Debate Guide: Sexual inexperience: Difference between revisions

From NewgonWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
 
(11 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
:''"Children or minors under age X are not experienced enough to understand sex and it's implications, and thus cannot possibly give informed consent"''.
__NOTOC__
<hr>
[[File:Purityball.jpg|thumb|A man nuzzles a young woman at a [[Wikipedia:Purity ball|purity ball]]]]
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?
<blockquote><font color="green">'''''Young people are just children. They <u>lack the life experience</u> to understand the complexity of sex and its implications. This is why they can't give informed consent.'''''</font></blockquote>
Regardless of life experience, if we demand every sexual interaction satisfy "informed consent" (a legal standard), we start pigeonholing  voluntary sex as "non-consenting". This (among other things) means that [[Research: Prevalence of Harm and Negative Outcomes|"CSA" becomes empirically invalid as a scientific construct]], and thus useless.


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?
To use this dilemma to quickly shut down a debate, see [[CSA dilemma argument]].


It also bares noting that for many other activities, getting a child's informed consent is [[Debate Guide: Cognitive ability = consent|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, [[Debate Guide: Power disparity|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.
==Addressing (in)experience==


Take this one step further maybe. Children may not only need a sex education, but an education in sex per se. If sex is to be taken as such a big deal, or such a dangerous practice (highly questionable concepts anyway), does it not make sense that young people should be educated in responsible practice; how to use contraception, avoid physically painful inductions, etc? Practical education is always better than a textbook and in the case of sex, it could teach us how to have fun, bring a partner to orgasm, or differentiate potential rapists from lovers. It would also appear that such an education is better undertaken in the supportive, caring environment of close friends and family - in fact just the situation we currently restrict 'our' children to. Thus, we can guarantee that our young are confident and ready for independence, once their time comes. Look at it from the humanist perspective:
The appeal to a minors' inexperience begs the question: if not now, when exactly should they gain sexual experience? For today's teens, there is not much of an alternative, so unnaturally prolonging the situation leaves them with few options:


*'''Incongruence''' is where the true perception of oneself ([[Research: Youth sexuality|minors are well aware that they are sexual]]) clashes with society's supposition (pure, unperverted). Minors, thus are taught from a young age to view themselves as unusual and perverse, resulting in attempts to repress and deny their own nature - or at least confine it to a straight and narrow path. Similarly, minors are forbidden from even conceiving of themselves as objects of desire, and taught to be fearful of other adults' attentions. This (if never addressed), manifests itself  as excessive hatred towards pedophiles and other folk devils in adulthood.
*Sex education is hopelessly theoretical and held back by games of political brinkmanship, meaning that curricula vary wildly from state to state.
*Pornography has been condemned by [[Feminism|Feminists]] and Conservatives alike as as the worst possible education.  


Upbringing should instead be '''congruent''' with the sexual desires of a child<ref>[https://www.sexualskills.co.uk/sex-society/individual-develpment/sexual-development-childhood/ NVSH - Child Sexual Development]</ref>. This means that at the very least, parents should not scold their child for showing curiosity. If the sexually neglected child cannot eventually come to terms with his sexuality (as a teenager or young adult), they may be left lacking in the ability to show general and sexual affection, misguided about the importance of sex, and confused about the validity and meaning of their own desires. This article<ref>http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/barbach_bringing_up_.htm</ref> goes to some length in explaining the sexual needs of children and the fantasies of adults towards them.
Would we ask a blind man to help another blind man cross the road, or learn to drive a car from someone who doesn't know how to drive? Why, when it comes to sex (something prohibitionists claim is highly complex) do we engage in this magical thinking and assume that one amateur coaching another is somehow a healthy thing?
 
Further, 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 (when required), that is all there is to it. While many adults associate "sex" with a variety of social rituals and expectations, these are not inherent necessities, and vary greatly even among the people adhering to them.
 
==Consistency==
 
It should also be noted that for many activities, getting even a young child's informed consent is [[Debate Guide: Cognitive ability = consent|not commonly considered to be all that important]], since no long-term harm is seen to be done. For those responsible for the child's care, [[Debate Guide: Power disparity|non-consensual treatment of children]] (beating, physical restraint, bathing) is often seen as a necessity, playing a part in education and the everyday running of the household. As these are all behaviors that contribute to the socialization of a child, we must ask ourselves why these are not classified as evil crimes when compared to sexual touching of older minors absent force.
 
==Congruence vs Repression==
 
'''Incongruence''' is where the true perception of oneself ([[Research: Youth sexuality|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-familial 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<ref>[https://www.sexualskills.co.uk/sex-society/individual-develpment/sexual-development-childhood/ NVSH - Child Sexual Development]</ref>. For example, this means parents should not scold their child for showing curiosity. If the [[Research: Sexual repression|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. [http://www.ipce.info/ipceweb/Library/barbach_bringing_up_.htm This article] goes to some length in explaining the sexual needs of children and how these are negotiated in relation to adults.


==See also==
==See also==


*[[Research: Sexual repression]]
*[[Debate Guide: Cognitive ability = consent]]
*[[Debate Guide: Teen brain]]
*[[Debate Guide: Childhood innocence]]
*[[Debate Guide: Childhood innocence]]
*[[Debate Guide: Cyclical paternalism]]
*[[Debate Guide: Cyclical paternalism]]
*[[Debate Guide: Liberty-empowerment]]
*[[Debate Guide: Liberty-empowerment]]
*[[Research: Sexual repression]]
*[[Purity culture]]


==References==
==References==


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

Latest revision as of 16:22, 14 April 2024

A man nuzzles a young woman at a purity ball

Young people are just children. They lack the life experience to understand the complexity of sex and its implications. This is why they can't give informed consent.

Regardless of life experience, if we demand every sexual interaction satisfy "informed consent" (a legal standard), we start pigeonholing voluntary sex as "non-consenting". This (among other things) means that "CSA" becomes empirically invalid as a scientific construct, and thus useless.

To use this dilemma to quickly shut down a debate, see CSA dilemma argument.

Addressing (in)experience

The appeal to a minors' inexperience begs the question: if not now, when exactly should they gain sexual experience? For today's teens, there is not much of an alternative, so unnaturally prolonging the situation leaves them with few options:

  • Sex education is hopelessly theoretical and held back by games of political brinkmanship, meaning that curricula vary wildly from state to state.
  • Pornography has been condemned by Feminists and Conservatives alike as as the worst possible education.

Would we ask a blind man to help another blind man cross the road, or learn to drive a car from someone who doesn't know how to drive? Why, when it comes to sex (something prohibitionists claim is highly complex) do we engage in this magical thinking and assume that one amateur coaching another is somehow a healthy thing?

Further, 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 (when required), that is all there is to it. While many adults associate "sex" with a variety of social rituals and expectations, these are not inherent necessities, and vary greatly even among the people adhering to them.

Consistency

It should also be noted that for many activities, getting even a young child's informed consent is not commonly considered to be all that important, since no long-term harm is seen to be done. For those responsible for the child's care, non-consensual treatment of children (beating, physical restraint, bathing) is often seen as a necessity, playing a part in education and the everyday running of the household. As these are all behaviors that contribute to the socialization of a child, we must ask ourselves why these are not classified as evil crimes when compared to sexual touching of older minors absent force.

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-familial 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 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

References