MAP Forum

One of the most used anti talking points is that minors aren't capable of informed consent, making sex for them harmful. How one defines "informed consent" when it comes to sexual activities, or even non-sexual romantic relationships, varies widely from person to person. Nonetheless, the idea is still there and widely used to counter any pro-C argument, especially among liberal and leftist antis.

So how does one counter the informed consent talking point effectively?
As shown by the Rind report of 1998, simple consent is more predictive of outcomes than informed consent. And "informed consent" is a term more suitable for making medical decisions rather than for a simple activity for sex. Likewise, the fact that plenty of adults make uniformed decisions on sex as well, with no visible signs of trauma based on making an uninformed decision alone. It's also questionable the presumption that any let alone most minors are incapable of informed consent, given that most medical authorities typically hold 12 years old and those older as being capable of making informed medical decisions such as vaccinations or taking prescribed medication.

But then again, maybe antis will come up with something else as they always do. So, how would you effectively counter the "informed consent" talking point used by antis? Any ideas?

I think the only reason 12 year olds wouldn't be making 'informed' decisions is because they hadn't been educated properly.

Pro-Reform advocates comprehensive sex education along with an AoC of 12+

Artaxerxes II wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2024 2:29 pm So how does one counter the informed consent talking point effectively?

I'm not sure that it can be countered "effectively", people usually use without ever defining what it means. "Children can't consent because they can't consent." Often if you ask them to expand beyond that they can't, or they resort to "but what kind of sick person would even want to get with a literal child".

For me I think the best response is a question, "So what kind of information and understanding do you think is necessary to agree to sex?"

I also think that with a lot of progressive people, or even moderate people they agree that two 14-year-olds can have sex with each other, so in that case "Do two 14-year-olds have enough information to agree to sex with each other?" "What extra information do they need to consent to sex with someone older?"

At that point usually they pivot to "power/ experience/ knowledge disparity". Somehow they think that's related to informed consent, despite being a different strand logically.


Personally I think that sex is probably less important than medical decisions like surgery. Adolescents are considered to have the agency, competence and understanding to consent to surgery so I'd say they're more than able to consent to sex. They should also be considered competent for making decisions about their own gender. They should also be considered capable of understanding morality and the law and as a result should be treated as such by the legal system (sentencing should take into account their age, but the facts of the crime as a crime should stand).

Meanwhile, I'd say that toddlers cannot really make informed decisions about a lot of things. A toddler is able to express preferences about what they want for dinner, but they can't make informed decisions about what they are eating. I think that dinner is much lower stakes than sexual contact and so a toddler definitely cannot give informed consent to sex. Between the more clearly defined boundaries of "toddler" and "adolescent" there is a period of transition and the competence of minors grows, the rate of which is unique for each individual. Yet, although I think some kids may theoretically be possible of making informed decisions about sex, especially with progressive sex and relationship education, a cautious approach would keep a limit at the start of adolescence.

This is in line with the age that minors in many countries are given more choices in terms of how to travel to school, what to study, what extra curricular to participate in, etc. Many of those decisions are made by parents at the elementary school level, but on transitioning to middle school (grade 7 in many jurisdictions, though some may vary) young adolescents start to make those decisions for themselves.

Youth liberation and empowerment will probably never be an act of pure emancipation. Children require the support and guidance of adults, even if that sometimes involves revoking the child's right to decide. I believe it has more granularity than other social justice movements. We can give children more freedoms and more decision making power, even if it's not unconditional. I think this is actually the most realistic approach if we look at actual child development. Society is definitely too authoritarian in its approach to parenting and how we treat children now, but there is a balance to be had between the status quo and treating children and adolescents no differently to adults.

Artaxerxes II wrote: ↑Sat Aug 17, 2024 2:29 pm But then again, maybe antis will come up with something else as they always do. So, how would you effectively counter the "informed consent" talking point used by antis?

my previous post from another thread.

Harlan wrote: ↑Sun Aug 11, 2024 8:08 am The consent is simply a sequence of approvals as long as the actions bring satisfaction and do not cause pain or suffering. A person may express consent out of interest in trying to experience something unfamiliar or repeating an already familiar and enjoyable experience.

"Informed consent" is a hypocritical ploy because even providing information does not free the minor from the victim label. At first, the antis say that minors cannot know the consequences and therefore are not able to give so-called "informed consent", but they immediately refuse to provide this information, claiming that their brain/psyche is not ready yet. At the same time, Antis does not prohibit teaching toddlers to walk, and does not claim that their brain/psyche is not ready for a tricycle, even despite the risk that they might run away and get seriously hurt, but they deny information to young people who already experience erotic fantasies and masturbate. Although it is precisely openness and sexual education that would make the environment safer.

It should be added that in many countries the age of criminal responsibility starts at 11-12 years. In divorces, the court must take into account the opinion of children aged 10 years and over. On YouTube you can find skydiving videos featuring minors from 7 to 13 years old. Do you think anyone in the comments cares about their "informed consent" ? Everyone doesn't give a damn, despite the fact that their lives are in potential danger, unlike harmless earthly petting and masturbation.

In 2000, a national survey of 12,000 girls aged 12 to 16 was conducted in the UK, and they said that the age of consent was too high and sex education was too late. It would seem that this is what is missing for "informed consent", but conclusions were made ? No, no more such surveys were conducted and the sex-negative agenda began to grow. When in 2013 there was a proposal to lower the age of consent by just one year from 16 to 15, Prime Minister Cameron blocked it, calling it offensive.