Debate Guide: The kids do not want it

"Your arguments will only come into play, once children themselves start asking for sex. I have not heard a single one making such requests!"

---

This argument is not fully based in reality, and runs counter to the accounts of adults who are in a better position to share their experiences. However, regardless of these facts, the argument is ethically unacceptable, because it would justify the oppression of almost any minority group in history.

Socialised apathy

Socialised apathy is central to the oppression of entire creeds and classes. The very definition of oppression is to undermine liberties with physical or mental tyranny. Minors, women and slaves throughout history and through to this present day, would not have suffered oppression had they collectively stood up and challenged the status quo. In many present societies, women and minors are silenced through (sometimes tacit) exclusion and alienation from traditional power roles and rights discourse. Very few people under the age of eighteen are taught about their rights, and lack the voting rights to challenge present day reality. More specifically, youth in a culture so dogmatically against youth sexuality will more often see their own sexuality as something abberant. There is no way of confidently and authoritatively demanding the right to something you may not legitimitely obtain accurate information on, ponder the nature of, let alone experience for oneself.

To expand the counter-argument, a common proposition is that the average western child would struggle to express sexual feelings due to his or her inadequate understanding of sexuality. This is not, however an age-related problem, and is grounded in cultural factors such as poor intergeneratonal relations and a lack of accurate information in the young person's immediate environment. History (particularly of adolescence) suggests that the aforementioned social apathy is not a biological deficiency, but can be found among individuals of all ages and classes when they are subjugated as a class. For example, when foreign powers would try to incite slave revolts in rival sovereignties, many a time they would face problems. Slaves would refuse to revolt, claiming their masters would not approve. These slaves lived their entire lives as subordinates to their masters; it is all they knew. They could not comprehend the concepts of liberty and freedom beyond what they could observe of their masters. When the feminist movement first began, most women were opposed to it. They, too - lived their whole lives as subordinates to men. And they, too - struggled to comprehend civil liberty. This inability was used by anti-feminist ideologues as a supporting argument as to why women should not be emancipated from men. The tendency of subservient groups to rationalize their position is covered by system justification theory, for example in Kay et al. (2007):

"He concluded that with respect to slaves and concentration camp survivors, "It is no wonder that their obedience became unquestioning, that they did not revolt, that they could not 'hate' their masters. Their masters' attitudes had become internalized as a part of their very selves". Even in extraordinarily oppressive circumstances such as these, people find ways of adapting to circumstances that they cannot change, so that "the unwelcome force is idealized"."

Likewise, with the establishment of adult content censorship, youth are (supposedly) hidden from the knowledge that would allow them to better understand sexuality - or only gain access to it within "delinquent" environments. When they do gain enough information to ask for further details, the answers are withheld, the child is punished, or otherwise presumed to have been "corrupted" or "abused". Victimization is learned to be the only outcome, and behavior is modified/conditioned accordingly.

Demographic disadvantage

One must also note that the number of pubescent minors is very small, compared to politically active adults - around 1 to every 12. Even assuming these minors are politically aware and inclined to sexual precocity, we are talking about a major demographic disadvantage in sociopolitical terms. This is one reason why progress in this area is likely to be driven by MAP activism - because to be brutally honest, the number of adults with a strong sexual attraction to minors is much greater than the number of minors. For example, look at the for youth prostitutes in every society that has permitted it.

Lack of natural motive

Further, there must be no natural motive for a 14 year old to make a civil argument in favor of obtaining rights they will be able to exercise in 2 or 4 years time. Any hopes of having a positive effect within this timespan are very limited, making it all the more surprising that contrary accounts are not just limited to adults speaking of their earlier experiences. Almost as if by co-incidence, the laws just happen to be set up in such a way that the period of liberty curtailment is a) significant, but b) not long enough to provide the subjugated class with a justification for challenging it, assuming they have the knowledge and will to do so.

Explicit will isn't necessary

The "kids do not want it" argument is also illogical because it centers legal restrictions, and then asks for explicit will to remove them. The burden of proof here is actually on the age of consent advocate to explain how such a law brings about improvements in people's lives. In reality, this is something that has never been done with respect to this particular law, due to the moral hysteria surrounding every attempt to raise it.

Laws, ideally, are not passed to legitimize activities but instead to prohibit them when evidence suggests this may be necessary. Liberties do not need to be justified, unless we are living in a dictatorship.

But selective representation is ethically wrong

Further, this argument is hypocritical because listens to minors when they say "no" or say nothing at all, but not when they say "yes" (something the links in this article, and the present AAM social media environment attests to). By using the perception of widespread apathy and disinterest within sections of a class, this argument unfairly forces its conclusions upon the whole class.

If explicit will is to be upheld as prerequisite, what would you say to a passport system for youth aged 12 and up whereby they can sign to enjoy some or all of the freedoms/responsibilities of adulthood?