MAP Forum

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

I think we definitely refined it compared to last time. There were still a few points I feel could've been made more clearly or discussed in more detail, but we have a long time before even a moderate proposal like this is being discussed by anyone in the mainstream.

One thing I feel that 16/12 does is accept the negative reactions associated with early sex on their face rather than trying to explain them as being caused by sociogenic harm. I, personally, do think sociogenic harm (particular attitudes towards sex) play a big role in how people respond to their sexual experiences. But if we assume society won't change all that much, 16/12 seems the most reasonable.

Taking Rind's analysis of the Finnish data, for example, we see the following rate of negative reactions to sex with an older partner:
Boys < 12 34.4% (with peers 9.6%)
Boys 12-14 11.5% (with peers 2.6%)
Boys 15-17 8.0% (with peers 1.3%)

Girls < 12 72.6% (with peers 35.9%)
Girls 12-14 37.7% (with peers 13.4%)
Girls 15-17 26.1% (with peers 8.1%)

There seems to be a fairly sharp decline in negative response once the younger person is 12 or older- much more dramatic than the difference between the early adolescent and late adolescent groups. There are many possible reasons for that- with "we live in a society that has negative attitudes towards sex" being very likely.

But 16/12 isn't hoping to change social attitudes towards sex. It is pushing for cautious liberalization based on society as it stands now. It is not a proposal fit for utopia.

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.

BLueRibbon wrote: ↑Wed Sep 04, 2024 4:03 pm 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?

Strato wrote: ↑Thu Sep 05, 2024 11:05 am
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?

I'd say there's three things:

First, and most importantly, Pro-Reform is NOT a position held by MAP Union. It is a personal position held by Brian, and to a lesser degree, myself. As an organization we actually hope for the participation of more VirPed type people. We want to amplify THEIR voices, too. We have a guest blogs section where we would happily publish anti-c essays and we hope that as our committee expands in the future that we will be able to welcome anti-c people and be able to work alongside them. None of Mu's principles are opposed to VirPed's principles. We do support legal reform, but age of consent reform is not explicitly outlined as part of that.

Meanwhile we also support discussion about contact stances between pro-c and anti-c people. Some communities try to unite either side of the fence by banning discussion on the topic. We don't think that's productive. We want people who agree on most things, but disagree on one important issue, to be able to work together on the things that do unite us.

Second, and this may be splitting hairs, but pro-reform is not a position that supports sexuality activity between adults and children. Children are explicitly excluded from the reform. It is a proposal focused on adolescent sexual agency and autonomy. Formerly having strong anti-c views himself, Brian proposed 12+ partly because he felt it would be a position that moderate anti-c people could support, while still being seen as "progress enough" for pro-c people. Key to the position is that adolescents are not children- they are between childhood and adulthood and should be treated as such.

Third, even Ethan Edwards, one of the founders of VirPed has expressed a view very similar to 12+ in this blog.

The compromise I propose is that for girls of (say) age 13 and above, there should be no prosecution unless the girl herself wants it -- without heavy pressure from parents or law enforcement. This system leaves in place the most important protection -- if she was raped, there is no need to prove lack of consent. If it can be proven that sex happened, then if she says she did not consent she is automatically right. She could also admit she agreed to the sex but it was under false pretenses -- this should also result in a conviction, though a lighter sentence. But she also has the option to forgive the man and chalk it up to a learning experience. Of course, if she is enthusiastic about the relationship, she would not support prosecution.

Her judgment that she wants the man prosecuted should not be required immediately -- she should have a few years at least to re-evaluate the experience.

This is almost exactly the 16/12 position (except that the age is 13 instead of 12). Even including the ability of the younger person to prosecute without having to prove a lack of consent. I know this isn't an official VirPed position and just Ethan's personal view, but if such an influential member of the anti-c community can accept this as a reasonable position, then we believe it should be possible for 16/12 to unite a substantial part of the community. There will, of course, be abolitionists that think it doesn't go far enough and other people who think that it goes too far. But we hope it can lead to discussion, not alienation.

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.

Red Rodent wrote: ↑Thu Sep 05, 2024 1:14 pm 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 wrote: ↑Thu Sep 05, 2024 1:14 pm I have issues with any proposal which hangs on to the notion that chronological age is a reliable indicator of maturity.

This is common argument, especially amongst people who support abolition of the AoC altogether (and replacing it with other checks of capacity). I'm sympathetic towards that argument ideologically, but on a practical level I think maturity will always be judged chronologically. I can't imagine the legal capacity to drink, vote or drive ever being made independent of chronological age in our society. It'd require a utopian vision of a very different society to make that kind of change, I think.

16/12 is inherently conservative. It doesn't require abolishing capitalism, or the nuclear family, or prisons, or the state in order to work. Legally speaking it's a fairly minor change from the status quo (very minor when applied to a country like Germany). While we can all enjoy discussions of our paradisaical utopia, we'd like to reign things in a bit and hopefully focus more on discussions between two possible worlds- the status quo and one with 16/12.

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.

This was PIE's proposal back in the day. The media took the most extreme example and interpreted it as "allowing fondling of four-year-olds". I agree that more nuance might back for a better society. But Brian and I also have a very real fear that nuance could be used against MAPs. If, instead of a black-and-white rule, the law said "sex with someone who lacks the capacity for true consent" how would judges interpret it? Given the current social climate, it's very likely that sex with even 17 year olds could get ruled illegal. It could be worse for adolescent autonomy than now.

So while we welcome discussions on alternatives, in this thread we'd also like to hear your opinion on 16/12 in contrast to the status quo. Obviously any proposal that empowers adolescents or allows "perverts to engage in their sick fantasies" is going to face backlash. But we feel it is a workable alternative that does make a lot of compromises, but beats throwing up our hands and saying "I give up".

Jim Burton wrote: ↑Thu Sep 05, 2024 1:34 pm 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.

Fragment wrote: ↑Thu Sep 05, 2024 1:37 pm
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.