Prepubescent Children and Informed Consent to Sexual Acts

This is the issue that I wish to discuss: "Can prepbuscent children give informed consent to sexual activity?"

There are several factors to this discussion which I feel needs addressed.

1 - What "informed consent" is and what it is not.
2 - Whether or not prepubescent children have the capability to give "informed consent" to sexual activity based on the definition of #1.
3 - Complexities of human perception: if a child is, by appearances, giving "consent", is the child truly giving consent; or is the perception of what is actually occurring faulty on the part of the one who perceives that the child is giving consent (based on #1 and #2)
4 - Is the sexual acting out by children truly acting out sexually, or is there more occurring; and is the sexually acting out on equal level with the sexual acting out of those who have passed through, or is passing through, puberty;
5 - That the scorn of convicted child molesters on the part of the pro-consent, law-abiding pedophile is out of whack; because, in many (or most) cases, the only difference between the convicted child molester and the pro-consent pedophile is that the child molester acted on the very beliefs that the pro-consent pedophile holds and advocates (based on 1 through 3).

** TRIGGER WARNING **
Throughout this discussion, I will likely out myself by describing personal experiences of acting out sexually against the child from my past and these descriptions may be detailed. This is not something I look forward to as it requires remembering things I'd rather not dwell on and will likely evoke unwanted arousal and other feelings. These descriptions may be upsetting to some readers and may serve to provide unwanted stimulation and triggers to pedophiles. The purposes of these descriptions is not to engage in sexually explicit discussions for the purpose of sexual arousal and/or gratification, but to evaluate informed consent (or lack thereof) by prepubescent children to sexual acts and to evaluate perceptions.
***********

I will post in this thread, probably later tonight, and begin by presenting widely accepted requirements for the burden of "informed consent" to be met. I do not wish to begin immediately as I wish to survive another day of work with a semi-clear head.

This should be a quite revealing topic for me to better understand the thought processes of the non-offending pedophile. I don't expect anything from the pro-consent pedophile that I haven't heard before in the cell blocks of prison.

(I have a bad feeling that this is not going to end end well for anyone involved. Regardless, I shall hold my judgment until after I hear what is to be said).

I am curious what you think the answers are, so I'll let you speak first, RecoveringSO.

I'm not a legal scholar, so I will refrain from addressing law issues. And I'm not a psychologist, so I can only repeat what therapists and psychologists taught me in past discussions with them. What I am is an adult woman who had engaged in "consenting" man/girl relationships once when I was a child and several times as a teen. So I think I have at least an experienced-based opinion.

I put "consenting" in quotes above because, although I know a prepubescent girl can give consent, it's not the same kind of consent that's appropriate for an adult woman. She gives consent to what SHE believes the encounter affords her. An adult woman consents for adult reasons (like physical pleasure, love, advancement of relationship, even child-bearing). A child consents to a misconception. Yet it is STILL consent. This relates to points (1) and (2).

My only prepubescent sexual experience occurred when I was 9 (he was 28). I was not developed enough to feel physical pleasure, and I had no cognitive connection to the pleasure he was feeling. I was an affection-starved girl being raised by a neglectful single mom on a boring and desolate Indian reservation. Adult attention to me was like crack. I would have gladly murdered for it. But I didn't have to do anything that drastic - I only had to provide for him his #3 (our term for his orgasm). In the vernacular of a child, #1 is pee, #2 is poop, #3 is cum.

So we had an unspoken, unwritten, informal barter based on a simple equation: #3 = attention. And that addresses point (4). I was fully consenting, albeit in MY interpretation of what sex is all about. Intercourse was physically uncomfortable. It wasn't painful or traumatic, but certainly not pleasure, yet I gladly allowed it for the purpose of #3 = attention. Fortunately, I never had to tolerate much of it, since Jimmy was incapable of withstanding any prolonged amount of vagina. It was usually over right on initial penetration, and certainly never longer than 10 seconds after penetration.

That was MY notion of my side of the barter. And that's what I was consenting to. That's what sex was to me - insert and cum. Period. If Jimmy was a stud who pumped vagina for 10 minutes, I would not likely have been able to tolerate it, and I would have withdrawn consent.

Point (3) is an interesting one. Jimmy and I rarely talked about it. #3 happened about three times a day, yet we rarely talked about it. Nor do I recall ever verbally offering anything resembling formal consent.

So I guess the answer from my personal experience is children can give consent, but they are consenting to what has to be a misconception, since they are not equipped for the adult pleasures of sex. But the question I have is "what classifies as a legitimate reason for consent?". A prostitute consents. Is money a more legitimate reason than a neglected child's need for attention? A tired housewife might consent simply out of a sense of duty. Is that more legitimate?

I have a feeling that this debate won't achieve anything. It will be pointless, possibly endless until both sides realise this and agree to end it, it might get locked when the mods realise it isn't getting anywhere or if it is just too political and it will inevitably turn personal and counter-productive. How will this debate be any different to any other had before on this forum regarding informed consent? Won't this actually serve as a beacon for people struggling, who will see the ideas and beliefs that you think are dangerous for them to see? If you think the pro-contacts debating these issues is dangerous, then why create another clear source of debate? Wouldn't it be better to respond to struggling users and to simply state your opinion and not engage in debate?

Mustelidae wrote:I have a feeling that this debate won't achieve anything. It will be pointless, possibly endless until both sides realise this and agree to end it, it might get locked when the mods realise it isn't getting anywhere or if it is just too political and it will inevitably turn personal and counter-productive. How will this debate be any different to any other had before on this forum regarding informed consent? Won't this actually serve as a beacon for people struggling, who will see the ideas and beliefs that you think are dangerous for them to see? If you think the pro-contacts debating these issues is dangerous, then why create another clear source of debate? Wouldn't it be better to respond to struggling users and to simply state your opinion and not engage in debate?

Maybe so.

-- Sun Aug 23, 2015 10:08 pm --

Papergirl, I'm glad you joined us. I was actually hoping that you would; after the PM you sent me. I'll tell you; I was moved by your story.

As you also pointed out in King Gordy's thread, the only thing you really knew was the mechanics. You also stated here that you were starved for attention; that attention of adults was like crack. This makes perfect sense and is the case for any prepubescent out there; children depend on adults for survival (and they know it) and children are hardwired to seek the approval of adults. He held this need hostage so that he could take advantage of your vulnerability.

Consenting to a misconception is not consent. If I offer you a drink spiked with LSD and you accept that drink, you did not consent to me serving you LSD. If I pick you up one day to "hang out" then I stop unexpectedly and rob a liquor store, you did not consent to being an accomplice to a crime.

You did not consent to being raped (and that's what you were). You were only doing what desperate children do: Whatever it took to have your needs met; and in this case, it was the need that children have for adult approval and attention.

Hmm. I don't think that we need to refrain from debate entirely, but I agree this it would be best if we state our personal positions and term definitions out on the table before we start debating, so we each know exactly what topics we're discussing and with whom. Furthermore, let's avoid dividing up into teams like we have in the past, since that seemed to cause problems and the issue of child consent is more of a multi-part spectrum anyway. I'll post mine once I have access to my PC.

Edit: On a side note, Papergirl, I also found your story intriguing, and I would Like to discuss a few things pertaining to it if you don't mind.

Just about anyone can consent to anything but informed consent is the specific issue. People may consent to sex for many different reasons but those adults who do are fully informed about what they are consenting to.

Why shouldn't we refrain from debating? YRR and RecoveringSO, perhaps ElKahn too will continue to debate forever until one side gives up on arguing with the other. They will give up on the debate itself, not their position on the matter.

There are no teams but YRR believes that prepubescent children can give informed consent and RecoveringSO and ElKahn do not. Unless you are open to having your opinion changed? I personally am on no ones 'team'. I think that prepubescent children can't give informed consent but I am open to having the way I think challenged. However, the world where YRR's proposals would work is one that is at least several decades away or to never exist. If prepubescent children could give informed consent, there would need to be a drastic, sweeping global change that tremendously altered the world and society as we know it for that to be wildly accepted enough for it to work, and for the social influences to not be present as to damage either party. Sweeping social, political and cultural changes. It may be a utopia for some and a dystopia for others. Perhaps only people existing today would view such a society that way. It may even be a technocratic society where science is not constrained by ethics at all. That is not an insult or comment on the idea of prepubescents being able to give informed consent, but just an example to illustrate how drastic a change there may need to be for that proposal to be put in place and to 'work'.

Please tell me if I am talking nonsense or if that is some straw man argument. It certainly wasn't my intention. I actually forgot what my intention was.

You make sense.

I remembered my intention. It was to show that even if YRR and others were to prove beyond a doubt that prepubescent children could give informed consent, that does not mean that they advocate having a romantic (emotional and sexual) or sexual relationship with a child in today's society. It would inevitably lead to both people being harmed. YRR saying that he could get away with it if he ever did choose to do could be seen as potentially dangerous for any person attracted to prepubescent children who is struggling with their feelings and then saw prepubescent informed consent proved right without a doubt or strongly argued for. That said, a huge, massive and vast majority of people who engaged in sexual acts with a child would still be found out, caught and would lead to both the child and them having their lives nearly ruined, because of today's current society at least, and should not do so. I think if that is a legitimate statement and we can all agree on that, then perhaps that might help keep a debate more focused and maybe even civil.