Choice for children is an illusion. The choices they are given have more to do with what is acceptable to the parent presenting the options than it does with children 'following their hearts' and any other such sentimental claptrap. This is not to say that an illusory choice is unfair, as complete freedom of choice for anyone is severely restricted, and just being granted the right to make it empowers and teaches them to use and form their own judgments, and--most importantly, suffer their own consequences (within reason). This is to say, choosing is always a learning experience.
Culture plays a big part in the degree to which a child's choice will be reinforced at any particular time, as eastern cultures tend to be more imperative and collectivist and western ones, more interrogative and individualistic. The idea of a child having choice at first appears to be something inspired by western individualism, however, in either culture, regardless of parenting methodologies, warmth, and cultural differences, trends regarding the child's choice are cyclical. It could be said that children in collectivist and individualistic societies are simply socialized to construct their individual wills likewise, to align with whatever the prevailing social trend is. It is inevitable that a thousand different influences (Bronfenbrenner) are going to converge on a child's will from birth and distort it, molest it, and mature it, until it is conformed with the cultural and historical modes of its society, and that with reinforcement, children will learn to bend their own will accordingly.
A child's evaluation of certain objects and activities has more to do with what the society that surrounds him or her values than it does anything particular to the characteristics of "childhood." If we lived in a society where anal sex in childhood was valued as much as we value the toy aisle, our children would love anal sex, and anal sex would be another so-called "pure" and innocent childhood pastime. There is nothing beautiful, pure, disgusting, or obscene, other than what adults have termed these things.
The former transition is one created by the socialization of the child by caregivers and the other contextual and ecological factors. However, it is also a child's human ability to resist the flow, and ultimately, this small resistance fuels the evolution of society, but such can only happen if they remain active players in the social game. Children who totally fail to bend their will to the expectations of society by the time they are developmentally expected are labeled disordered, or truant, or otherwise socialized in inappropriate ways, and they are effectively done away with. That is no exaggeration.
The ability of children to make the choice by which to structure their behavior, either in accordance or protest, highlights the reality of a child's humanity. And though parents seem to detest their children when they are either too eager to participate or too disobedient to comply, it is in those instances when the child is most human. If anything, those instances ought to be the most celebrated moments in a child's life. Unfortunately though, when a child's humanity interferes with an adult's authority, humanity is crushed.
I think that the main problem of consent is on the question: “consent to what?” The problem is that child lovers and mainstream society have two very different views of what sex is.
ReplyDeleteFor child-lovers, sex (with a child) is a game. It’s like playing doctor, like “You show yours I show mine” (I don’t know if that it’s the correct expression, English is not my first language). So, because it’s a game, its harmless and fun. The notion of “consent” to sex (at least sex with a child) is seen like consenting to play chess or magic. Just a “yes” and acceptance of both partners will do it. After all, its just a game that feels good for both persons.
For mainstream society, sex is, first and foremost, a ritual. Its something serious, important, significant. Its almost always thought as penetrative (full intercourse). So the notion of “consent” to sex (at least sex with a child) is seen like consenting to have an important operation on a hospital.
In my opinion, that’s where it lies the main problem: for child lovers and society, sex with children is seen on two different focuses. For ones, is a game. For the others, a major decision.
I keep asking myself about the consent of children and I just don’t know what to think. For me, it’s a very difficult question and I really don’t know where I stand. Sadly, for many child-lovers (and pedophiles certainly) the question is very easy, and the answer very simple. Same for society.
So when I look at the arguments from mainstream society against child-adult sex (that children cant give meaningful consent because they don’t know whats going on) they make sense and are robust arguments, but only if seen from the perspective that society has of sex. From the view that child lovers have from sex, they don’t make that much sense.
One of the major problems I see is that of the STDs. Even if sex is seen as just a game (fondling, mutual masturbation, etc.), there is the omnipresent danger of STDs. A 5 yo cannot possibly know what AIDS is. Even if she/he agrees to have sex with an adult (who is assumed to have previous sexual experiences), there is always the danger of AIDS and others s.c.o.u.r.g.e.s of human existence. I don’t know to what extent AIDS can be contracted from masturbation, but not all STDs behave of the same way. A young child cannot possibly be expected to know how these sicknesses work and infect.*
So, a priori, I think that 12-13 is a good age of consent limit. Younger, requires more thought and analysis. The answer is not easy and monosyllabic (yes, no), no matter what society or pedophiles/child lovers say.
Im thinking of possible solutions, like that all pedophiles and child-lovers that want to have sex with children should have periodical psycho-physical exams, to ensure that they will not hurt the children raping them or infecting them with a STD. If AIDS wasn’t a problem everything would be much easier.
Wow. Why you deleted my commentary?
ReplyDeleteI would have expected that from a anti, not from a libertarian.
I think that the main problem of consent is on the question: “consent to what?” The problem is that child lovers and mainstream society have two very different views of what sex is.
ReplyDeleteFor child-lovers, sex (with a child) is a game. It’s like playing doctor, like “You show yours I show mine” (I don’t know if that it’s the correct expression, English is not my first language). So, because it’s a game, its harmless and fun. The notion of “consent” to sex (at least sex with a child) is seen like consenting to play chess or magic. Just a “yes” and acceptance of both partners will do it. After all, its just a game that feels good for both persons.
For mainstream society, sex is, first and foremost, a ritual. Its something serious, important, significant. Its almost always thought as penetrative (full intercourse). So the notion of “consent” to sex (at least sex with a child) is seen like consenting to have an important operation on a hospital.
In my opinion, that’s where it lies the main problem: for child lovers and society, sex with children is seen on two different focuses. For ones, is a game. For the others, a major decision.
I keep asking myself about the consent of children and I just don’t know what to think. For me, it’s a very difficult question and I really don’t know where I stand. Sadly, for many child-lovers (and pedophiles certainly) the question is very easy, and the answer very simple. Same for society.
So when I look at the arguments from mainstream society against child-adult sex (that children cant give meaningful consent because they don’t know whats going on) they make sense and are robust arguments, but only if seen from the perspective that society has of sex. From the view that child lovers have from sex, they don’t make that much sense.
One of the major problems I see is that of the STDs. Even if sex is seen as just a game (fondling, mutual masturbation, etc.), there is the omnipresent danger of STDs. A 5 yo cannot possibly know what AIDS is. Even if she/he agrees to have sex with an adult (who is assumed to have previous sexual experiences), there is always the danger of AIDS and others s.c.o.u.r.g.e.s of human existence. I don’t know to what extent AIDS can be contracted from masturbation, but not all STDs behave of the same way. A young child cannot possibly be expected to know how these sicknesses work and infect.*
So, a priori, I think that 12-13 is a good age of consent limit. Younger, requires more thought and analysis. The answer is not easy and monosyllabic (yes, no), no matter what society or pedophiles/child lovers say.
(*Im thinking of possible solutions, like that all pedophiles and child-lovers that want to have sex with children should have periodical psycho-physical exams, to ensure that they will not hurt the children raping them or infecting them with a STD.)
Personally I disagree with adult and child sex as a rule, although I make room for exceptions.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure why AIDS only seems to affect people who are engaging in sex that society doesn't approve of. You never hear of buxom females and man studs getting it on and coming down with an STD. In the popular imagination, such things seem to only inflict gays. teenagers, and children (by pedophiles). In actuality, the chance of a child contracting AIDS is slim because children don't have a lot of intercourse. I'd expect the AIDS rate to be higher amongst people who are actually having sex. But even if children were like adults and were having sex all the time, the prevalence of AIDS would be the same as it would be for adults.