Idea- replacing Age of Consent laws with Sexual Consent Certificate Scheme

[Grunko]

Hi there, I don’t know if this is the right place to share this idea of an alternative to age of consent laws with the following..

Sexual Consent Certificate scheme idea
Rather than using age to determine when a person can consent/engage in sexual activities, an alternative would be to have a Sexual Consent Certificate scheme (SCC) where you need to pass some type of assessment or test in order to legally consent or engage in such activities. There would be no age limits meaning people would be free to engage in such activities with whoever they like of any age or gender providing both persons has a sexual consent certificate. The new definition of Statutory rape could be where a person with a sexual consent certificate engages in sexual activities with someone who doesn’t have one. There could be different types/levels of sexual consent certificates which allow you do to certain things.

The Sexual Consent Certificate would be evidence to prove it is safe for individuals to engage in sexual activities and they are able to give consent and understand the meaning of consent and aims to provide an alternative that doesn’t discriminate towards age.

[Jim Burton]

This would only work in combination with other ages of license, as there is no particular reason to apply it to sexual relations, bar whoever is suggesting it wanting sex with legal children.

There would also need to be an age range within which adolescents would apply for rights, or remain protected, for example, 12-25.

I'd see this passing in liberal countries such as Germany and The Netherlands under somewhat different cultural circumstances, and the rationale would be choice for young people, evidence-based public health, and protection from abusive parents.

[Lennon72]

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.

[Kylelomaz]

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?

[Kylelomaz]

Quite frankly not a fan of the idea of sexual consent certificate sounds like to much government interference.

[Jim Burton]

Quite frankly not a fan of the idea of sexual consent certificate sounds like to much government interference.

Might it be necessary in the present situation for conviction pro-c's to swallow the pill and find some way of appeasing statism? I don't see laws permitting sexual contacts even between same-age teens passing, unless the rationale is protection of rights, privacy, public health, escape from abusive parents. At present, that is not going to be achieved by repealing laws, something will need to replace it.

[Bookshelf]

The problem with this approach is that it reinforces the idea that sex is this big complicated puzzle; if it's something you need to pass an assessment for, it just supports the current narrative behind the existing age of consent. The reality behind sex is that it's one of the most simple, natural things a person can do. We need to break down the notion that it's a super complex mechanism with arbitrary meanings and implications.

Besides, there's the additional argument of — who decides what constitutes a pass? Whomever is in charge of that can effectively control reproduction. If a racist political party gets power, for example, they could write the test in such a way that ethnic groups are less likely to pass. You could theoretically start a genocide without directly killing anyone with that sort of power.

I think the most likely outcome is that the test will be written in a way that very few under 18s will ever possibly pass. It'll involve questions of an arbitrary or theoretical nature such as, "Do you understand the long term implications of sex?", which will be difficult for an adult to answer, never mind a teen. I think by the end of it, we'll be seeing fewer people allowed to consent than what we started with.

[Jim Burton]

I don't see where a libertarian argument is going to succeed given the above social norms you just acknowledged. Nor would lawmakers support an uncomplicated law reform that reduces the number of transactions that can be legally gamified or managed by bureaucrats - look at how assisted dying is being legalized for example.

So what if sex is uncomplicated? Only liberals who are not erotophobes will come close to acknowledging that, since consent mantra is the resort of phoney liberals. There remains the established appeals to social prejudices; namely sex is immoral and degenerate. This has always been the fundamental complaint, the complaint they now have to mask with sophistry, and thus the weaker argument that we should be attacking before any other. We are therefore better setting up in opposition to this, arguing that young people have emerging competences, and granting certain rights is in their best interests. That includes health, and protection from abusers.

The assessment I have supported in the past has been one of mental competence; it would be passed by a 12 or 14 year-old without special educational needs. It's important to mention there would be risks attached to improperly denying a young person rights to control their own finances, education, reproductive rights, etc, and liberal lawyers who would be willing to defend those rights, making a career out of gaming the system. What we are doing is setting up a competition-based system, both among younger people and the political classes. Once it becomes obvious young people with enhanced rights benefit financially, and crucially get ahead in life, there will be a rush to obtain and exercise those rights. We also have the situation where e.g. kids from rich liberal families will be getting ahead. Conservatives will therefore find their own way to support the rights of young people - early marriage, for example might be based, because you are supporting the population, preserving the nation or whatever.

[Bookshelf]

The assessment I have supported in the past has been one of mental competence

How would this be achieved?

An issue here is that you presume everyone accepts what you consider to be mentally competent as sufficient for sexual relations. Society already has a test for mental competence in regards to having sex — the age of consent. Whatever written test society agrees on will have to be one that an average 12-14 year old can't pass, because the default view is they cannot be mentally competent to such a degree that they can have sex.

Society's opinion on minors having sex isn't a matter of mental incompetence; it's a matter of disgust, and the rationale around mental capabilities is just an excuse. People don't care if a 14 year old is mentally competent. Often people accept that kids can be mature, smart, competent etc. It doesn't make a difference — they just don't want them having sex. The negative opinions around youth sexuality come first, and whatever arguments are used to support it come second.

The abstract mental requirements to have sex will always be something positioned at the age of consent. For people to accept a test, it will need to be one that does the same. The only outcome I can see happening is that we'll make it harder for people in general to have sex because with a test, some adults won't pass. It'll be an overall win for puritans.

Edit for clarity:
I believe the ageism around these subjects comes first, and any and all arguments related to the topic come in to justify the existing ageism. I don't think proving that youth are competent will ever make a difference in the age of consent debate because competence has never been the issue. It has always been disgust around youth sex; and in regards to other rights, control and ageism are at the forefront.

Because of this, I don't think any test will ever be accepted unless it reinforces ageist ideals. The existing age of consent laws are practically already a test of competence — the conditions of that competence being having reached a certain age.

[Jim Burton]

Given you agree that the underlying bias is unlikely to change, why were you originally arguing that the proposed policy's compatibility with those biases was a weakness?

This is what we already know about how social values and standards change:

1. Through brutal reality. When the truth hits you in the face, and it is impossible to deny. Compare gay rights.
2. Through latency or transfer of concern. When a topic of concern is no longer given the same type of media attention, and is therefore no longer a topic of concern. See racial hygiene, decline of the nuclear family.

Given the above, and given most lawmaking is a pragmatic compromise between the competing claims of various stakeholders:

This is why we introduce related arguments that can be reconciled with traditional liberalism. To situate the topic within a dispassionate, broader scheme of rights (supportive of latency, at least w/ respect CSA), and to create the spectacle of variation and competition that will ultimately force people to confront their biases as a result of brutal reality. A situation is thus engineered, in which our preferred topic can be given the right kind of attention for values to change. Youth rights is gamified and literally forced upon families as a dinner table topic of concern.

Those related arguments, I see as, e.g.

1. Other rights and responsibilities as central to the legal scheme (young people control their finances, custody, education, medical, privacy).

2. Freedom from abusive parents and authority figures. We compare some of this to coercive control and other standards already determined in law.

3. Public Health arguments. The insistence that all topics related to the rights of youth must be approached from the same dispassionate evidence base, and thus according to the wants and needs of the subject - in their own interests.

The competency test for an elective/voluntarist system is a simple matter, if the above priorities are agreed upon:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gillick_competence

https://wiki.yesmap.net/wiki/Research:_ ... ve_ability