Debate Guide: Sexual inexperience

Children or minors under age X are not experienced enough to understand sex and its implications, and thus cannot possibly give informed consent.

Informed consent is another topic altogether - because if we insist on strict "informed consent", CSA becomes empirically invalid as a construct, and thus useless. To use this dilemma to quickly shut down a debate, see CSA dilemma argument.

But in lay terms, if not now, when will a minor gain the experience? And how will they, given sex education is hopelessly theoretical and pornography is condemned as the worst possible education? Think about it; we wouldn't ask a blind man to help another blind man cross the road. We wouldn't want to learn to drive a car from someone who doesn't know how to drive. It is only when it comes to sex, that people think an amateur having sex with another amateur is somehow healthy.

Further, sex is not inherently very complicated. It's an instinctive form of physical intimacy and expression of affection; touching each other and deriving joy from that. Apart from the basic precautions of safe sex (when required), that is all there is to it. While many adults associate "sex" with a variety of social rituals and expectations, these are not inherent necessities, and vary greatly even among the people adhering to them. As such, it can be expected that people of most ages will understand it just fine - a better question is whether every adult does. Are their opinions really formed with their "informed consent", even in a society full of indoctrination, soundbites and social engineering? If not, could these adults possibly consent to sex at such short notice, under such intense emotions? This causes us to ask - what exactly is consent? Must it involve a person knowing exactly what they are partaking in, regardless of whether the consequences are likely to be positive or negative? Given the confusion, wouldn't a better solution be to legislate against assault and coercion?

Consistency

It should also be noted that for many activities, getting even a young child's informed consent is not commonly considered to be all that important, since no long-term harm is seen to be done. For those responsible for the child's care, non-consensual treatment of children (beating, physical restraint, bathing) is often seen as a necessity, playing a part in education and the everyday running of the household. As these are all behaviors that contribute to the socialization of a child, we must ask ourselves why these are not classified as evil crimes when compared to sexual touching absent force.

Congruence vs Repression

Incongruence is where the true perception of oneself (minors are well aware that they are sexual) clashes with society's supposition (pure, unperverted). Minors are therefore implicitly taught to view themselves as unusual and perverse, resulting in various anxieties and attempts to repress and deny their own nature, confining it to a straight and narrow path. Similarly, minors may not conceive of themselves as objects of desire, and are taught to be fearful of extra-famililial adults' attentions. This neurosis may later manifest itself as excessive hatred towards pedophiles and other folk devils in adulthood.

A congruent upbringing is where socialization is compatible with the sexual desires of a child or minor. For example, this means that parents should not scold their child for showing curiosity. If the sexually neglected child cannot eventually come to terms with his/her sexuality (as a teenager or young adult), they may be left lacking in the ability to show affection, prone to social awkwardness/impropriety and confused about the validity and meaning of their own desires. This article goes to some length in explaining the sexual needs of children and how these are negotiated in relation to adults.

See also

• Research: Sexual repression
• Debate Guide: Childhood innocence
• Debate Guide: Cyclical paternalism
• Debate Guide: Liberty-empowerment