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

From NewgonWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
(New page: :''"You say that children should be emancipated to have sex with adults. They already are, as no law works against them"''. Firstly, minors must always be allowed to interact sexually wit...)
 
No edit summary
 
(8 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
:''"You say that children should be emancipated to have sex with adults. They already are, as no law works against them"''.
Typically employed as a "gotcha" argument on youth-rights by self-identified rationalists with room-temperature IQ:


Firstly, minors must always be allowed to interact sexually with each other. Unfortunately, this is [[Criminalisation of youth|not the case]], even legally. Nor is it the case with their adult interactions, in a social sense, despite the fact that there is no infraction of the law on their part. As well as having to keep quiet, a minor may feel intermittently guilty about the ongoing relationship, and especially guilty if they are found out, in which case they may be told that what has happened to them was very wrong, even if they did not originally feel that way. The minor may be punished, with extensive legal proceedings, interrogation and intrusive physical examination. Even in a relationship that evades the eye of authority, they will be denied a partner who is as confident and happy as they should be, and their relationship will be hidden. And I am yet to mention all of the minors who never achieve the relationship that they want, and moreover, those who have been taught that such a thing would be morally disgusting or fatal. Simply focussing on legality presents a false view of freedom. This example could be compared to the freedom of a gay teenager to discuss his or her sexuality with parents. Even though his mother is strictly religious and anti-gay, he still has as much freedom to dicuss his sexuality as any other youth.
<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, 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"