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

[BLueRibbon]

Fragment and I re-wrote the 12+ article, attempting to address concerns raised in the draft. Please discuss, while remembering this is not an official position of Mu.

The pro-reform position is focused on maintaining a balance of freedoms, responsibilities and protections for MAPs and young people. Obviously, one of the most contentious issues is AMSC (Adult-Minor Sexual Contact). Almost always viewed through the negative lens of child sex abuse, legal definitions of what constitutes criminal sexual contact are highly arbitrary and vary significantly around the world. In this article, we will outline the pro-reform position on AMSC: 16/12.

Article here

[Harlan]

One can add to the history of the increase in the age of consent by emphasizing that the increase in 1885 occurred only in the UK and US. In all other European countries, the AoC remained generally 12-14 until the early 2000s, until it began to be raised under pressure from globalism, pro-Western organizations and activists.

[Strato]

Fragment and I re-wrote the 12+ article, attempting to address concerns raised in the draft. Please discuss.

Article here

Thank you for highlighting in the proposal the-younger-age-at-which-children-commence-puberty phenomenon. The piece is stronger for it.

I note the following from virped.org/mission statements: "Virtuous Pedophiles is fundamentally opposed to any form of sexual activity between adults and children." Clearly the AMSC proposal takes a diametrically opposite view to this statement. I understand this forum is to give a collective voice to all MAPS, virtuous or otherwise. How does one avoid alienating a presumably not insubstantial number of fellow MAPS in this instance?

[Red Rodent]

I have issues with any proposal which hangs on to the notion that chronological age is a reliable indicator of maturity. The fact is that some 12 year-olds are physically more mature than some 16 year-olds; some 16 year-olds are more naive and vulnerable to sexual exploitation than some 12 year-olds. And physical development doesn't necessarily go hand-in-hand with mental and emotional development. By their early teens, some kids look like young adults but are still very much children underneath. Others still look like little kids but have an emotional maturity well beyond their years. Throw into the mix that girls tend to reach puberty about 18 months ahead of boys (and 18 months is a long time in the life of an adolescent) and the whole issue becomes a confused mess of a minefield.

If you ask me, the only way to address the issue of underage sexual intercourse is to take the offence out of the realms of criminal law and make it a civil matter. In a UK (or, rather England and Wales) context, that would mean having such complaints heard in the Family Court rather than the Youth, Magistrates' or Crown Courts. (Obviously, accusations of rape, indecent assault and the like would remain criminal matters regardless of the victim's age.)

In this way, each case could be judged on its individual merits by a judiciary specifically trained in the issues around child protection, safeguarding and development. I find this a more civilised and productive approach than trying to shoehorn an issue so riddled with grey areas and moral dilemmas into the black-and-white, adversarial system of punitive criminal prosecution.

[Jim Burton]

I have issues with any proposal which hangs on to the notion that chronological age is a reliable indicator of maturity. The fact is that some 12 year-olds are physically more mature than some 16 year-olds; some 16 year-olds are more naive and vulnerable to sexual exploitation than some 12 year-olds. And physical development doesn't necessarily go hand-in-hand with mental and emotional development.

What is your view on my earlier proposal, i.e. 12-16 have the option to emancipate within predetermined areas of responsibility, but this needs to be passed by someone who has the ability to carry out a basic psychological assessment?

[Red Rodent]

What is your view on my earlier proposal, i.e. 12-16 have the option to emancipate within predetermined areas of responsibility, but this needs to be passed by someone who has the ability to carry out a basic psychological assessment?

Eminently sensible, in my view, Jim. As is Ethan Edwards' approach as cited earlier (which, as I understand it, is the way it works in practice in The Netherlands, which raised the AoC from 13 to 16 some years ago but will not prosecute without a complaint from the victim apparent).

It's the individual assessment approach that I'm arguing for, not the abolition of the offence.

[Red Rodent]

This was PIE's proposal back in the day
[...]
but beats throwing up our hands and saying "I give up".

To put my argument into context, I have worked in child safeguarding consultancy for over a decade and was until a couple of years ago responsible for student welfare and safeguarding at a large secondary school. I'm currently training in UK law with a view to specialising in youth justice, civil rights and family law. So, with respect, I feel that I'm a long way from "giving up" and my stance is far removed from that of PIE (whose proposals in the late 70s I have read, along with Tic-TOCs addendum to them in "The Radical Case.")

I actually agree with those proposals in principle, but I think they shot themselves in the foot by being advocates for intergenerational sex to begin with. Then there was the thoroughly icky conflation they had with consent and the ability of a toddler to verbalise the word "yes." That's not what I'm saying.

Nor am I knocking your 16/12 proposals. I agree that it would be a step in the right direction, if not towards utopia. But I do still believe that taking USI out of the criminal realm is the ultimate answer, and that it is possible to construct a publicly palatable case that this is not the same as legalising sex with children: because it's not.

[Red Rodent]

I didn't mean to promote my own agenda in this thread and so I, too, apologise if it came across like that. However, I couldn't comment on the 16/12 proposal without voicing my fundamental concern about the existence of a criminally enforced AoC in the first place.

do you think removing AMSC from criminal courts is something compatible with 16/12, or do you see that as a different path entirely? You mentioned not wanting to set hard limits based on age, but part of 16/12 as I see it is to create a transitional period for 12-15 year olds where the courts will assess each case on a more individual basis. It adopts the very Netherlands model that you refer to- that a case will be investigated on complaint by the minor in question.

Is there an age at which you think the criminal courts should be involved? Should it be a civil matter even with very young children? Or in cases of incest? At what age do you think the civil courts should stop being involved? 16 as exists in the UK now?

I don't think the approach is incompatible, no. Indeed, another problem with having the AoC in the criminal system is that it can make young people reluctant to complain, or even to seek advice, if they feel uncomfortable about a relationship with an older person. That older person may well be (and often is) someone they care about -- dare I say love? -- and not someone they would want to see shamed and go to jail, with all the guilt that would also entail for the younger party. It may well be someone on whom they are emotionally and/or financially dependent; I've seen this happen for myself and the fear of losing that person outstrips the benefit of reporting their concerns. Addressing the issues in a closed and confidential civil court hearing would go a long way to relieving this tension under the model you're proposing.

Part of the problem is that adolescence is a time of such rapid and fundamental change for young people that tying down a developmental milestone to a specific age (and that includes a proper grasp of the concept of consent) is problematic, if possible at all. Yeah, 16 as it is here seems fair enough to me, although erring on the side of caution. I've lived and worked in European countries where it's 15, and visited Germany where it's 14. None of that seems to make much difference to social attitudes or offending behaviour from what I've seen. Even in the UK, 16 is not an absolute; one can still be prosecuted for unlawful sexual intercourse with an older youth if (s)he has a significant learning disability, for example, or if you are in a position of trust (their teacher, youth worker, social worker and so on).

I think there is a point at the lower age-end where sexual contact can safely be assumed to be indecent assault but again it's hard to pin it down to a specific age. But just because a case starts as a civil action doesn't mean it can't result in criminal prosecution if, during its course, it emerges that such an offence has been committed.

[Harlan]

Is there an age at which you think the criminal courts should be involved? Should it be a civil matter even with very young children? Or in cases of incest? At what age do you think the civil courts should stop being involved? 16 as exists in the UK now?

The criminal court should only step in extreme cases, if there are clear signs such as ACTUAL beating, kidnapping, rape, murder. If such actions are discovered in a civil court, they must reclassify the case and apply for criminal proceedings. Incest is simply sex between close relatives, which can be either consensual or forced. We can discuss the lower limit when the civil court begins to operate, for example, from 7 years old.

[Red Rodent]

Seeing how the system plays out with adolescents first seems a more realistic path.

I can live with that.

Harlan and I make strange bedfellows in any setting, but it's nice to give him a hug in this bunk