Debate Guide: There is no law that prohibits minors: Difference between revisions

From NewgonWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
 
(6 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
Sometimes deployed supposedly as a "gotcha" argument:
Typically employed as a "gotcha" argument on youth-rights by self-identified rationalists with room-temperature IQ:


<blockquote><font color="green">'''''You say that minors should be emancipated to have sex with adults. They already are, and can freely choose to do that without being criminalized.'''''</font></blockquote>
<blockquote><font color="green">'''''You say that minors are effectively emancipated by reforming consent/grooming/CP laws. They are already emancipated, since they are <u>not criminalized in these interactions</u> which they are free to pursue.'''''</font></blockquote>


Firstly, according to this argument, there would be no debate over minors being allowed to interact sexually with one another. Unfortunately, this is [[Ageism|not the case]], as established [[Research: Recidivism and other offending figures|repeatedly in the law]]. Nor is it the case with their interactions with adults, despite the fact that there is no technical infraction of the law on their part, as they are deemed to be the victims of an assault. As well as having to stay silent to avoid these [[Research: Secondary Harm|outcomes]], a minor may be forced to feel guilty about the ongoing relationship, especially after detection. They will be told that what has "happened to them" was "very wrong", even if they [[Research: Secondary Harm|did not originally feel that way]]. They may be punished with extensive legal proceedings, interrogation, and [[Reflex anal dilatation|intrusive physical examinations]]. Even in a relationship that goes under the radar, they will be denied a partner who is as confident and happy as they should be, and their relationship will be secretive and far from ideal. Simply focussing on legality presents a false view of freedom; after all a gay teenager is "free" to discuss his or her sexuality with deeply religious parents.
Firstly, for this argument to succeed, one would first have to assume minors were ''not'' being criminalized and prosecuted for sex or sexting ''with one another''. Sadly, this is just [[Ageism|not the case]], as RSO activists [[Research: Recidivism and other offending figures|repeatedly remind us]].  
 
Secondly, you could similarly say that a gay teenager is "free" to pursue deep and meaningful discussion of their sexuality with their violent/homophobic parents. While today, this argument would be dismissed as absurd, it is also the case that consent/grooming/CP laws set up a hostile environment that forbids minors full freedom over their interactions with adults.
 
Granted, barring juvenile prostitution or pornographic enterprise, there is usually no technical ''infraction'' of the law on the part of the minor. However, they are effectively forced to stay silent about these relationships, or otherwise face severe social [[Research: Secondary Harm|fallout]], including no end of [[Debate Guide: Power disparity|gaslighting]] and social shaming related to ongoing relationships. A great deal of guilt is also caused by self blame - i.e. the feeling of bringing harm unto the person the younger partner considers to have been a friend, looking out for them. Extensive legal proceedings, interrogation, and [[Reflex anal dilatation|intrusive physical examinations]], leave young people in a catch-22 situation regardless of whether or not the relationship is abusive. The same goes for the older partner, in turn negatively impacting the quality of relationship for the minor.


[[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Sociological]][[Category:Debating Points: Adults]][[Category:Debating Points: Child/Minor]][[Category:Debating Points: Adult-Minor sex]]
[[Category:Debate]][[Category:Debating Points: Sociological]][[Category:Debating Points: Adults]][[Category:Debating Points: Child/Minor]][[Category:Debating Points: Adult-Minor sex]]

Latest revision as of 16:47, 3 April 2024

Typically employed as a "gotcha" argument on youth-rights by self-identified rationalists with room-temperature IQ:

You say that minors are effectively emancipated by reforming consent/grooming/CP laws. They are already emancipated, since they are not criminalized in these interactions which they are free to pursue.

Firstly, for this argument to succeed, one would first have to assume minors were not being criminalized and prosecuted for sex or sexting with one another. Sadly, this is just not the case, as RSO activists repeatedly remind us.

Secondly, you could similarly say that a gay teenager is "free" to pursue deep and meaningful discussion of their sexuality with their violent/homophobic parents. While today, this argument would be dismissed as absurd, it is also the case that consent/grooming/CP laws set up a hostile environment that forbids minors full freedom over their interactions with adults.

Granted, barring juvenile prostitution or pornographic enterprise, there is usually no technical infraction of the law on the part of the minor. However, they are effectively forced to stay silent about these relationships, or otherwise face severe social fallout, including no end of gaslighting and social shaming related to ongoing relationships. A great deal of guilt is also caused by self blame - i.e. the feeling of bringing harm unto the person the younger partner considers to have been a friend, looking out for them. Extensive legal proceedings, interrogation, and intrusive physical examinations, leave young people in a catch-22 situation regardless of whether or not the relationship is abusive. The same goes for the older partner, in turn negatively impacting the quality of relationship for the minor.

Retrieved from "https://www.newgon.net/wiki/index.php?title=Debate_Guide:_There_is_no_law_that_prohibits_minors&oldid=25017"