Debate Guide: Power disparity: Difference between revisions

From NewgonWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
 
(10 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
__NOTOC__[[Image:Youth and suitors.jpg|thumb|right|250px|'''Youth conversing with suitors'''<br>Miniature illustration from the ''Haft Awrang'' of Jami, in the story ''A Father Advises his Son About Love.'' Freer and Sackler Galleries, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.]]"'''Power disparity'''" or "'''Unlevel playing field'''" argument:
__NOTOC__[[Image:Youth and suitors.jpg|thumb|right|250px|'''Youth conversing with suitors'''<br>Miniature illustration from the ''Haft Awrang'' of Jami, in the story ''A Father Advises his Son About Love.'' Freer and Sackler Galleries, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.]]"'''Power disparity'''" or "'''Unlevel playing field'''" argument:
<hr>
:''"The child or adolescent is almost invariably in a position of lesser physical power and status. Considering this, any sexual contact will function only in the interests of the more powerful partner, and is therefore abusive"''
<hr>
1. If your intent is to use this argument to defend [[age of consent]] laws, you will have to explain how it would apply to instances in which the youth has more physical, financial, institutional or bargaining power than the older person. [https://www.boywiki.org/en/Historical_boylove_relationships Many such examples have existed throughout history], and [[Accounts and Testimonies|closer to the present]].


2. We have to consider whether there ''is in fact a gap'', and whether or not there may be power differentials on ''both sides''. While an adult may excel in physical power, they have [[Power of consequences|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 "child" who has the power invested in them ''by society'' as a result of their own perceived victimhood. So, much of a minor's [[Power of attraction|power over an adult]] is covert in nature - we can perhaps point to [[Michel Foucault]] for examples of how this power is manifested. It could also be said in layman's terms, that most parents will know deep down that even the youngest child can always say 'no' - often in the most expressive of ways. In this instance, one would have to explain the ''mechanism'' by which a physical relationship cancels out this strength of will.
<blockquote><font color="green">'''''The child or adolescent is invariably in a <u>position of lesser social or physical power/status.</u> Considering this, any sexual contact will function only in the interests of the more powerful partner. This is why we call it abuse.'''''</font></blockquote>


If the adult, on the other hand is using threats to subvert the minor's power, then we are witnessing a clear-cut [[Special Article: Adverse effects of hysteria|adverse consequence]] of age of consent laws, and should really be considering the extent to which these laws are causing psychological tensions and harm to both parties.
'''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:


3. Since we are not a ''savage species'' at the personal level, the presence of a natural power gap in no way means that it will be abused. As a child - lover (in a literal sense) a ''[[Pedophilia|pedophile]]'' typically views sexual interaction as a means of pleasing and receiving pleasure from their partner - see any number of [[Research: Psychopathy_and_abnormal psychology|research articles]]. This is in contrast to a "situational sex offender" who 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, regardless of what consent laws were on the books.  
*See for example selected [https://www.boywiki.org/en/Historical_boylove_relationships Boylove relationships throughout history], and [[Accounts and Testimonies|minor-adult relationships closer to the present]].


4. Finally, while it can not be excused, it's no safe bet that an abuse of power will lead to any physical or psychological harm. This is something we should be happy to point out, and should continue to encourage by erasing societal stigmas. After all, children suffer in the education system and repeatedly come through beatings and bullying. In playground games (seen by developmental psychologists as crucial socializing experiences) and at bathtime for example, small children are effectively "felt up" against their will, repeatedly and in ways only deemed indefensible when certain "motives" are identified. Even when applied to very small children, these interactions are never seen to cause mental torture, nor to have lifelong consequences. Thus the view that harms are inevitable is totally unwarranted and only risks becoming a dangerous, [[self-fulfilling prophecy]] based on moral hysteria and reactionism.
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:


Whilst 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 [[Debate Guide: Cyclical Paternalism|cyclical paternalism]] argument will help address this.
*Power differentials can favor ''both sides'' in different ways. While an adult may excel in physical power, they have [[Power of consequences|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 of attraction|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 [[Self-fulfilling prophecy|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 [[Special Article: Adverse effects of hysteria|adverse consequence]] of [[Debate Guide: Problems with the Age of Consent|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 ''[[Minor Attracted Person|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: Psychopathy_and_abnormal psychology|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 "[[Wikipedia:Situational offender|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 "[[Scarred for life|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 [[Debate Guide: Cyclical Paternalism|cyclical paternalism]] argument will help address this.


==Stockholm Syndrome==
==Stockholm Syndrome==


[[File:Stockholm.png|thumb|About Stockholm Syndrome]]
[[File:Stockholm.png|thumb|About Stockholm Syndrome]]
Stockholm Syndrome is often applied to adult-minor relationships in social media debates that touch upon the power disparity argument - and has often been used to support victim narratives in general.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20211206080728/https://sci-hub.se/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2012.01241.x STOCKHOLM SYNDROME AS VERNACULAR RESOURCE]</ref> 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 ''years after the fact''.  
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.<ref>[https://web.archive.org/web/20211206080728/https://sci-hub.se/10.1111/j.1533-8525.2012.01241.x STOCKHOLM SYNDROME AS VERNACULAR RESOURCE]</ref> 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 characterised as disrespectful [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslighting gaslighting]) is invariably attempted by those with ''no qualifications in psychology or mental health'' whatsoever. As can be seen from our [[Accounts and Testimonies|accounts section]], many adults point out that they were the ones with the real power; the [[Power of attraction|power of attraction]] and the ironic bargaining [[Power of consequences|power given to them by their perceived victimhood]] as the "minor".
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 [[wikipedia:Gaslighting|gaslighting]]) is invariably attempted by those with ''no qualifications in psychology or mental health'' whatsoever. As can be seen from our [[Accounts and Testimonies|accounts section]], many adults point out they were the ones with the real power; the [[Power of attraction|power of attraction]] and the ironic bargaining [[Power of consequences|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 [[Research: Prevalence of Harm and Negative Outcomes|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 often later recall their experiences as abuse (despite only marginally different adjustment outcomes).
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 [[Research: Prevalence of Harm and Negative Outcomes|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 children were inherently prone to Stockholm Syndrome, there would be no need for parenting behavioral experts who profess "special knowledge" re. controlling "unruly" youngsters.
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?==
==Egalitarian? Secular?==


It's a convenient and oft-repeated myth that present [[Child Sexual Abuse|CSA]] praxis is inherently egalitarian - 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 entrepreneur]]s, religious puritanist zealots and "child savers" such as [[Judianne Densen-Gerber]]. This movement initially amplified the witch-hunt in the 1970s, elevating the "sexual predator" and the "trafficked child" to the level of media spectacle. Feminists and psychiatrists then filled the gaps left in what evolved to become highly profitable public discourse during the post-AIDS conservative backlash.
It's a convenient and oft-repeated myth that present [[Child Sexual Abuse|CSA]] praxis is inherently egalitarian or dispassionately secular<ref>[https://muslimskeptic.com/2023/03/14/atheists-liberals-pedophilia-bestiality/ Can Liberal Atheists REALLY Criticize Pedophilia, Bestiality?]</ref> - 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 entrepreneur]]s, religious puritanist zealots and "child savers" such as [[Judianne Densen-Gerber]]. This movement initially amplified the witch-hunt in the 1970s, elevating the "sexual predator" and the "trafficked child" to the level of media spectacle. Feminists and psychiatrists then filled the gaps left in what evolved to become highly profitable public discourse during the post-AIDS conservative backlash.


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 the predatory homosexual.
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 the predatory homosexual.
Line 34: Line 57:
Regardless of its cause, the results of this "egalitarian" sex stigma are plain to see:
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.<ref>https://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/ma_11.htm#Gender3</ref> Girls on the other hand, are exposed to more forceful contacts, and the emotional terminology women have used to recall their early experiences is highly indicative of mysogynistic post-event conditioning.  
*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.<ref>https://www.ipce.info/library_3/rbt/ma_11.htm#Gender3</ref> While girls and women on the other hand, are often exposed to more forceful contacts, this is further exacerbated by mysogynistic stereotypes, hence the [[Research: Prevalence of Harm and Negative Outcomes|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.
*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.


Line 45: Line 68:
==See also==
==See also==


*'''Against:''' [[Debate Guide: Cognitive ability = consent|Cognitive ability]] - Some argue that effective consent to sexual acts is reliant on "adult" levels of cognition.
*'''Against:''' [[Debate Guide: Cognitive ability = consent|Cognitive ability]] - Some argue that effective consent to sexual acts is reliant upon "adult" levels of cognition.
*[[Debate Guide: Cyclical paternalism|Cyclical Paternalism]] - A sociological argument related to power disparity.
*[[Debate Guide: Cyclical paternalism|Cyclical Paternalism]] - A sociological argument related to power disparity.



Latest revision as of 22:38, 3 June 2024

Youth conversing with suitors
Miniature illustration from the Haft Awrang of Jami, in the story A Father Advises his Son About Love. Freer and Sackler Galleries, Smithsonian Institution, Washington, DC.

"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 we call it 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:

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

About 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 "sexual predator" and the "trafficked child" to the level of media spectacle. Feminists and psychiatrists then filled the gaps left in what evolved to become highly profitable public discourse during the post-AIDS conservative backlash.

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 the predatory homosexual.

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.

See also

  • Against: Cognitive ability - Some argue that effective consent to sexual acts is reliant upon "adult" levels of cognition.
  • Cyclical Paternalism - A sociological argument related to power disparity.

External links

  • Gaslighting - Apply selectively to Stockholm Syndrome diagnosis by a civilian or practitioner.

References