Child's Sexuality?

Seangel wrote:I read Youth Rights Radical's blog on the Proposed Relational Maturity and Sexual Competency (RMSC) testing schema.

I sort of like the idea. Specially to question the arbitrary decision of the age of consent. I have a questions and a comments

I'm glad you're interested. (Though you're lucky I checked this thread, since it isn't one I was participating in.)

Seangel wrote:YRR mentions:

5.e.) Subject must recognize the problems with using sex as a commodity.

What are the problems of using sex as a commodity?

Partly that prostitution is illegal in many jurisdictions. Partly that when sex is no longer something done freely, it complicates the process of freely refusing.

Basically, our culture doesn't have particularly healthy systems for treating sex within a transactional model, and being aware of the pitfalls was considered important by more than one of the people who proposed requirements for the RMSC.

If you can think of a better wording, I'll happily look it over and update the proposal accordingly. I was serious about asking for questions and critique.

Seangel wrote:In an hypothetic situation this proposal was accepted, who would be the ones to take it? Anyone who'd want to have sex?

That's right. Of course, you only have to take the test once, sort of like a drivers test.

Seangel wrote:

Upon having passed the test, a picture ID is issued indicating you are competent to have sex.
...
If there is reason to suspect that an individual is trying to "play the system" (by deliberately remaining untested despite being actually competent in order to maintain access to partners unable to offer meaningful consent or by deliberately failing the test), the court could order that the parties involved be tested, and dealt with accordingly in terms of the results.

What would happen if someone doesn't want to take the test, but is competent, according to this test?

If they don't have sex with anyone, then nothing happens to them. If they have sex with someone who's got their license, the person they had sex with is treated like a child molester and locked up. If they have sex with someone who doesn't have their license, and someone thinks they're just being lazy/obstinate, they get put through a court ordered test, get a hard slap on the wrist style fine, and are thereafter treated as licensed (including with regards to the sex act that brought the subject up in the first place, so if your partner didn't pass their court ordered test, you get tossed in jail as a child molester).

Seangel wrote:Though, I like the idea of having better tools to discerning the age of consent, I don't like the idea of being tested, and having to have a picture ID to indicate my competency to have sex. I've instructed myself about all that you mentioned here, but I wouldn't want to be tested on it. I like the idea of having sex whenever I want it, without having to pass a test that indicates that I'm competent to do so.

Just like you know you're a safe driver and would prefer to drive around whenever you want without having to pass a test that indicates that you're competent to do so?

The whole point of the RMSC is that it acknowledges that some people are competent to provide informed consent and some people aren't. And that if we do away with an arbitrary age line, we need to replace it with something that might actually separate the competent from the incompetent.

Yes, I realize that it's a minor imposition, but really, it's one test you go through once (assuming you pass it on your first try) and that's it. After that, all you need the card for is to prove to your potential sex partners that they won't go to jail if you have sex with them. A function your drivers license should already be serving, since it has your birth date on it.

Seangel wrote:And how about emotions? What would be the questions to know if a person knows and understands the emotional connections that come during and after sex? Sometimes sex is just physical, which is great, but sometimes it has other implications, and it allows for other connections. So what questions would be there to know if the person is capable of assuming what happens, emotionally, after sex.

Can you explain those emotional connections to me? I'm not entirely sure I understand what you're getting at.

Remember the point of this is to establish a minimum standard for whether you understand sex enough that the person having sex with you shouldn't be treated like a child molester. If what you're proposing we include is a question that baffles philosophers, or that a virgin inherently lacks context for, it's a bad requirement.

I was given a list of the criteria for consent in my SO course. Frankly, I am left unsure if I am capable of "informed consent" and I'm in my early 30's!

The Lord's of morality would be properly freaked out if they saw how guys behaved on grindr, and the kinds of things they get up to, including teenagers. Very offensive to the patriarchal models of what is proper. They'd wind up putting homosexuality back in the DSM.

Hm, could you post that list of criteria they gave you? I've never seen it, and would very much like to know what standard they think they're applying.

Being willing
Knowing what you are giving consent to
Legal age of consent
Ability to weigh up implications
Emotional maturity
Sound mind - e.g. drink and drugs
Intellectual capacity
Age difference
No abuse of power - wealth, intimidation, violence, knowledge, emotional manipulation, status

Such criteria means I was definitely "raped" for 4 years, and since I've I was mostly ###$ by older bigger guys who paid me until my mid 20's it seems I hardly ever consented myself. I should imagine under the US notion that everything is rape at the moment, the list is longer.

YouthRightsRadical wrote:I'm glad you're interested. (Though you're lucky I checked this thread, since it isn't one I was participating in.)

YouthRightsRadical wrote:

Seangel wrote:YRR mentions:

5.e.) Subject must recognize the problems with using sex as a commodity.

What are the problems of using sex as a commodity?

Partly that prostitution is illegal in many jurisdictions. Partly that when sex is no longer something done freely, it complicates the process of freely refusing.

Basically, our culture doesn't have particularly healthy systems for treating sex within a transactional model, and being aware of the pitfalls was considered important by more than one of the people who proposed requirements for the RMSC.

Oh, I understand. Where I live prostitution is not illegal, though is not socially "acceptable". I've even been to forums where sexual workers demand their right to work in what ever they want, their rights and protection from the state, their capacity to also accept and refuse a client, and to determine the conditions in which the transaction takes place. (Place, use of protection, limits).

YouthRightsRadical wrote:If you can think of a better wording, I'll happily look it over and update the proposal accordingly. I was serious about asking for questions and critique.

Humm.. I'm not sure what a better wording would be. Maybe use "... understands the consequences and implication of using sex as a commodity"?

YouthRightsRadical wrote:

Seangel wrote:In an hypothetic situation this proposal was accepted, who would be the ones to take it? Anyone who'd want to have sex?

That's right. Of course, you only have to take the test once, sort of like a drivers test.

Humm... To be honest, though I'd support the proposal for "underage" people who want to have sex be granted their right to do so by using this legal mechanism, and for their partners too. I wouldn't support it if it was an obligation for everyone.

I don't like much being tested, nor testing others.

Do you think that a proposal for "underage" people and their partners, would be feasible?

Though, I'm still not comfortable with the idea of using "under-age". Why is it "under", why do we take away their rights, why did they take ours. What are the things that "under-age" people can't do:

- Have sex legally
- Drink alcohol and smoke legally
- Vote
- Sign legal contracts

Maybe the whole concept of "under-age" needs to be revised.

YouthRightsRadical wrote:

Seangel wrote:

YouthRightsRadical wrote:Upon having passed the test, a picture ID is issued indicating you are competent to have sex.
...
If there is reason to suspect that an individual is trying to "play the system" (by deliberately remaining untested despite being actually competent in order to maintain access to partners unable to offer meaningful consent or by deliberately failing the test), the court could order that the parties involved be tested, and dealt with accordingly in terms of the results.

What would happen if someone doesn't want to take the test, but is competent, according to this test?

If they don't have sex with anyone, then nothing happens to them. If they have sex with someone who's got their license, the person they had sex with is treated like a child molester and locked up. If they have sex with someone who doesn't have their license, and someone thinks they're just being lazy/obstinate, they get put through a court ordered test, get a hard slap on the wrist style fine, and are thereafter treated as licensed (including with regards to the sex act that brought the subject up in the first place, so if your partner didn't pass their court ordered test, you get tossed in jail as a child molester).

Humm... But this would give "them" (who ever "they" are, ¿Government? ¿Police? ¿Society) the right to regulate sex even more. I wouldn't want that. Sex is enough controlled and regulated in our society.

I live in a sexist, patriarcal, monogamous, heteronormative, adult, binary society, that says that only straight couples are the norm, in which everything is design and thought, and given the privilege to white straight men, which only accepts monogamous relationships, which takes away children's right and denies their ability to make decisions, which is only capable of thinking of twos and completely forgets, or disregards the fluidity among extremes... So, I wouldn't support something that would give "them" more tools to regulate something that I don't think should be regulated or controlled.

I'm not sure how else to give these rights back to children, and to decriminalize some actions, while still protecting children from abusive behaviour of others. I'm not even sure how ourselves as society, me even, would make that change in our minds to accept things we have been so rigidly taught that is wrong. I read, and read, and read and observe to understand and to break old paradigms.

Still, wouldn't want to give anyone the right to determine my competency to have sex.

YouthRightsRadical wrote:

Seangel wrote:Though, I like the idea of having better tools to discerning the age of consent, I don't like the idea of being tested, and having to have a picture ID to indicate my competency to have sex. I've instructed myself about all that you mentioned here, but I wouldn't want to be tested on it. I like the idea of having sex whenever I want it, without having to pass a test that indicates that I'm competent to do so.

Just like you know you're a safe driver and would prefer to drive around whenever you want without having to pass a test that indicates that you're competent to do so?

I think a better one to compare it with, would be a doctor. It's difficult to disagree that I'd prefer a tested doctor who has done well in tests, than an excellent doctor who haven't been tested.

But still, I know there are excellent doctors who have empirical experience, that are much better and more reliable than a perfect scored doctor who tested well and but never practiced in reality with anyone.

I wonder myself, if part of my reluctance to take a test is my ego (probably is). I just don't like this current system which tests anyone, and subjects people to the same measuring stick, when we are so different and diverse; where most tests, only measure certain abilities, and disregard so many, and so important ones. People are told they are not "good enough" for so many things, when they lack the right tools too see beyond.

YouthRightsRadical wrote:The whole point of the RMSC is that it acknowledges that some people are competent to provide informed consent and some people aren't. And that if we do away with an arbitrary age line, we need to replace it with something that might actually separate the competent from the incompetent.

Yes, I agree that a better system than just pure arbitrariness needs to take place. In my mind I go back to the term: "protect". That's one of the main reasons. "Protect". We want to "protect" the "children". I think those two terms have me thinking.

Protect from whom? From what? In that case we certainly might have to look deeper into our values, and our concepts of aggression, abuse, etc.

Children, who is a child? What our concept of "children" allows them to do vs. what are they really capable of doing?

YouthRightsRadical wrote:Yes, I realize that it's a minor imposition, but really, it's one test you go through once (assuming you pass it on your first try) and that's it. After that, all you need the card for is to prove to your potential sex partners that they won't go to jail if you have sex with them. A function your drivers license should already be serving, since it has your birth date on it.

For me, it would be more than that. The whole concept of being tested, really doesn't fit with me.

YouthRightsRadical wrote:

Seangel wrote:And how about emotions? What would be the questions to know if a person knows and understands the emotional connections that come during and after sex? Sometimes sex is just physical, which is great, but sometimes it has other implications, and it allows for other connections. So what questions would be there to know if the person is capable of assuming what happens, emotionally, after sex.

Can you explain those emotional connections to me? I'm not entirely sure I understand what you're getting at.

I've been thinking about this, since I read your answer. I've been also wondering if anyone who has sex for the first time knows the emotional implications of sex.

I think the reluctance of many to agree for children having sex with adults is related to emotional implications as well. I guess, some are addressed in the rejection questions. Other implications, are really quite nice, like for example if they are in love.

Humm.. Still thinking about it.

YouthRightsRadical wrote:Remember the point of this is to establish a minimum standard for whether you understand sex enough that the person having sex with you shouldn't be treated like a child molester. If what you're proposing we include is a question that baffles philosophers, or that a virgin inherently lacks context for, it's a bad requirement.

I'm trying to understand the reasons why most of society is against adults having sex with children, what are the implications beyond the physicality, and whether there are good questions to address those issues.

-- Wed Apr 08, 2015 10:36 am --

YouthRightsRadical wrote:Hm, could you post that list of criteria they gave you? I've never seen it, and would very much like to know what standard they think they're applying.

Yeah, I was going to say the same thing. Could you CJ?

That would be awesome!

-- Wed Apr 08, 2015 10:40 am --

Just saw your post CJ, thanks.

cumulusjames wrote:The Lord's of morality would be properly freaked out if they saw how guys behaved on grindr, and the kinds of things they get up to, including teenagers. Very offensive to the patriarchal models of what is proper. They'd wind up putting homosexuality back in the DSM.

I also wonder about that. Why are we taught to be so shocked about certain practices, "weird" practices, "queer" practices.

It's their right, our right, our bodies, our freedom.

I remind you that outside of moral panic hid the practice of cottaging, where pubescent boys (myself included) indulged in behaviour that society would not only find disgusting but would find hard to believe could possibly interest us "innocent" "vulnerable" boys - we must have been wronguns, "I blame the parents", the solution in most peoples minds, since we are male is to assume "innocence" and "vulnerability" do no apply to this sort of "perverted" boy. See how the media remove such notions from boys in news stories at will - they can withdraw the ideas of innocent-vulnerable-ignorant at will, as suits. The 15 yr old boy cannot have sex because the above criteria and then some apply. The 10 yr old who carries out an act of sexual curiosity can go to prison because no such criteria apply.

Perhaps cottaging was the truth about youth sexuality, what it was, from the boys perspective, was a secret way to peer into this world, with out much of a concern you would be found out. It was scary, nerve racking, anxious, confusing, and no, you did not understand what were getting into. Yes there were some bad times. But it was living your life guided by your gut. Sex now must happen only in an acceptable situation, with an acceptable partner, after you have read and understood the official manual. And this must only happen at the sanctioned age of 18 (almost a decade after the start of puberty for some boys these days).

In the times I grew up - I am not sure what else I could have done than to explore sex with men (victim). Would I have turned to other boys? (perpetrator)

cumulusjames wrote:Being willing

Obviously reasonable.

cumulusjames wrote:Knowing what you are giving consent to

Likewise, a good criteria

cumulusjames wrote:Legal age of consent

Meaningless drivel, who's only meaningful elements are encompassed by other criteria.

cumulusjames wrote:Ability to weigh up implications

Again, reasonable.

cumulusjames wrote:Emotional maturity

Pathetically undefined.

cumulusjames wrote:Sound mind - e.g. drink and drugs

I'll politely ignore the amount of completely legal sex that takes place while one or both parties are intoxicated.

cumulusjames wrote:Intellectual capacity

At what threshold? They certainly don't know.

cumulusjames wrote:Age difference
No abuse of power - wealth, intimidation, violence, knowledge, emotional manipulation, status

Abuse? Or mere possession? Because it seems to me that the authorites assume power is abused whenever it is present at all.

Seangel wrote:

YouthRightsRadical wrote:If you can think of a better wording, I'll happily look it over and update the proposal accordingly. I was serious about asking for questions and critique.

Humm.. I'm not sure what a better wording would be. Maybe use "... understands the consequences and implication of using sex as a commodity"?

I like it. I'll make the update immediately.

Seangel wrote:

YouthRightsRadical wrote:

Seangel wrote:In an hypothetic situation this proposal was accepted, who would be the ones to take it? Anyone who'd want to have sex?

That's right. Of course, you only have to take the test once, sort of like a drivers test.

Humm... To be honest, though I'd support the proposal for "underage" people who want to have sex be granted their right to do so by using this legal mechanism, and for their partners too. I wouldn't support it if it was an obligation for everyone.

I don't like much being tested, nor testing others.

Do you think that a proposal for "underage" people and their partners, would be feasible?

Though, I'm still not comfortable with the idea of using "under-age". Why is it "under", why do we take away their rights, why did they take ours. What are the things that "under-age" people can't do:

- Have sex legally
- Drink alcohol and smoke legally
- Vote
- Sign legal contracts

Maybe the whole concept of "under-age" needs to be revised.

The idea behind testing everyone is to redefine "under-age". If you never age out of your "under-age" status, but instead you leave it through a test or series of tests, you change the entire paradigm. The test is a means to the end of eliminating all age limits.

If we don't force "adults" to take the test to prove themselves competent, then the people in charge of implementing the test will simply make the test impossible to pass and we're right back to an age of consent. By making this the way sexual competence is determined generally, the people in charge of implementing it will have to take the thing seriously.

This also prevents it from being "the pedo test" or somesuch, since it won't be used only for the purpose of sexually empowering young children, but will be the standard that everyone uses.

Still, I recognize that people are selfish and won't want to get tested. That's what the grandfather clause is for. If you're already over age, you don't have to take the test unless you want to have sex with someone who's currently underage.

Seangel wrote:

YouthRightsRadical wrote:

Seangel wrote:
What would happen if someone doesn't want to take the test, but is competent, according to this test?

If they don't have sex with anyone, then nothing happens to them. If they have sex with someone who's got their license, the person they had sex with is treated like a child molester and locked up. If they have sex with someone who doesn't have their license, and someone thinks they're just being lazy/obstinate, they get put through a court ordered test, get a hard slap on the wrist style fine, and are thereafter treated as licensed (including with regards to the sex act that brought the subject up in the first place, so if your partner didn't pass their court ordered test, you get tossed in jail as a child molester).

Humm... But this would give "them" (who ever "they" are, ¿Government? ¿Police? ¿Society) the right to regulate sex even more. I wouldn't want that. Sex is enough controlled and regulated in our society.

This gives "them" no powers they don't already have. "They" already have the power to say who gets to have sex with whom. That's what the age of consent is. Them exercising that power. The test is simply replacing their arbitrary-age-line-based-on-nothing with something that does what "they" have been pretending age of consent has been about all along. Actual informed consent.

Seangel wrote:I live in a sexist, patriarcal, monogamous, heteronormative, adult, binary society, that says that only straight couples are the norm, in which everything is design and thought, and given the privilege to white straight men, which only accepts monogamous relationships, which takes away children's right and denies their ability to make decisions, which is only capable of thinking of twos and completely forgets, or disregards the fluidity among extremes... So, I wouldn't support something that would give "them" more tools to regulate something that I don't think should be regulated or controlled.

I'm not sure how else to give these rights back to children, and to decriminalize some actions, while still protecting children from abusive behaviour of others. I'm not even sure how ourselves as society, me even, would make that change in our minds to accept things we have been so rigidly taught that is wrong. I read, and read, and read and observe to understand and to break old paradigms.

So eliminate the age of consent and replace it with nothing. Only prosecute cases where there is no assent, and forget about bothering with the concept of informed consent at all. It's certainly a simpler method if that's your preference.

Seangel wrote:Still, wouldn't want to give anyone the right to determine my competency to have sex.

They already have that right. They currently decide your competency to have sex based on your birth date. If you don't like the RMSC for that reason, you must hate the age of consent.

Seangel wrote:

YouthRightsRadical wrote:

Seangel wrote:Though, I like the idea of having better tools to discerning the age of consent, I don't like the idea of being tested, and having to have a picture ID to indicate my competency to have sex. I've instructed myself about all that you mentioned here, but I wouldn't want to be tested on it. I like the idea of having sex whenever I want it, without having to pass a test that indicates that I'm competent to do so.

Just like you know you're a safe driver and would prefer to drive around whenever you want without having to pass a test that indicates that you're competent to do so?

I think a better one to compare it with, would be a doctor. It's difficult to disagree that I'd prefer a tested doctor who has done well in tests, than an excellent doctor who haven't been tested.

But still, I know there are excellent doctors who have empirical experience, that are much better and more reliable than a perfect scored doctor who tested well and but never practiced in reality with anyone.

Personally, I'd rather have some confirmation from a competent, informed third party that my doctor knows his ass from a hole in the ground before I go under the knife. I don't think taking his word for it is going to be conductive to my continued good health most days.

Seangel wrote:I wonder myself, if part of my reluctance to take a test is my ego (probably is). I just don't like this current system which tests anyone, and subjects people to the same measuring stick, when we are so different and diverse; where most tests, only measure certain abilities, and disregard so many, and so important ones. People are told they are not "good enough" for so many things, when they lack the right tools too see beyond.

If you think I've disregarded an important criteria, please let me know.

To play devil's advocate, and to avoid the complications of such a test, why don't we as a society start by actually establishing what criteria need to be fulfilled for capacity for informed consent to exist, because as I've mentioned in other threads ages of consent are not based on anything scientific at all, and the science that has been done suggests that some form of capacity for informed consent exists in children as young as five or six (see the seven studies carried out by Priscilla Alderson throughout the 1990s). Wouldn't it be a lot easier to address that matter properly and then have a two-tier age of consent (like in Germany, where there is an official age of consent - namely 16 - but if there is no evidence or suggestion of coercion, manipulation, etc. then sex with a 14 or 15-year-old is legal) based on the science? The only reason I can think of for not doing this would be because of the underlying motives for age of consent laws, which have nothing to do with protectionism and everything to do with controlling the sex lives of others.

Hey CJ, thanks for sharing. Lots of things to think from what you wrote.

YouthRightsRadical wrote:

cumulusjames wrote:Age difference
No abuse of power - wealth, intimidation, violence, knowledge, emotional manipulation, status

Abuse? Or mere possession? Because it seems to me that the authorites assume power is abused whenever it is present at all.

This is certainly true.

YouthRightsRadical wrote:

Seangel wrote:

YouthRightsRadical wrote:If you can think of a better wording, I'll happily look it over and update the proposal accordingly. I was serious about asking for questions and critique.

Humm.. I'm not sure what a better wording would be. Maybe use "... understands the consequences and implication of using sex as a commodity"?

I like it. I'll make the update immediately.

Cool.

YouthRightsRadical wrote:The idea behind testing everyone is to redefine "under-age". If you never age out of your "under-age" status, but instead you leave it through a test or series of tests, you change the entire paradigm. The test is a means to the end of eliminating all age limits.

If we don't force "adults" to take the test to prove themselves competent, then the people in charge of implementing the test will simply make the test impossible to pass and we're right back to an age of consent. By making this the way sexual competence is determined generally, the people in charge of implementing it will have to take the thing seriously.

This also prevents it from being "the pedo test" or somesuch, since it won't be used only for the purpose of sexually empowering young children, but will be the standard that everyone uses.

I understand your point.

I still don't like tests, but in a hypothetical situation, if it were the only way to break "under-age" arbitrary line, probably would do it.

I wonder if once it is proved by some that "under-age" and "over-age" people share the same competency to have sex, independently of their age, would it be necessary to keep testing every one else? Or this would prove that the arbitrary line of coming to age is just... arbitrary.

I think one of the questions that would raise is where would the line be drawn, if ever; when someone is incapable to decide whether or not they want to have sex.

YouthRightsRadical wrote:

Seangel wrote:Humm... But this would give "them" (who ever "they" are, ¿Government? ¿Police? ¿Society) the right to regulate sex even more. I wouldn't want that. Sex is enough controlled and regulated in our society.

This gives "them" no powers they don't already have. "They" already have the power to say who gets to have sex with whom. That's what the age of consent is. Them exercising that power. The test is simply replacing their arbitrary-age-line-based-on-nothing with something that does what "they" have been pretending age of consent has been about all along. Actual informed consent.

They have it on papers, but not on reality, at least that wasn't my case. Though I know it's not everyone's case.

I had sex since I was 16, with over 18 guys. And before that I had many sexual... exploration with kids my age since 5 years old, and with kids older since 14.

A test, I feel, would make that power more oficial and real.

YouthRightsRadical wrote:So eliminate the age of consent and replace it with nothing. Only prosecute cases where there is no assent, and forget about bothering with the concept of informed consent at all. It's certainly a simpler method if that's your preference.

This is very appealing.

YouthRightsRadical wrote:

Seangel wrote:Still, wouldn't want to give anyone the right to determine my competency to have sex.

They already have that right. They currently decide your competency to have sex based on your birth date. If you don't like the RMSC for that reason, you must hate the age of consent.

I do, I think it's pretty ridiculous.

YouthRightsRadical wrote:Personally, I'd rather have some confirmation from a competent, informed third party that my doctor knows his ass from a hole in the ground before I go under the knife. I don't think taking his word for it is going to be conductive to my continued good health most days.

hahaha, I understand it. Though this "certification" requirement, leaves out many ancestral knowledge because it's not "certified" by an institution. I get what you say, but some things like my freedom and right to have sex whenever I feel ready for it, shouldn't be "certified" by anyone but me.

YouthRightsRadical wrote:If you think I've disregarded an important criteria, please let me know.

Will do.

ctithe wrote:To play devil's advocate, and to avoid the complications of such a test, why don't we as a society start by actually establishing what criteria need to be fulfilled for capacity for informed consent to exist, because as I've mentioned in other threads ages of consent are not based on anything scientific at all, and the science that has been done suggests that some form of capacity for informed consent exists in children as young as five or six (see the seven studies carried out by Priscilla Alderson throughout the 1990s). Wouldn't it be a lot easier to address that matter properly and then have a two-tier age of consent (like in Germany, where there is an official age of consent - namely 16 - but if there is no evidence or suggestion of coercion, manipulation, etc. then sex with a 14 or 15-year-old is legal) based on the science? The only reason I can think of for not doing this would be because of the underlying motives for age of consent laws, which have nothing to do with protectionism and everything to do with controlling the sex lives of others.

I very much agree with this.

"capacity for informed consent", for all matters, would have the same criteria?