MAP Forum

WavesInEternity wrote: Sat Mar 15, 2025 4:18 pm

Jim Burton wrote: Sat Mar 15, 2025 1:00 pm 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.

I believe that I've personally been doing the exact opposite. There's no way my "own values and objectives" are perfectly in tune with my proposal of lowering the age of consent to 12 with the caveat that the youth aged 12-16 must always clearly initiate sexual activity with an adult.

I talk to an actual victim of CSA on a regular basis and integrate her perspective in my proposals. Do you?

As specified, I would like to see serious proposals as to how the examples I mentioned (not particularly yours) might be attainable via some middle ground. One possibility is that the example you mentioned (reducing the age of consent to 12 with proof of initiation) is a catalyst.

My challenge in return, would be that directly addressing sexual relations between minors and adults instead of the rights of youth in general, would be a wrong move, since it would be seen either rightly or wrongly as self-interested.

It could also be identified that by your own exacting standards, you are introducing a voluntarist legal norm and therefore inviting the risk that others may seek to "query" the explicit will of minors by introducing "tests", or diluting the revised age with close in age exemptions to lawyer out the "ick" factor.

As for talking to those whose lived experience is that of a sex abuse survivor, I have serious reservations about whether those kind of experiences will be a limiting factor for legal reforms, as much as say, lay concerns about the potential for abuse. Either way, I kind of tune out when participants in a debate start the process of anecdotal reporting, since there is nothing particularly methodical, insightful, and therefore indicative about it, unless the insight itself is useful.

Jim Burton wrote: Sat Mar 15, 2025 6:03 pm One possibility is that the example you mentioned (reducing the age of consent to 12 with proof of initiation) is a catalyst.

That's the idea. My core belief is that we ought to engineer a legal and social context, in at least one jurisdiction, where harmless and positive consensual AMSC occurs on such a wide scale that it drowns out the few instances of abuse that will inevitably occur. Once this happens, we'd involve academia to prove that the reformist principles on which the system is built are pragmatically adequate, thus opening the door to further reform.

Jim Burton wrote: Sat Mar 15, 2025 6:03 pm My challenge in return, would be that directly addressing sexual relations between minors and adults instead of the rights of youth in general, would be a wrong move, since it would be seen either rightly or wrongly as self-interested.

As a near-exclusive MAP myself, I don't think it's useful to pretend that the self-interest is nonexistent, but then again, my autism makes it effectively impossible for me to resort to deceptive or manipulative language.

Jim Burton wrote: Sat Mar 15, 2025 6:03 pm It could also be identified that by your own exacting standards, you are introducing a voluntarist legal norm and therefore inviting the risk that others may seek to "query" the explicit will of minors by introducing "tests", or diluting the revised age with close in age exemptions to lawyer out the "ick" factor.

Yes, of course, the possibility is always there. My argument is that we're more likely to see a proposal be accepted in its undiluted form the closer it seems to existing legal norms.

Jim Burton wrote: Sat Mar 15, 2025 6:03 pm As for talking to those whose lived experience is that of a sex abuse survivor, I have serious reservations about whether those kind of experiences will be a limiting factor for legal reforms, as much as say, lay concerns about the potential for abuse. Either way, I kind of tune out when participants in a debate start the process of anecdotal reporting, since there is nothing particularly methodical, insightful, and therefore indicative about it, unless the insight itself is useful.

It's not quite "anecdotal". My mother was very active in women's and CSA "survivor" (she loathes that term) groups. Precisely the kind of pressure groups that call for stricter laws regarding AMSC. She was expelled—quite literally, as in forced out the building—from the main one for asserting that, in some cases, involving the authorities may do more harm than good to the child. She is vehemently opposed to the fact that too many people who speak out against CSA haven't experienced it themselves nor are aware of the reality of it.

Most women of my mother's generation and the one before in my family were sexually assaulted; most of the men in my family are actual child rapists. Considering that my instinctive sexuality is similar to that of those men, I've spent over two decades of my life trying to understand the phenomenon of CSA and the fears and concerns that underlie the current legislative framework.

I can guarantee you that the "lay concerns" of the general public aren't all you should be concerned about with respect to obstacles to legal reform. The legitimate fears of the victims and their allies must be taken very seriously and addressed in any proposal we put forward.