Debate Guide: Cognitive ability = consent: Difference between revisions

From NewgonWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
:''"Children/Minors have not yet reached an adequate level of cognitive development to engage in sexual activity. They cannot consent because of this."''
:''"Children/Minors have not yet reached an adequate level of cognitive development to engage in sexual activity. They cannot consent because of this."''


This argument relies on the assumption that sexual intimacy is really something so complicated and hard to master that it requires maximal cognitive ability. It is actually a rather basic human pleasure, that requires only a little taboo-free education. After that, sexual touching can be virtually risk-free. Of course, this argument of mine relies partly on the deprogramming of sexual taboos and unnecessary infantilisation/oppression of young people and children. This is something your nativist argument fails to identify or consider.
The underlying assertion about cognitive ability in ''all minors'' is problematic ''per se'', as [[Research: Cognitive ability|it seems that the human brain is adapted to its full evolutionary potential]] in early puberty. Assuming mental inferiority, however, this argument relies on the assumption that sexual intimacy is especially complicated and hard to master; something requiring a higher level of cognition. Why do we so freely and unconsensually, physically abuse our children "for their own good", or cart them off to "our" church for indoctrination as opposed to our neighbor's, just allow them to decide not to go to church or religious school? Are children able to consent to all of this? What about being allowed to shoot a gun - plenty of people seem just fine with that?


It is also [[Ageism|ageist]] to describe the cognitive abilities of children as inferior. Why not an alternative conception of a young person's abilities as best adapted to their age, needs and level of knowledge? Remember that IQ tests were set by western adults and tended to classify the learnings and innate abilities of successful western older people as superior, whilst neglecting other virtues.
A better approach would be the [[Debate_Guide: Cyclical paternalism|deprogramming of sexual taboos]] and unnecessary [[Debate Guide: Liberty-empowerment|infantilization/oppression of young people and children]]. This is something your [[Debate Guide: Profound and lifelong scarring|nativist argument]] fails to identify or consider.


Using your logic, one would also have to question why geriatrics, people with low IQs and the mentally ill should not be barred from sexual pleasures. Indeed, extending the cognitive argument yet further, age of consent laws would themselves be called into question. Considering that it is the "cognitive ability" of partners that matters - not the age, why legislate in such an arbitrary and potentially damaging way?
==Ageist and Ableist implications==
 
It is also [[Ageism|ageist]] to describe the cognitive abilities of prepubescent children as inferior. Why not an alternative conception of a young person's abilities as ''best adapted'' to their age, needs and level of knowledge? Remember that IQ tests were set by western adults and tended to classify the learnings and innate abilities of successful western older people as superior, whilst neglecting other virtues.
 
Also, using your logic, one would also have to question why geriatrics, people with low IQs and the mentally ill should not be barred from experiencing sexual pleasure. Indeed, extending the cognitive argument yet further, age of consent laws would themselves be called into question, as the education system would provide us with a better arbiter of "consenting ability" than an arbitrary cut-off age.


==See also==
==See also==

Revision as of 20:57, 21 September 2021

"Children/Minors have not yet reached an adequate level of cognitive development to engage in sexual activity. They cannot consent because of this."

The underlying assertion about cognitive ability in all minors is problematic per se, as it seems that the human brain is adapted to its full evolutionary potential in early puberty. Assuming mental inferiority, however, this argument relies on the assumption that sexual intimacy is especially complicated and hard to master; something requiring a higher level of cognition. Why do we so freely and unconsensually, physically abuse our children "for their own good", or cart them off to "our" church for indoctrination as opposed to our neighbor's, just allow them to decide not to go to church or religious school? Are children able to consent to all of this? What about being allowed to shoot a gun - plenty of people seem just fine with that?

A better approach would be the deprogramming of sexual taboos and unnecessary infantilization/oppression of young people and children. This is something your nativist argument fails to identify or consider.

Ageist and Ableist implications

It is also ageist to describe the cognitive abilities of prepubescent children as inferior. Why not an alternative conception of a young person's abilities as best adapted to their age, needs and level of knowledge? Remember that IQ tests were set by western adults and tended to classify the learnings and innate abilities of successful western older people as superior, whilst neglecting other virtues.

Also, using your logic, one would also have to question why geriatrics, people with low IQs and the mentally ill should not be barred from experiencing sexual pleasure. Indeed, extending the cognitive argument yet further, age of consent laws would themselves be called into question, as the education system would provide us with a better arbiter of "consenting ability" than an arbitrary cut-off age.

See also

  • Against: Power disparity - A similar argument, based on differences within a relationship.
Retrieved from "https://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Debate_Guide:_Cognitive_ability_%3D_consent&oldid=7317"