"Children can't consent."
"So why don't we provide proper education about sex, relationships and consent so they are better able to?"
"Groomer!"
"Children can't use power tools."
"So why don't we provide proper education about the proper use of safety equipment, etc?"
"Oh good idea."
For many people it's not about whether or not children
can consent. They actually don't
want children to be able to consent. It really is the same as anti-masturbation rhetoric in a lot of ways. They see child sexuality as wrong, so they look for post hoc justification to support that view.
Edward Brongersma in
this article said something beautiful, but sad:
Researchers have established that the bad effects of sexual confrontation, supposedly inflicted upon children, are quite imaginary, and that traumatisation is only secondary, due to the reactions of upset parents and policemen. When this was published, there was no rejoicing at all. It passed by nearly unnoticed. People clung stubbornly to their former beliefs, even if they couldn’t deny that the effects of these beliefs – the examinations, the criminal procedures – were highly harmful to their cherished children.
Why this unwillingness to accept the good tidings? Why do we want to stay in anguish, in perpetual panic? Why do we cling to our indignation, our aggression, our desire to punish, to castrate, or to kill the malefactor, even at the expense of the children’s well-being?
If an established and renown researcher of psychology came out tomorrow and proved beyond all doubt that children, if given x, y and z, are in fact as capable of consent as adults there would also be no rejoicing. Finkelhor is right- this is purely a discussion of "moral wrongs".