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".
If not now, when will a minor gain this experience? And how will they, given sex education is hopelessly theoretical and pornography is condemned as the worst possible education?
Ignoring the obvious problems of applying a hard age line to guess at an individual's experience, 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, which are also very simple (don't let part x touch part y directly, keep something in between it), that is all there is to it. And while many adults associate it with a variety of social rituals and expectations, these are not inherent necessities of sex and vary greatly even among the people adhering to them. As such, it can be expected that children of most ages will understand sex just fine - a better question is whether most adults really do. 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 consent is. Must it involve a person knowing exactly what they are partaking in, regardless of whether the consequences are likely to be positive or negative? Shouldn’t we only be legislating against negative consequences?
It also bares noting that for many other activities, getting a child's informed consent is not commonly considered to be all that vital, as long as they are not harmed by the process. For those responsible for the child's care, non-consensual treatment of children is often seen as a necessity, playing a part in education and the everyday running of the household. Although it is definitely questionable whether such behavior is desirable in general, one does have to apply the same principles consistently in condemning or accepting behavior. For example, but for a variety of social factors explained elsewhere in this guide, gentle coercion into sexual activities would be as harmless as gentle coercion into a bath-time scrub down. Vaguely stating that "it's sexual" is not an adequate argument to warrant an exception.
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[1]. 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