Debate Guide: Power disparity

"Power disparity" or "Unlevel playing field" argument:

The child or adolescent is invariably in a position of lesser social or physical power/status. Considering this, any sexual contact will function only in the interests of the more powerful partner. This is why it's always abuse.

Firstly, you can ask your opponent to explain the wrongfulness of relationships in which the youth has more physical, financial, institutional or bargaining power than the older person:

See for example selected Boylove relationships throughout history, and minor-adult relationships closer to the present.

Additionally, they need to demonstrate there is in fact a power gap. Don't be afraid of holding them to a high burden of proof:

Power differentials can favor both sides in different ways. While an adult may excel in physical power, they have not a leg to stand on legally. Since they could be put in a jail cell under suspicion of unlawful sex with a minor within hours, it is the "minor" who has the power of perceived victimhood.
So, much of a minor's power over an adult is covert in nature - we can perhaps point to Michel Foucault, and Queer Theory for examples of how this power is manifested.

It could also be said in layman's terms, that most parents will know deep down, even the youngest child can always say 'no' - often in the most expressive of ways:

Your opponent then needs to explain what makes "sex" different. Referring to shame or embarrassment is a circular argument. What your opponent must evidence is a mechanism by which basic physical/sexual relations negate a young person's strength of will.

If the adult, on the other hand is using threats to subvert the minor's power, then we are again in cyclical argument territory, since it is the stigma and laws that likely cause some people to threaten and silence young people. What we are seeing can thus be interpreted as an adverse consequence of age of consent laws.

Difference =/= abuse

Your opponent's argument also relies upon an assumption of savagery or bad-faith at the personal level. The presence of a natural power gap in no way means that it will be abused. As a youth - lover (in a literal sense) an MAP, if and when they feel a physical attraction, will desire to please and receive pleasure from their partner, like an adult-attracted person would. Any number of research articles relating to pedophilia (the only form of attraction to minors which is officially pathologized) will confirm this.

Pedophilic and hebephilic sexual interest, when acted upon is manifested in a fundamentally different way to "situational sex offending". A situational offender might simply be taking advantage of the proximity or convenience of a minor, whilst using the taboo nature of the act to instill fear of exposure.

Psychopathic crimes are of course a completely different class from the aforementioned two, and thankfully very rare. We have to recognize that in any instance, these and other abuses of power causing unavoidable physical and psychological harms in situ would remain against the law or social values, regardless of what consent laws were being used.

Our society normalizes abuse

Finally, while abuse of power (beatings, bullying by adults or other minors) can not be excused, such abuses are perpetuated daily without any observation (or acknowledgement) of physical or psychological harm. As they are socially normative traditions, we ignore these abuses of power, permitting violence and physical discipline.

This begs the question: What if we were to remove the societal stigma on erotic play, if consented to?

We could also observe that in playground games (seen by developmental psychologists as "crucial socializing experiences") and at bath time for example, small children are effectively "felt up" against their will. This happens repeatedly, and in ways deemed totally indefensible when certain "motives" are identified.

Even in very small children, these interactions are not thought to cause mental torture, nor to have "lifelong consequences". Thus, with respect to consensual sex play, the view that harms are inevitable, is totally unwarranted and only risks becoming a dangerous, self-fulfilling prophecy based on reactionary moral hysterias.

While there is a clear hypocrisy in the way we celebrate and encourage non-consensual play among/discipline of "our" children, we should also ask about the social context, i.e. are we creating the need to protect children or minors in general? The cyclical paternalism argument will help address this.

Stockholm Syndrome

Stockholm Syndrome is often applied to adult-minor relationships in social media debates that touch upon the power disparity argument - and has been used to support victim narratives in general.^[1] We describe it as absurd and well past its sell-by-date, because it takes a theory originally intended for actual hostages/abductees and tries to apply it to personal relationships, sometimes even years after the fact.

This particular argument is of course encountered by people who argue from experience, claiming they had positive encounters with an adult as a minor, absent PTSD. Armchair diagnosis of Stockholm Syndrome (better characterized as disrespectful gaslighting) is invariably attempted by those with no qualifications in psychology or mental health whatsoever. As can be seen from our accounts section, many adults point out they were the ones with the real power; the power of attraction and the ironic bargaining power given to them by their perceived victimhood as the "minor".

The Stockholm Syndrome argument would also have to be applied to countless examples of relationships because positive recall is so common. If it were the case, our surveys and studies would suggest that due to their generally positive or neutral recall, a majority of boys were in some way mental captives of their "abusers". At the same time, these very same techniques would have to be held as rarely ever working on girls, or at least not attempted by the adult for some reason. This is because girls more often later recall their experiences as abusive or negative (despite non-significant psychological adjustment outcomes). With females who experienced sexual debut as adult women providing similar negative reactions, we would have to explain why the syndrome does not apply to them.

Ultimately, if the young were inherently prone to Stockholm Syndrome, there would be no need for parenting behavioral experts who profess "special knowledge" re. controlling "unruly" youngsters.

Egalitarian? Secular?

It's a convenient and oft-repeated myth that present CSA praxis is inherently egalitarian or dispassionately secular^[2] - even somehow libertarian, "freeing" minors from adult power. We convince ourselves that protecting minors way into their teens is somehow necessary because "liberal-democratic society" is always progressing; thus we are only now beginning to learn of a dark and hidden history of abuse. This sounds poetic and virtuous, a revelation even, but just doesn't check out against the evidence. It is very easy to establish the modern roots of CSA were in fact moral entrepreneurs, religious puritanist zealots and "child savers" such as Judianne Densen-Gerber. This movement initially amplified the witch-hunt in the 1970s, elevating the "molester", "kiddy porn" and the "trafficked child" to the level of media spectacle. Feminists, psychiatrists and survivor networks then filled the gaps left in what evolved to become highly profitable public "sexual predator", "pedophilia" discourse during the post-AIDS conservative backlash and the 90s.

Further, when we trace these recurring panics back in time (there have been around three so far), we find exactly the same circus of moral righteousness preceding any illusion of objective scientific method or progressivist virtue. The misogyny goes all the way back to the well-documented child prostitution panics in the Victorian era, caused by a moral crisis in post-industrial society. Then in the postwar era, "child molester" panics were centered on supposedly homosexual abductors, "sexual deviates".

Regardless of its cause, the results of this "egalitarian" sex stigma are plain to see:

The taboo on underage sex targets girls unfairly; for example in most studies, boys seem almost immune to the stigma - recalling their experiences neutrally or positively.^[3] While girls and women on the other hand, are often exposed to more forceful contacts, this is further exacerbated by mysogynistic stereotypes, hence the more negative and emotional tone with which women recall their early experiences, whether as a minor or adult.
CSA theory is in essence an over-reaction to deeply entrenched misogynistic practices in society. Modern CSA praxis has an inherent contradiction insofar as this counter-reaction is so severe, it amplifies and excuses misogyny by providing a nativist explanation for the traumas it causes. We should still not forget that both genders suffer from its effects, since CSA is a monolithic belief system that draws false authority from its supposedly liberal-egalitarian underpinnings.

Excerpt Graphic Library

The EGL on Consent has some relevant information. Just right click/save and reproduce by uploading in short-form media to bypass character limits.

Bruce Rind on CSA concept (in)validity
Rind on lack of predictive validity for informed consent/CSA concept invalidity
Rind - CSA concept invalidity continued
David Finkelhor (Abuse Guru) and his failed moral circular argument
Robert Ehman on the failed circular "consent" argument
Robert Ehman on the real reasons for consent vs no consent binarism
Terry Leahy: Absence of an ethical argument against age-gap sex
Paul Okami on Power Imbalance argument (from Peer Commentaries on Green (2002) and Schmidt (2002))
Review of Sandfort and consent
Scott De Orio on Queer Identities that don't fit the model of consent
Liz Highleyman's review of Judith Levine's Harmful to Minors
Liz Highleyman's review of Judith Levine's Harmful to Minors: Consent dogma
Foucault, 1978
Steven Angelides on Power Imbalance argument from Feminism, Child Sexual Abuse, and the Erasure of Child Sexuality (2004)