The Million Dollar Question: Age of Consent

[BLueRibbon]

At Mu, we take no firm position on the pro-c/anti-c debate. However, we do encourage polite debate among community members, especially on our forum.

Fragment and I, as individuals, will be endorsing an Age of Consent of 12 with extra protections. We're still working on the details of how those extra protections might work.

What do you propose as an alternative to a flat AoC of 16 or 18? Or do you agree with the current system?

[BLueRibbon]

One thing I've been thinking about is how people talk of a power imbalance in AMSC. It may apply to young children, but I don't think it applies to teens. As I will explain in an upcoming essay:

One of the arguments used against AMSC is that there is a power imbalance. It is said that children are eager to please, powerless against adult authority, and easily manipulated. While this may be partly true when talking about children, these are not traits that we typically associate with teens. Except when we talk about AMSC, adolescents are generally described as disobedient, rebellious, antagonistic, unwilling to yield to authority figures, and highly skilled at manipulation.

On the question of vulnerability to power imbalances, children and teens are simply not in the same league. Given the highly anti-social traits of teens, the likelihood of the exploitation of a power imbalance is no more of a risk than it would be in many adult relationships. Indeed, there are many countries that still have horribly poor attitudes to women, where men are firmly in charge, and these countries do not outright prohibit sex between men and women.

Why do people pretend that teens are like children, and so vulnerable to adults?

[Artaxerxes II]

One thing I've been thinking about is how people talk of a power imbalance in AMSC. It may apply to young children, but I don't think it applies to teens. As I will explain in an upcoming essay:

One of the arguments used against AMSC is that there is a power imbalance. It is said that children are eager to please, powerless against adult authority, and easily manipulated. While this may be partly true when talking about children, these are not traits that we typically associate with teens. Except when we talk about AMSC, adolescents are generally described as disobedient, rebellious, antagonistic, unwilling to yield to authority figures, and highly skilled at manipulation.

On the question of vulnerability to power imbalances, children and teens are simply not in the same league. Given the highly anti-social traits of teens, the likelihood of the exploitation of a power imbalance is no more of a risk than it would be in many adult relationships. Indeed, there are many countries that still have horribly poor attitudes to women, where men are firmly in charge, and these countries do not outright prohibit sex between men and women.

Why do people pretend that teens are like children, and so vulnerable to adults?

Probably because:

1) They never met an actual teen, so their conception is based upon media stereotypes
2) They lie to themselves about teens being vulnerable so that they can keep believing in falsehoods
3) Going back to point 2, pretending that all under-18s are the same in terms of cognitive capacities allows them to keep up with the myth that teens are very vulnerable to adults.
4) The myth of the "brain development stops at 25" has caused people to see anyone below the age of 25 as being too mentally impaired for anything, not least for sex.
5) Standard pre-occupations about teen pregnancies and how that means the only solution is prohibiting intergenerational sex (at least for antis).

I could cite more reasons, but they go back to pretty much most if not all of the 5 points that I've enumerated here.

[Rin]

One thing I've been thinking about is how people talk of a power imbalance in AMSC. It may apply to young children, but I don't think it applies to teens. As I will explain in an upcoming essay:

One of the arguments used against AMSC is that there is a power imbalance. It is said that children are eager to please, powerless against adult authority, and easily manipulated. While this may be partly true when talking about children, these are not traits that we typically associate with teens. Except when we talk about AMSC, adolescents are generally described as disobedient, rebellious, antagonistic, unwilling to yield to authority figures, and highly skilled at manipulation.

On the question of vulnerability to power imbalances, children and teens are simply not in the same league. Given the highly anti-social traits of teens, the likelihood of the exploitation of a power imbalance is no more of a risk than it would be in many adult relationships. Indeed, there are many countries that still have horribly poor attitudes to women, where men are firmly in charge, and these countries do not outright prohibit sex between men and women.

Why do people pretend that teens are like children, and so vulnerable to adults?

That is a narrative that NGOs are spreading for the sake of the UNCRC, it is completely intentional and they themselves have said that their intention is for all societies to see all people under certain ages as children, mainly by principles of "social equality".

[WandersGlade]

The question is, what is for a person to have the capacity to consent? If we take the bare minimum of 12, it roughly corresponds to what Piaget calls the "formal operational stage".

The final stage is known as the formal operational stage (early to middle adolescence, beginning at age 11 and finalizing around 14–15): Intelligence is demonstrated through the logical use of symbols related to abstract concepts. This form of thought includes "assumptions that have no necessary relation to reality." At this point, the person is capable of hypothetical and deductive reasoning. During this time, people develop the ability to think about abstract concepts.
Piaget stated that "hypothetico-deductive reasoning" becomes important during the formal operational stage. This type of thinking involves hypothetical "what-if" situations that are not always rooted in reality, i.e. counterfactual thinking.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piaget's_ ... onal_stage

If you look at Shauna Rae, who stop developing from the age of 8 due to a form of cancer, it suggests that limitation may not be about physical development. Perhaps changes in education could lead to children cognitively developing faster.

[Artaxerxes II]

I get what you're saying, but I wouldn't rely on Piaget's studies alone too much, since he had his own biases plus his research was conducted on a small sample of exclusively western youths, meaning that it can't be generalised to the general global population. And besides, his findings on toddlers has been questioned. Take a look at this article. By Piaget's findings, one would have to conclude that children younger than 12 can't think in abstracts or philosophise, and yet that's not the case here:

https://archive.ph/AvtJK

While I get what you're saying, I thought that this would be a helpful reminder on Piaget.

[WandersGlade]

I get what you're saying, but I wouldn't rely on Piaget's studies alone too much, since he had his own biases plus his research was conducted on a small sample of exclusively western youths, meaning that it can't be generalised to the general global population. And besides, his findings on toddlers has been questioned. Take a look at this article. By Piaget's findings, one would have to conclude that children younger than 12 can't think in abstracts or philosophise, and yet that's not the case here:

https://archive.ph/AvtJK

While I get what you're saying, I thought that this would be a helpful reminder on Piaget.

I tried to find an alternative before using Piaget, but the point of my argument is that his cognitive functions can occur earlier than he said. I used this because I couldn't find any evidence of exact brain differences once children are older than three (i.e. it's all mid points through a continuous process of development after that). I'm mostly interested in Piaget for the terminology he develops from the describing cognitive functions, not because I necessarily agree with his theories.
Generally my approach to problems is to try to be very conservative in my answers (e.g. I'd give a lowest estimation of numbers of MAPs in the population) and to try to make tough cases first (e.g. making the case that statutory rape is discriminatory towards MAPs, because I think if you can successfully make that case, every other argument becomes easier). I want to "checkmate" the people we're arguing with.
For my purposes, it doesn't really matter that his theory is based off of only a Western sample, since I would have used evidence from non-Western cultures to show that children could display cognitive I had found it. There was one poorly digitalized study that showed Ethiopian children displayed the formal operational stage by the age of 10, but I didn't include it because the copy I found was hard to read and 10 isn't much different from 11. My intuition says displaying the traits of the formal operational stage should be possible a lot earlier.

As for what it has to do with consent, initially I was trying to work backwards from why a person would say 12 should be the age of consent. My current theory (although not one I'm hugely invested in) is that consent has to do with counterfactual reasoning. Like considering if you would regret having sex later, considering potential consequences of participating in a sexual act, etc.
Ultimately I had hoped to provide an argument for the age of consent to be 7 or 8, but because I couldn't point to any specific brain difference that develops at that point, I had look for other ways of describing the differences children display as they get older.

[OnionPetal]

What do you propose as an alternative to a flat AoC of 16 or 18? Or do you agree with the current system?

My favoured approach is to delegitimize AoC laws, rendering them meaningless, or largely unenforceable (or selectively unenforceable). There are a lot of laws on the books that are no longer enforced, because society doesn't really care about them anymore. Once that point is reached, then that is a good time to look at reforming these laws to be more compatible with society.

I am not a fan of a flat AoC, because -- in all proposals I've seen -- it completely lacks nuance. In the case of a hypothetical AoC of 12, it makes zero sense to me that a 12-yo can do everything, but an 11-yo can do nothing. I would like to see some gradient that reflects children's abilities to make different choices at different ages. Certainly there can be real risks associated with penetrative intercourse, especially if the child is too small. But can an 11-yo not even consent to a kiss below the belt? A flat AoC of 12 would say 'No.'

To anti-c people:
What do you think is a fair and just punishment for an adult who has non-forced sex with a competent minor?

To pro-c people:
What do you think is the biggest factor that makes consent difficult for a minor to give freely to an adult?

This question of 'Are you pro- or anti-contact' has always confused me, because it never defines specifically what kind of contact a person is in favour of or against. Are we speaking of penetrative intercourse? Or just kissing? How about kissing on the chest? On a naked chest? And so forth. And my requests for clarity are almost always met with vague or inconsistent responses.

For that reason, I prefer what I had assumed to be a nuanced middle ground, 'pro-reform,' in that it expressed my dissatisfaction with the status quo, and that I would like to see some unspecified reforms. When I say that I am 'pro-reform,' however, I do not mean that I prefer a specific legal reform to a flat AoC. Because that strips all of the nuance that drew me to the 'pro-reform' descriptor. To me, pro-reform is as much about social reform as legal reform. It also acknowledges that there are some things young children can consent to, but that these exist on a continuum, which grow as children mature in their physicality and independence.

Note: while some of my views may differ, I am happy to stand behind the positions of forum leadership, because I think they are taking us, thoughtfully, in the right direction.

[BLueRibbon]

What do you propose as an alternative to a flat AoC of 16 or 18? Or do you agree with the current system?

My favoured approach is to delegitimize AoC laws, rendering them meaningless, or largely unenforceable (or selectively unenforceable). There are a lot of laws on the books that are no longer enforced, because society doesn't really care about them anymore. Once that point is reached, then that is a good time to look at reforming these laws to be more compatible with society.

I am not a fan of a flat AoC, because -- in all proposals I've seen -- it completely lacks nuance. In the case of a hypothetical AoC of 12, it makes zero sense to me that a 12-yo can do everything, but an 11-yo can do nothing. I would like to see some gradient that reflects children's abilities to make different choices at different ages. Certainly there can be real risks associated with penetrative intercourse, especially if the child is too small. But can an 11-yo not even consent to a kiss below the belt? A flat AoC of 12 would say 'No.'

To anti-c people:
What do you think is a fair and just punishment for an adult who has non-forced sex with a competent minor?

To pro-c people:
What do you think is the biggest factor that makes consent difficult for a minor to give freely to an adult?

This question of 'Are you pro- or anti-contact' has always confused me, because it never defines specifically what kind of contact a person is in favour of or against. Are we speaking of penetrative intercourse? Or just kissing? How about kissing on the chest? On a naked chest? And so forth. And my requests for clarity are almost always met with vague or inconsistent responses.

For that reason, I prefer what I had assumed to be a nuanced middle ground, 'pro-reform,' in that it expressed my dissatisfaction with the status quo, and that I would like to see some unspecified reforms. When I say that I am 'pro-reform,' however, I do not mean that I prefer a specific legal reform to a flat AoC. Because that strips all of the nuance that drew me to the 'pro-reform' descriptor. To me, pro-reform is as much about social reform as legal reform. It also acknowledges that there are some things young children can consent to, but that these exist on a continuum, which grow as children mature in their physicality and independence.

Note: while some of my views may differ, I am happy to stand behind the positions of forum leadership, because I think they are taking us, thoughtfully, in the right direction.

I would also prefer to see a nuanced approach in theory, but there are two major obstacles.

1. The age of consent is too firmly embedded in legal systems across the world. Ideas like the proposed 12+ exist in other forms in a small number of countries, but an AoC of 0 only exists in countries where sex outside of marriage is always illegal.

2. If the AoC is miraculously replaced by case-by-case judgment, it is inevitable that judgments will tend toward criminalizing AMSC; in countries with an AoC of 14, it could even make things worse by allowing juries or judges to decide that AMSC with a 15 or 16 year old minor constituted a crime.

If you would like to write your own framework or a detailed critique of my Pro-Reform essay, we can publish your writing on Mu or Newgon Wiki.

[OnionPetal]

I would also prefer to see a nuanced approach in theory [...]

Yes, in practice, a nuanced approach would likely be much more difficult to implement. I appreciate that considerations have to be made for practicality and feasibility.

2. If the AoC is miraculously replaced by case-by-case judgment, it is inevitable that judgments will tend toward criminalizing AMSC [...]

I wonder if case-by-case judgment is the only alternative to a flat AoC? Perhaps it is. But for clarity, when I suggested 'selective enforcement,' resulting from delegitimization of laws, I had in mind something like the change in social attitudes surrounding cannabis in the US from the 1980s to the 2000s. In the space of a couple decades, it went from being classified as a dangerous 'gateway drug,' to something commonly associated with the college experience, with this social shift (aided by college activist organizations) ultimately leading to its decriminalization and legalization in some states. In some areas, cannabis use is so prevalent that law enforcement only prosecutes the most egregious cases, so as not to clog up the justice system. That is what I meant by 'selective enforcement.' (Disclaimer: do not break the law.)

So I suppose my favoured approach in delegitimization of AoC laws is a 'long game' based on social reform. However, as discussed with Fragment, these social and legal approaches should probably be deployed concurrently, as they would ideally play off of each other, building momentum.

If you would like to write your own framework or a detailed critique of my Pro-Reform essay, we can publish your writing on Mu or Newgon Wiki.

Your approach is very strong. Clearly a lot of thought and work went into it, and I am very happy to support it. I absolutely believe it will take us in the right direction to eventually allow for that nuance, possibly via a complementary social reform approach. Thank you for your invitation to write a related response for Mu or Newgon. I might take you up on that. It would be nice to explore more of the nuance and social reform elements of the pro-reform position... as well as present something that might be less alienating to our CL friends who exclusively love pre-pubescents. Let me think on it.