A study on moral outrage

[Madrigal]

Well that makes us look more backward than we are.

The French might disagree.

This discussion brings to mind the Homosexual Front for Revolutionary Action which was founded in early 1970s France, in the wake of the social and political transformations of May '68. Even though the 68ers didn't care much for gay issues, they did debate sexual liberation and of course this was probably the match that lit the spark of the revolt initially (the prohibition of visits from the opposite sex to university dorms). This set the stage for the sexual revolution of the 70s.

The homosexual struggle of the '70s was in fact closely related to the debate on the age of consent, because in 1970s France, sex between men was banned under the age of 21, but heterosexual sex was permitted from the age of 15, which was clearly discriminatory against gays. So, the Homosexual Front for Revolutionary Action actually did wage a campaign in favor of minors' right to sex, with the glorious slogan put forth by militant minors themselves, "Minors want to get fucked" (Les mineurs ont envie de se faire baiser).

This did in fact lead to a lot of controversy and discomfort among the left, and to take matters further, some proponents of sex for minors openly defended sex between adults and young teenagers (ephebophilia) as a form of sexual liberation. The extreme (who I think is more of a degenerate than a representative of the minors' sexual liberation movement) is Gabriel Matzneff, a writer that has been defending straight up pedophilia in his books for decades (celebrated by the French elites and even praised by politicians like Mitterand), and only began to have legal (and publishing) trouble when #MeToo came along, so you can imagine this was a very long time.

So, to answer the question, is there a slippery slope between (what I deem healthy) sexual liberation and "pedophilia", I'd say it depends what you call pedophilia. If you ask me personally, I don't know if it's okay for a 15 yr old to have sex with a 21 year old. I think it could be. But you have to draw the line somewhere to protect young people in general.

All that said, be advised that GW is a right wing radical, an openly declared fascist on the forum, and a notorious troll (not a "devil's advocate" as he claims). So debate with him at the peril of your own time.

[pensive_pilgrim]

If you're gonna draw a line to protect young people, and justify that by saying that young people aren't old enough to have the capacity to make that decision for themselves, a lot of young people aren't gonna like it. And if you really believe that they're not old enough to decide for themselves, you should be telling those young people "tough. You can wait." But instead we have let our laws be governed by the ick factor and we say "okay, you can decide to have sex, but only with other young people because that's cute, and not with older people because that's icky". So we end up with laws that aren't about protecting young people at all, but about preventing consensual age gapped relationships. It is the exact same motivation that was behind laws against homosexuality, and interracial marriages, and polygamy, and every other legally enforced cultural norm. It's the same reason we have a different set of laws for minors but routinely make exceptions to those for crimes we find especially icky, to the extent that those exceptions have become the norm. It's not about protecting young people in the slightest, it's entirely about enforcing cultural norms upon them.

[Madrigal]

But instead we have let our laws be governed by the ick factor and we say "okay, you can decide to have sex, but only with other young people because that's cute, and not with older people because that's icky".

Nope, you're trivializing an issue that's actually pretty clear. If you outlaw sex between two 15 yr olds, then you have to be able to criminally charge one or both of them. That's going to be complicated, since obviously neither are adults. I think the usual stance here is that, to the chagrin of many parents, kids are sometimes gonna fuck, it makes little sense to criminally charge two kids consensually exploring sex (I mean what are you going to do as punishment? Take away their PlayStation?), but you can definitely criminally charge an adult.

And like I said, I don't know where that line has to be drawn. This is probably something that doctors and psychologists have a more valid opinion on than I do.

[Guess Who]

Sex between minors is something that happens. There definitely can be harm that comes from it and children who engage in it tend to be people who have experienced abuse, neglect or trauma. I think children consenting to having sex with other children or adults is possible but the bigger issue is that some children are in a place where they would consent to having sex.

Children having sex with each other is not ideal and not something that should be encouraged but giving children who are having sex with each other a criminal record is a very bad idea. The fact that children having sex with each other is not illegal is motivated by a desire to avoid giving children a criminal record and has nothing to do with questions of harm or consent so is irrelevant to the question of whether sex between adults and children should be legal.

If an adult encounters a child who propositions them or would be open to having sex with them, they should definitely decline. The adult should be motivated by a desire to get the child out of such a place that they are seeking sex and into a place where they value themselves. The mere act of declining to have sex with them when it is on offer or a possibility would send a valuable message that they are worth more than that. The adult could go further and take an interest in the child as an individual to further boost their sense of self-worth.

Adults having sex with children should definitely be illegal and most people would intuitively agree but I'm not confident that progressive reasoning could not be used to convince people otherwise and change the law.

[pensive_pilgrim]

We make laws about what kids can do all the time. You can't smoke. You can't drink. And when kids break those laws we usually hold their legal guardians criminally responsible, not the kids themselves.

it makes little sense to criminally charge two kids consensually exploring sex

If they are consensually exploring sex, you're acknowledging that they're capable of consent. If you then turn around and say that they're not capable of consenting to sex with someone outside of a certain age range, you're contradicting yourself.

They are either old enough or they're not, and if they're not then it should not be legally permitted. Parents who allow it should be treated like parents who allow their children to smoke.