Essay:The Draft Argument For 12+

The Draft Argument For 12+

18/07/24 ◆ BLueRibbon + Fragment DRAFT

Legend: AMSC = "Adult-Minor Sexual Contact", PIM = "Prohibited Images of Minors", AASC = Adult-Adult Sexual Contact, MMSC = Minor-Minor Sexual Contact

---

Author Foreword: This is the final essay written to introduce my third-wave framework to the MAP community. It elaborates the 12+ position that is being developed by Fragment and I. It's published as a draft, and constructive feedback is welcome.

September 2024 update: This essay was published as a draft, and multiple concerns were raised by the community. This draft remains as an archive and point of discussion. For Pro-Reform's updated position statement on AMSC, please visit Mu.

Abolition: The Failed Principle

Due to its long history of putting MAPs behind bars, and the belief among a number of MAPs that minors are not the asexual creatures many imagine, abolishing the Age of Consent has historically been a key objective for 'pro-pedophile' activists since the 1970s. The logic is sound: instead of setting arbitrary boundaries that fail to account for all manner of variables, relationships are judged based on their individual circumstances. It is an excellent principle. Unfortunately, it won't ever work in practice.

Hand on heart, I personally think it would be wise to abolish the age of consent, and replace it with laws offering additional protections to minors. I acknowledge the vulnerability of young people in general versus the vulnerability of adults in general, hence the need for additional protections. I've also worked with children and adolescents of all ages, and I've seen a lot of differences in maturity and apparent sexualization (often a natural process), so a firm always wrong under a certain age and always OK over another doesn't really sit right with me. However, any attempts to set the age of consent at zero will fail; it will be portrayed as an attempt to legalize 'baby rape'. Furthermore, such arguments don't even have recent historical merit; sex with prepubescents has been illegal in many places for much of modern history. People simply abhor the idea of sex with prepubescent children.

Adolescents are not quite the same story. The criminalization of sex with adolescents is a modern misinterpretation of a Victorian problem, and even then it is not so universally condemned. Ages of consent vary wildly around the world, and 'exceptions' and 'extra protections' abound. An unrestricted age of consent of 14 is not uncommon, and if we take the absolute age of consent (the age at which sex is permitted with some restrictions), even some English speaking jurisdictions consider 12 year olds capable of some level of informed consent. Instead of trying to abolish the age of consent, out of the very understandable desires for case-by-case determination and youth liberation, we should instead focus on something understood by many non-MAPs: adolescent sexuality and the need to respond to it in a balanced manner.

That's why in my previous essay, The Rational Middle Ground, I proposed adjusting Age of Consent laws to 12 with additional protections, or "12+". Let's take a look at arguments for 12+ reform, before getting into the details of what that "+" might mean.

Part of NewgonWiki's essay series on MAPs in the 2020s
♦ Jim Burton ♦ MAPs, Paraphiles and Fascists MAPs, Zoophiles and Transids The Virped Paradox Hamstrung (a case for Anti-c) Pedophile trolling for beginners [D] ♦ BLueRibbon ♦ The Push Pro-Reform 12+ ♦ Talix ♦ On "The Trauma Myth" ♦ A.H.J. Dautzenberg ♦ Marthijn, Lesley Uittenbogaard
Category: Minor-attracted people
Template:MAE - This template

Harm Prevention

The Argument

Many non-MAPs will see little reason to support lowering the age of consent, or modifying it to reflect the concept of "12+". However, as I explained in The Push, extreme anti-MAP laws and values often push MAPs to engage in potentially harmful behavior instead of preventing it. Regular people, if they genuinely care about children, should take this as a reason to consider changes to the approach they support.

MAPs are under massive pressure from society to live according to unrealistic standards, with every possible avenue of sexual release criminalized regardless of whether or not it causes harm to children. The pressures placed upon us do not reduce the risk of harm; they increase it by making harmless forms of sexual release (such as AI-generated PIM) illegal, by forcing people who wish to view PIM to use 'underground' websites, by making the discussion of MAP issues with friends, family and therapists feel almost impossible, and by pushing MAPs to prioritize 'safety' in sexual relationships instead of prioritizing youth welfare.

Many MAPs, especially male homosexual MAPs, are attracted to boys ranging from late prepubescence to early adolescence. An AoC of 16-18 is beyond the reach of most of these men, but 12 and 13 is not. Why does this matter?

If the Age of Consent were set at 12+, MAPs with an AoC that straddles prepubescence and early adolescence would face extreme pressure to avoid sex with prepubescents. With an AoC of 12+, they would be encouraged to engage only with adolescents who possess greater competence for a sexual relationship and remain supported by special protections, reducing the risk of harm. This is preferable to the current situation of MAPs being forced to avoid AMSC entirely, or encouraged to prioritize 'safety' in partners rather than 'older' or 'most interested in and ready for sex'.

Limitations

It is quite plausible that harm prevention is not the primary reason for AoC laws, and this raises serious questions about whether a harm prevention argument would be the best way forward in advocating AoC reform. The many laws criminalizing non-harmful actions by MAPs, such as those against AI-generated PIM and the simple possession of PIM, hint that laws targeting MAPs are written and enforced more out of disgust at our sexual orientation than anything else. However, MAP hate has been in decline over the past few years thanks to the actions of NOMAP-style activists and organizations such as B4U-Act. With MAP hate decreasing, is it now the time to push for very moderate AoC reform?

Youth Rights

The Argument

The main purpose of the youth liberation model is to focus on how the sexual autonomy of young people is violated by an Age of Consent that outright prohibits sexual activity or limits the choice of sexual partner. Laws around the world vary in how they treat sexual activity between teens, or sexual activity between teens and very young adults. However, it is widely understood that adolescents are attracted to adults, and it is hard to argue that adolescents are not being limited by laws claimed to protect them. In addition, many young people below the ages applicable to 'Romeo and Juliet' laws have a degree of sexual interest, and any laws that criminalize their behavior or that of similarly-aged partners may be accepted by many non-MAPs to be unreasonable. Can we persuade the public that there's no reason to judge a consensual adult-teen relationship differently?

Limitations

The rights of youth are not a focus of legislation; laws related to children are based on the premise that children need to be protected from themselves and others. Any argument to change this, when coming from an MAP, is likely to be met with ridicule on the grounds that it's intended solely for the interest of MAPs. Even without the challenge of the 'MAP connection', arguing against age limits in general is no easier than arguing for the reform of Age of Consent laws. High age restrictions exist in a wide variety of legal contexts across the entire world, from voting and contract rights to the right to consume alcohol and tobacco; these high age limits are even more universal than a high AoC. The concept of 'adult rights' is simply too ingrained and would require an even greater cultural shift than the reform of attitudes toward AMSC. It is unrealistic to think that we can push through AoC adjustments piggybacked onto lowering age limits for other rights and vices.

Consideration

The arguments outlined here do not undermine the morality of youth rights, nor any inclination to support youth rights in general in a manner that is consistent with the claim that adult-teen sex should be liberalized. I do not endorse the abandonment of youth rights advocacy. However, because AoC laws don't even track the age of majority like many other legal rights, it may be better from a practical perspective to simply re-frame sexual rights as adolescent rights.

Youth Sexuality

The Argument

It is accepted by most people that teens are not asexual. Evidence shows that a first sexual experience of the age of 10 or even younger is not uncommon, with a shift to adult-like sexuality occurring in early adolescence. Sexual activity between teens of a similar age is rightly not considered particularly harmful outside of religious and highly conservative circles. It is also widely known that teens are attracted to some adults; many teens describe infatuation with adult entertainers and place their posters and pictures on their walls, and it is understood that most teenage boys and many girls masturbate to adult pornography. MAP activists should make more effort to remind the public of these realities. Age of Consent laws were only raised to prohibit adult sex with teens in response to commercial sexual exploitation in Dickensian London, at a time when STIs were a serious concern, effective contraception and safe abortion practices did not exist, and welfare measures were unavailable.

Limitations

In recent history, the concept of a 'child' has risen from that of an under-12 to an under-18 in developed countries, with some groups even arguing to raise it further to include under-25s. The mantra "a child cannot consent" is repeated as if it is an objective fact, even when discussing AMSC with teens under the local age of consent (at whatever arbitrary age it has been set). This 'truth' cannot even be debated, even though it is nothing more than a modern cultural phenomenon supported by extreme laws. Merely questioning whether this mantra is true can be enough to draw hysterical and aggressive rebuke from normal members of the public.

Consideration

If the claim that a child cannot consent due to their immaturity is held to be true, it invalidates MMSC relationships and the many legal exemptions that support these relationships. MAP activists should be asking why teens can supposedly only consent to sexual relationships with other teens. Our opponents will talk about 'power imbalances' with adult-teen relationships, but these are often present in MMSC and AASC, too.

Child vs Teen Behavioral Traits

The Argument

One of the arguments used against AMSC is that there is a power imbalance. It is said that children are eager to please, powerless against adult authority, and easily manipulated. While this may be partly true when talking about children, these are not words that we typically use to describe teens. Except when we talk about AMSC, adolescents are typically described as disobedient, rebellious, antagonistic, unwilling to yield to authority figures, and highly skilled at manipulation.

On the question of vulnerability to power imbalances, children and teens are simply not in the same league. Given the highly anti-social traits of teens, the likelihood of the exploitation of a power imbalance is no more of a risk than it would be in many adult relationships. Indeed, there are many countries that still have horribly poor attitudes to women, where men are firmly in charge, and these countries do not outright prohibit sex between men and women.

Limitations

One trait of teens that may be used against us is the fact that teens are seen as inherently reckless. It could be argued that due to their habit of making impulsive decisions, they are liable to engage in behavior that is harmful or dangerous to them, and need to be protected from themselves. A rebuttal, and one that I firmly believe in, is that being allowed to make these decisions is an important part of growing up with a healthy attitude to risk/danger management. Furthermore, it would be better to have a sexual relationship with an adult who has a proper understanding of safe sex and access to contraception, as opposed to a fellow teen who may not know any better. Given the risks of STIs and unwanted pregnancy from unsafe sexual practices, adult-teen sex may actually be safer than teen-teen sex.

Elementary-Middle Divide

12 is also an age at which many students graduate from elementary school, and to many parents this represents the end of their son or daughter's childhood and their ascent to adolescence. I can't speak for every culture, but parents where I live tend to let their middle school sons roam semi-feral. It is not uncommon for 12 year old boys to be allowed to come home at 1am, which would be unthinkable for an elementary school child. It would follow, naturally, that this would also be the time to provide young people with a greater right to sexual freedom, subject to additional protections.

Widespread MAPness

The Argument

Evidence suggests that attraction to minors is not uncommon. Indications vary, with phallometric reports showing higher rates than self-reporting, but an analysis of the data would suggest that at least 15-20% of the adult male population are somewhat aroused by prepubescent children. Adult male attraction to teenage girls barely falls short of attraction to adult women in heterosexual men (with significant denial proven by studies that ask men to rate photos based on sexual attractiveness, in which labeling of photographic subjects as underage/overage is deliberately incorrect). For homosexual men, attraction to adolescents is the most common, followed by attraction to prepubescent boys and then attraction to adult men being the least common. A BL sexual orientation is more common than a gay orientation.

If attraction to minors (with some 'risk' of acting on it) were so damaging to the human race, and especially pronounced in the homosexual population where sex with more fertile teens conveys zero evolutionary benefit on the individual level, it would not have endured. There has to be some benefit, from a group selection perspective, to attraction to minors and possible AMSC; otherwise, widespread minor-attraction would not have survived the long period of human history prior to postpubescent AoC laws. It could be posited that paternalistic instincts, for which BLs and GLs display an extremely positive affinity, make minor-attraction such a net positive for the group that it persists despite not being ideal on an individual 'reproductive potential' level.

Perhaps another reason that minor-attraction persisted for so long is that, for such a long time, those with a pedohebephilic orientation were at least able to engage in sex with adolescents, even if not with prepubescent children. For heterosexuals, this would convey an individual evolutionary benefit. Additionally, people attracted to children and teens in a world with an AoC of 10-12 (much of the past thousand years) would have been encouraged to engage in sex with adolescents instead of children, thus offering a protective benefit to younger children, without causing harm to teens.

Limitations

Attraction to teenagers is extremely common, and prior to the commercial exploitation of teenage girls in disease-ridden Victorian London, it was never considered to be a big deal. Unfortunately, the simple fact that most men are attracted to teenagers cannot, in itself, be considered a just reason for lowering the Age of Consent if all of the claims made by the public are somehow held to be true. We will need to explain why it is beneficial for adult-teen sexual contact to be decriminalized if we are to appeal to a public that believes strongly in denying and repressing their sexual interest in teens, especially given that most heterosexual males are equally or more interested in young adults. The argument that legal adult-teen sex would decrease the risk allegedly posed by pedophebephilic men to young children is logically sound, but it is perhaps too radical and confusing to be accepted by such a hostile audience.

Minor-attraction having no proven genetic component would be an argument against our points, and the fact that homosexual pedohebephilia is so common, yet does not directly result in offspring, could be used against us. However, the evolutionary concept of group selection works in our favor here, justifying the argument that widespread MAPness, when not exclusive, was so beneficial to society that it persisted despite presenting a distraction to procreation. Perhaps the benefit of having a BL in the community also explains why homosexual minor-attraction is more common than homosexual adult-attraction, the latter being less inherently suited to a child mentoring role.

Sex Education, Healthcare & Abortion Rights

The Argument

There is an argument that, if AMSC is claimed to be harmful due to its exploitation of a minor's lack of sexual knowledge, there is a problem with how young people are being educated. Studies on sexual behavior among children and adolescents show that masturbation and sexual experimentation is common among children even prior to adolescence, before the onset of the hormonal changes that shift behavior from sexual curiosity to adult-like sexual attraction. If children are not prepared for this in advance, the low quality of sex education that is driven by conservatism and adult awkwardness about sex is surely to blame.

One issue with adult-teen sexual contact is the poor access to healthcare and abortions in some countries, particularly in the USA, which despite its horrific behavior tends to lead world policies on matters including minor-attraction and AMSC. This is actually a greater issue in teen-teen sexual contact, due to the lack of an adult with greater knowledge about contraception and safe sex. However, it would barely be an issue at all with proper education, universal access to healthcare and abortions, and the destigmatization and decriminalization of sex involving teens, allowing couples to go to healthcare providers without facing social or legal censure.

These issues, which were among the first to cause concern about adult-teen sex in the late 19th century, could easily be fixed today if not for the pernicious evil of social conservatism.

Limitations

The main limitation of this argument is that there are a great number of people opposed to sex education, universal healthcare and abortion, due to their political or religious beliefs. This is very unlikely to change in the near future.

Summary

Attraction to minors is a very common trait, especially hebephilia. It has likely persisted throughout history, and may be especially common in homosexual populations due to the paternalistic role for which it shows extreme affinity. According to the evolutionary concept of group selection, this would encourage minor-attraction genes to be passed down via non-exclusive populations, and this would only work if a BL orientation and its potential expression were of net benefit to society.

Sexual contact between adults and adolescents has been tolerated and even celebrated for thousands of years, and was only criminalized to solve problems which no longer exist in many modern countries. It is understandable that people then were concerned about single teenage mothers, but this is no longer a likely outcome in all but one developed country. It is unfortunate that poor access to healthcare, abortions, and sex education remain common in one developed country, the one that shamefully drives world policy, the USA.

With proper sex education and access to healthcare, there's no reason why teens should not be able to consent with sex to adults. They are notoriously rebellious, a far cry from 'eager to please' children. Biologically, teens have undergone the shift from child sexuality to adult sexuality, and therefore demonstrate sexual interest in adults, watching adult pornography and covering their walls with posters of sexually appealing adult entertainers.

Unfortunately, the stigma surrounding teen sex is massive, especially if an adult is involved. Hebephilic traits are strongly denied by most men; perhaps outreach into groups where hebephiles are common but in denial would be useful for community-building and later activism? We need to get more of these men on board.

A significant hurdle to overcome is that age limits are deeply entrenched in legal systems across the entire world. Although teenagers are afforded greater freedom to roam, age limits continue to restrict their legal freedoms. It seems unlikely that the right to vote, sign contracts and drink alcohol would be lowered as far as 12, so there will be no piggybacking on these issues.

Our arguments, as they stand, could be of interest to the more open-minded liberal population, but will be fundamentally rejected by conservatives and even those in the middle. To make the changes we demand, there would need to be an overhaul of the way we understand teens, the way we educate them, and the way we offer them protection. Unfortunately, these changes would be opposed by conservatives, who seek to restrict their development to fit the traditional family values line they apparently plan to trot out for the next thousand years.

To persuade the public to listen, we need to give them a reason to care. That reason is The Push. MAPs are under extreme pressure from stigma, lack of access to mental health and social support, and the criminalization of all avenues of sexual release. This makes MAPs much more dangerous than they would otherwise be. With its current approach, society risks making monsters out of very decent men. Bully people with any sexual orientation the same way that MAPs are bullied, and you sometimes get very bad outcomes. That doesn't make MAPness inherently dangerous as a sexual orientation. Do the same to regular heterosexual men, and they will rape, beat, murder, and bomb. I do not propose making threats, nor engaging in violent actions. However, society needs to understand that, beyond the control of community leaders and activists, there is a serious risk of harm to young people and the public in general if The Push continues and intensifies. A collective effort by governments and the public to alleviate stigma, improve access to mental healthcare, and decriminalize reasonable avenues of sexual release, is needed. An AoC of 12+, while icky, would help significantly.

Brainstorming

Our proposal must meet the following criteria.

• The age has to be 12.

The age of 12 is important for all of the reasons explained above, most notably accessibility for pedophebephiles, allowing us to make a strong argument for 12+ as a means to avoid The Push. It is also an age at which a young person is very open-minded about sexual contact with a variety of people. For homosexual MAPs, an AoC of 14 would be less useful because they would need to find a homosexual partner; however, there are many 12 year olds who would be interested in experimenting with a male (and older) partner.

• We must provide some additional protection to young people.

To alleviate concerns that MAPs seek to viciously exploit young people, we need to ensure that our proposals do offer protections.

• We must not reverse the burden of proof (e.g. Uruguay).

Uruguay offers a version of 12+ that reverses the burden of proof. Sexual contact with 12-14 year olds is illegal by default, and the accused is required to prove that the relationship was consensual. This puts the older person (and their partner) in a position of extreme uncertainty.

• We must not open the door for pressing of charges by potentially hostile third parties (Netherlands, 90s).

The Netherlands trialed a version of 12+ in the 1990s. It is commonly believed that complaints could only be made by the minor, but in practice, third parties including the police would investigate and prosecution could be pursued by parents or social services.

• Interpretation must be as clear and objective as possible.

Hostility of judges and juries is a concern wherever they have broad power to decide that a 12+ relationship is illegal. The language proposed should seek to minimize this risk while remaining potentially acceptable to the public.

• No 'corruption of minors' liability.

Many countries have legislation in addition to their statutory rape laws. This allows for prosecution of adults who engage in sexual activity with 'minors', even if the Age of Consent is set at 14, 15, or 16. The penalties are less severe, but still come with all the problems associated with a conviction for crimes against a minor.

The 12+ legislation should override 'corruption of minors' laws.

The Proposal

• Age of Consent of 12.

For all the reasons we already discussed.

• Sex with 12-15 year olds can be prosecuted upon complaint, if the accused deceptively exploited the accuser's lack of sexual knowledge or interest.

If a relationship is genuinely consensual, and sex education has been thorough, it will be difficult to demonstrate a lack of knowledge or interest on the part of the younger person.

• A complaint can be made by the alleged victim up to the age of 18.

This demonstrates that we respect the right of the younger person to reflect on the relationship and later make a complaint if they were exploited. This would not shorten the statute of limitations for rape victims.

• Laws against rape continue to protect people of all ages.

This should go without saying. Unfortunately, it doesn't, and we need to make it clear.

• Current regulations remain applied to parents and guardians (no AoC of 12).

This is necessary to help young people who are too afraid to make a complaint against parents and guardians.

• 12+ overrides 'corruption of minors' laws.

No prosecution under 'corruption of minors' laws if a person did not deceptively exploit the accuser's lack of sexual knowledge or interest.