16/12: Pro-Reform's position on AMSC

[Fragment]

My proposal would restrict the pool of available partners, yes... perhaps especially for BLs, I do admit that I don't have enough information in that respect. Crucially, it would require all MAPs to change the way they search for partners and become intimate with them. The way you're speaking seems to be to simply assert that you're unwilling to make any such change, or perhaps that you believe it would be impossible? The latter seems quite unlikely to me. Many potential partners would still be available, just not straight young boys that were uninterested in sex with men in the first place. Or girls who'd rather have dated their peers but find themselves feel pressured into a relationship by an older man (something that many older women told me used to be very common).

Part of my point is that BL-YF relationships such as those you describe are unlikely to be accepted by society any time soon. They're going to keep being described as "grooming" and the like until radical social change occurs. We should think about how to get there.

What you're talking about is even more fundamental social change than parents letting a boy have an adult mentor and being ambivalent when there is a sexual aspect to the relationship.

Actual quotes from sexually progressive parents in the Netherlands in the 90s show that such a model can be accepted by parents. Grooming, as it is seen now, is still a recent concept. I actually think it's going to reach a point soon where so much pro-social male behavior is seen as grooming that the concept starts to lose purchase.

Meanwhile your idea requires teens to be the initiator.

I see the app basically turning into what Omegle did. A bunch of horny teen boys looking for adult women to get with and a bunch of adult male MAPs looking for minors and basically very few actual relationships coming to fruition through it. I'm not saying that such apps couldn't be part of the picture. But I still think that real life connections will be more important.

As for the policy elements? It's true that it does, in some ways, mirror affirmative consent laws. But it goes even further than that in requiring proof of consent. Even when it comes to age of consent laws we should not be shifting the workings of criminal justice like that. Proving a crime should always be the burden of the prosecution. A law should never be written such that there is a legally binding burden of proof on the accused.

The line of "initiating" would be hard to prove, too. Does it also mean that all "escalation" needs to be driven by the minor? If the minor starts with masturbation, would it be a crime for the adult to start oral sex without it being explicitly proposed by the minor? What about an adult kissing a minor in a way that leads to sexual actions by the minor? Does that kiss count as "initiating".

The only real differences between your proposal and 16/12 is that 1) the minor has to initiate and 2) there needs to be proof. I'm not sure that adding either thing to the law above and beyond 16/12 would result in better law. Outcomes, social approval, etc, aside it just seems it would be creating a really weird exception in criminal law regarding how a court case should be prosecuted.

My problems with 16/12 are that: 1) It refers to vague "additional protections" for minors between 12 and 16 in relationships with adults, but said "protections" aren't properly described anywhere. It's effectively very close to the system that existed in the Netherlands quite recently, but that system failed to result in any actual change and was quickly overturned. 2) I see no reason why the proposition would have a genuinely transformative effect on society regarding the acceptability of AMSC.

My contention is that while 16/12 might be marginally more likely to be accepted by society (and I'm not sure of that at all, considering some conversations I've had with antis and anti-adjacent family members), the socially transformative benefits of my proposal might make it worthwhile to promote it.

I don't think the extra protections are vague any more than current German law is vague (though in Germany it's 14+). If a minor between the ages of 12-15 wants to press charges, even for an act they expressed willingness towards, they may. The prosecution only needs to prove that the accused took advantage of the younger person's lack of sexual experience through manipulation or deception in order for a crime to be established. What constitutes "take advantage of" is vague, perhaps, but German law seems to have an established legal precedent around it.

that system failed to result in any actual change and was quickly overturned

I've never read anywhere that the reason it was overturned was due to a lack of actual change. Do you have a source on that?


Overall I do think that the kind of shift in society regarding views of youth sexuality you suggest is important. While teens are seen as receptive participants they'll more readily be seen as the victim. However, I feel that kind of social change isn't something to achieve through clunky law. And in all honesty, the social change probably needs to happen, at least to a degree, before any kind of legal change will be passed.

[WavesInEternity]

What you're talking about is even more fundamental social change than parents letting a boy have an adult mentor and being ambivalent when there is a sexual aspect to the relationship.

Actual quotes from sexually progressive parents in the Netherlands in the 90s show that such a model can be accepted by parents

I don't understand why you think the notion that teenagers might want to date older partners of their own accord is such a radical proposal from the point of view of society's mores. I find that the idea of older men "corrupting" boys is generally much less likely to be viewed in a more favourable light any time soon for the majority of the population (not a few sexually progressive parents in the Netherlands).

The results would doubtless entail more fundamental social change, which is exactly the intention, but the underlying principles are not inconsistent with the current normative discourse on sexuality.

Grooming, as it is seen now, is still a recent concept. I actually think it's going to reach a point soon where so much pro-social male behavior is seen as grooming that the concept starts to lose purchase.

Sadly, I can't agree with that assessment at all. Unless there is exogenous social change, the concept of "grooming" as it is will remain firmly anchored in the social imaginary.

I see the app basically turning into what Omegle did. A bunch of horny teen boys looking for adult women to get with and a bunch of adult male MAPs looking for minors and basically very few actual relationships coming to fruition through it. I'm not saying that such apps couldn't be part of the picture. But I still think that real life connections will be more important.

I fail to see how my proposal would have anything to do with Omegle. It would be much more like Bumble, the dating website that requires women to make the first move (now with some leeway). Of course, online dating in general has many issues and "many people on dating apps are not serious about finding romantic partners". I am not denying that real-life connections would be important, but I think they would become much less critical, and the dynamic would change. Also, since MAPs would be allowed to openly identify as such, their interactions with young people would necessarily be different.

Perhaps BLs would indeed remain an exception among MAPs in the way they find their partners. However, I think you should make an effort to look at things from the perspective of the broader MAP community and the goal of increasing the frequency and acceptability of AMSC in general.

As for the policy elements? It's true that it does, in some ways, mirror affirmative consent laws. But it goes even further than that in requiring proof of consent. Even when it comes to age of consent laws we should not be shifting the workings of criminal justice like that. Proving a crime should always be the burden of the prosecution. A law should never be written such that there is a legally binding burden of proof on the accused.

No, that isn't the way I envisioned the law. I think you're misunderstanding an important aspect of my proposal.

The minor stating that he/she initiated the contact would be proof enough if the adult were accused by, say, the parents. However, in the absence of such a statement by the minor, proof of willingness of another kind would be necessary. Thus, it would be preferable for cautious MAPs to always seek such a proof, but the law wouldn't require it.

The line of "initiating" would be hard to prove, too. Does it also mean that all "escalation" needs to be driven by the minor? If the minor starts with masturbation, would it be a crime for the adult to start oral sex without it being explicitly proposed by the minor? What about an adult kissing a minor in a way that leads to sexual actions by the minor? Does that kiss count as "initiating".

Here, I can agree to some extent, but it comes down to defining what is "sexual", which is a problem that the law needs to address in any case. In my proposal, there is only one critical threshold: that between a "non-sexual relationship" and a "sexual relationship". The minor must be the one to willingly perform the act that moves the relationship from the former category to the latter. This could very well be a deep French kiss, or a written expression of sexual desire for the other person in an online chat. The law would need to be clear on that matter, but I think it very much could be.

Outcomes, social approval, etc, aside it just seems it would be creating a really weird exception in criminal law regarding how a court case should be prosecuted.

No, it really functions in the same basic way as "affirmative consent" laws. It doesn't go "further" in any meaningful way. In fact, it's slightly less restrictive as it only requires simple "willingess", not anything like "informed consent".

I don't think the extra protections are vague any more than current German law is vague (though in Germany it's 14+). If a minor between the ages of 12-15 wants to press charges, even for an act they expressed willingness towards, they may. The prosecution only needs to prove that the accused took advantage of the younger person's lack of sexual experience through manipulation or deception in order for a crime to be established. What constitutes "take advantage of" is vague, perhaps, but German law seems to have an established legal precedent around it.

That seems considerably more vague than what I'm suggesting!

I've never read anywhere that the reason it was overturned was due to a lack of actual change. Do you have a source on that?

That wasn't what I meant, sorry for being unclear. I meant that 1) the law did not yield meaningful social change; 2) it was quickly overturned. Not that 1 caused 2.

And in all honesty, the social change probably needs to happen, at least to a degree, before any kind of legal change will be passed.

Here, I do agree. How to achieve this goal is still an open question, but my best bet until now is the prospect of AAM youth rights activism.

[Fragment]

I'm still not sure that the minor initiating contact is the most streamlined position. Much simpler would be "it is a defense to prove that the minor consented". Guilty until proven innocent, per se. As in Uruguay for 12+ year olds.

Your proposal says "guilty until proven innocent" but rather than requiring proof of consent/ willingness you require proof of initiation. I'm still failing to see how that is an improvement and it seems so rigidly unnatural.

Imagine if affirmative consent laws said "it's rape unless the woman proposes sexual intimacy".

How do you imagine the actual wording of the law to look like?

[WavesInEternity]

I'm still not sure that the minor initiating contact is the most streamlined position. Much simpler would be "it is a defense to prove that the minor consented". Guilty until proven innocent, per se. As in Uruguay for 12+ year olds.

I do like that system in principle, but the main issue I see with it is that "consent" has become too loaded with problematic conceptual baggage in legal parlance. That legal framework also doesn't have much potential to induce deeper social change regarding the broader acceptability of AMSC.

Your proposal says "guilty until proven innocent" but rather than requiring proof of consent/ willingness you require proof of initiation. I'm still failing to see how that is an improvement and it seems so rigidly unnatural.

In practice, what it would effectively require is a proof of willingness in the absence of prior overt sexual advances by the adult.

Imagine if affirmative consent laws said "it's rape unless the woman proposes sexual intimacy".

If I were to agree with radical feminists who claim that all heterosexual sex is inherently problematic due to the power discrepancy between men and women, I could very well take such a proposal seriously.

In the case of children, I actually do agree that the power discrepancy raises several serious issues, since children are trained to "respect and obey" adults.

How do you imagine the actual wording of the law to look like?

Maybe something like:

Code: Select all

"Sexual acts between an adult and a minor above 12 years of age are legally permitted if 
and only if the minor is the first partner to make known a willingness to engage in sexual 
activity, either by a written statement expressing sexual interest*, establishing sexual 
contact with the adult's body**, or other overt sexual advances as specified by law***."

*, **, and *** would each be defined very carefully.

[Fragment]

I think the framing isn't quite there. Criminal laws are always framed as a prohibition first.

Code: Select all

Section XX) Sexual contact with a minor between the ages of 12-15 is an offense punishable with a term of x to y years in prison.
a) It is a defense to this section to prove that the sexual contact was the result of a willingness by the minor expressed in written form, verbally, or by overtly sexual bodily contact.
b) It is also a defense to this section to prove that the sexual contact was part of an ongoing relationship where initial sexual contact occurred under the conditions specified in part a).
c) Part a) and b) of this section do not apply where the adult is an immediate family member.
d) It is a defense to this section to prove that the person was less than 5 years older than the minor.
e) It is a defense to this section to prove that the person reasonably believed that the minor was 16 or older.

How do we reach this point? Well, I think step one is ensuring there is a clear legal difference in crimes against 0-11 year olds and crimes for 12-15 year olds. Some jurisdictions already have this or something similar. In the UK 0-12 is "rape". 13-15 is "sexual activity with a child". Sentencing differs, too.

[WavesInEternity]

I do prefer that framing.

You clearly are more familiar than I am with criminal law. My knowledge of law is really more on the civil side, specifically family law (I helped my mother with divorce proceedings and subsequent lawsuits, one of which is still ongoing today).

[WavesInEternity]

I had nearly forgotten those two questions you asked.

Once again, I must highlight that I don't necessarily support the total abolition of the age of consent, and most certainly not without radical changes in society and particularly in the way children are raised. For such a system to work, children would effectively need to be taught to disobey adults (when it's warranted).

The question I have regarding total abolition is:
"Are there any situations where sexual contact itself could be said to be worthy of prohibition?"
I'm sure there's a lot of arguments for this, and just as many rebuttals.

Of course. Beyond the obvious instances of rape and assault, which aren't about sexual contact per se, I would always support strong laws against incest (the risk to young girls, in particular, is simply too high), as well as additional safeguards against other forms of abuse of power (such as doctors, teachers, etc.), and restrictions on obtaining sex through manipulation and/or deception. Most of those laws are already on the books today and would only require some adjustments.

I have mixed feelings on the topic of youth prostitution. Although I do believe prostitution should be legal for adults, the potential for abuse when children are involved is huge. Perhaps a two-tiered licensing system (with more restrictive requirements for younger applicants) could be a viable solution.

The next question I have is:
"Are there situations where it is worth a law being overly broad to make sure bad guys are punished?"
Making the sex itself illegal means that abuse doesn't need to be proven. This drastically reduces the burden on victims and prosecutors. Just proving the sex happened is all they need. If the prosecution has to prove a lack of consent then quite a few abusers will walk free.

I for one believe that allowing a few abusers to walk free is well worth avoiding the criminalization of a vast number of partners who do consent to sexual activity with one another. This is, indeed, perhaps the crux of the entire debate on this issue: is protecting one child worth prohibiting a hundred harmless and potentially positive relationships?

We also have to take into account the secondary harm of prosecution, such that the only cases that are prosecuted are those where the harm of the sexual contact was greater than the harm that would be caused by bringing charges against the "molester". There could be a parallel system for cases that are problematic without reaching that threshold of harm, such as specially trained social workers that would intervene.

The cases where the harm done to the child warrants criminal charges are generally ones where the lack of meaningful consent is easy to prove, with obvious coercion or incest being involved. (The archetypal form of extremely harmful CSA is the repeated sexual abuse of a prepubescent girl by a father figure. Something interesting in such cases in that the harm doesn't change as much as you might think whether violence is involved or not.)