypothetical scenario: the medical professionals or social workers making the assessment might include among their "extraordinary circumstances" a child that "pathologically" insists on wanting to have sex with adults, and they'd ask specific questions to weed out any such applicants.

Jim Burton wrote: Fri Mar 14, 2025 7:36 pm We could, as a thought experiment, propose that the system were entirely voluntarist in nature, and involved no assessment or safeguards. I still think this would be more likely to succeed than the fatal strategy of addressing Age of Consent laws "head on", with no close in age exemption (one such "corruption" or "transmutation" of conventional magic age lines).

Here, I'd disagree. I think you underestimates the weight of aversion to what is perceived as "radical change".

Jim Burton wrote: Fri Mar 14, 2025 7:36 pm Every system, as I identified earlier in the thread, is subject to corruption and modification, especially under "emergency measures", a rape-murder or outrageous-outlier as in the Dutch or Spanish examples. What is important, is that when a legal norm is challenged, the individual and their circumstances are front and center - impossible to ignore. I fail to see how straightforward consent laws do anything but a) Stifle discussion of liberalisation (contrary examples will be, by definition, criminal acts) and b) Validate appeals to tightening (under the precautionary principle).

More modern, voluntarist appeals, especially when coupled with public health arguments, have been just about the only arguments (bar gay equality) used to support proposals of conventional consent law liberalisation and nuanced contemplation of individual rights, as in India and Peru. So, given the failure of conventional consent law liberalisation, to me, it would now make sense to adapt the successful arguments into a system that engineers discursive space where individual differences and young peoples' demands are put into focus.

I certainly appreciate the propaganda value of the proposal, and it does resonate with some long-held beliefs of mine. However, I think it might be too complex and far-reaching to be a plausible first step. The fact that it's not "conventional", in that sense, is both a strength and a weakness.

Jim Burton wrote: Fri Mar 14, 2025 7:36 pm If the "test" were to be standardized, I also suspect safeguards such as "two qualified professionals" requirements, multiple assessments and a cooling off period would be introduced. Systems can be refined as well as corrupted.

I hope you notice how thin of a line this is. Trans people know all too well how difficult it can be to deal with the medical establishment when trying to get their gender identity formally recognized, and how much the requirements can vary from one country to another and one professional to another.

Jim Burton wrote: Fri Mar 14, 2025 7:36 pm I have already made one suggestion as to how the system could be documented, and this was via ID and online apps, not a "consent certificate", which I gather is a derogatory meme used against feminists on social media.

It would similarly be a derogatory meme used against this proposal, as it involves some documentation the child can show to his or her partner to demonstrate that he or she can consent.

Jim Burton wrote: Fri Mar 14, 2025 8:01 pm As a tangent, are you philosophically opposed to legal codes or strategies that permit something without condoning it, opposed to decriminalisation/regulation in general, or just think these solutions will be unsuccessful in their proposed form/lawyered into irrelevancy?

The latter: I don't think the social context would ever allow your proposal to pass in a form where it would achieve the results we desire. A change in the age of consent has the benefit of having clear, predictable consequences.

I'm a rather strict civil libertarian, in accordance with a preference utilitarian meta-ethical framework: I think everything should be legally permitted unless there is clear and overwhelming evidence of harm. I even used to be in favour of legalizing the likes of heroin and cocaine. That was before I struggled with opioid addiction myself (I'm still on methadone) and a close friend lost several years of his life and 300 000$+ to cocaine. With AMSC, the opposite occurred: I used to be firmly against, now I tentatively believe it should be permissible with caveats.

By the way, what do you think of the idea of lowering the age of consent to 12 but with (among other restrictions such as prohibitions on incest and abuse of power) the requirement that adults cannot initiate sexual contact with a minor under 16; only the minor can make the "first move" on an adult, and it must be clear and unambiguous in expressing desire for sexual activity. All the adult would be allowed to do is disclose that he/she is a MAP.

Couldn't such a proposal also allay fears that adults are just seeking sexual access to children? (I mean, in a sense, we are, but only children that truly want us to access them sexually... and it's not "just" about that, either: I personally have a keen memory of how repressed I felt as a child with respect to my sexuality, so I do basically understand the youth rights part of the matter on a very intimate level).

WavesInEternity wrote: Sat Mar 15, 2025 6:18 am By the way, what do you think of the idea of lowering the age of consent to 12 but with (among other restrictions such as prohibitions on incest and abuse of power) the requirement that adults cannot initiate sexual contact with a minor under 16; only the minor can make the "first move" on an adult, and it must be clear and unambiguous in expressing desire for sexual activity. All the adult would be allowed to do is disclose that he/she is a MAP.

Couldn't such a proposal also allay fears that adults are just seeking sexual access to children? (I mean, in a sense, we are, but only children that truly want us to access them sexually... and it's not "just" about that, either: I personally have a keen memory of how repressed I felt as a child with respect to my sexuality, so I do basically understand the youth rights part of the matter on a very intimate level).

That does sound like a good positive start. The only thing is how do we prove the child initiated it. I don’t think it should be illegal for the adult to admit their attractions to the minor or compliment them but I suppose that doesn’t mean they are wanting to engage in sex. What about laws have a non-sexual relationship where the 14 year old asks to the older person to be their boyfriend/girlfriend but there is no sexual activity involved?

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.

This is a luxury of addressing the never-addressed topic within a theoretical war game space, and not a pragmatic one.

For example, what is the middle ground, the catalyst by which western society might come to condone child marriage (of an actual child), or sexual relations "initiated" by an 8 year old? Or a 6 year old "with parental consent". These are some of the serious proposals I have seen put forward. This looks to me like individuals trying to rationalise their own proclivities.