Debate Guide: Cognitive ability = consent: Difference between revisions
New page: ''"Children/Minors have not yet reached an adequate level of cognitive development to engage in sexual activity. They cannot consent because of this."'' This argument relies on the assump... |
mNo edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
''"Children/Minors have not yet reached an adequate level of cognitive development to engage in sexual activity. They cannot consent because of this."'' | ''"Children/Minors have not yet reached an adequate level of cognitive development to engage in sexual activity. They cannot consent because of this."'' | ||
This argument relies on the assumption that sexual intimacy is really something so complicated | This argument relies on the assumption that sexual intimacy is really something so complicated and hard to master that it requires maximal cognitive ability. It is actually a rather basic human pleasure, that requires only a little taboo-free education. After that, sexual touching can be virtually risk-free. | ||
It is also ageist to describe the cognitive abilities of children as inferior. Whilst they vary greatly, even taking into account the adult-centric intelligence tests, the mental state of a seven year old is in fact the superior state for a child of that age, as it represents a human adaptation. | It is also ageist to describe the cognitive abilities of children as inferior. Whilst they vary greatly, even taking into account the adult-centric intelligence tests, the mental state of a seven year old is in fact the superior state for a child of that age, as it represents a human adaptation. | ||
Also, using this logic, why should we not bar geriatrics, people with low IQs and the mentally ill as well? Indeed, under such logic, age of consent laws come somewhat under challenge, as it is the cognitive ability of partners that matters, not the age. Therefore, it would be "sensible" to propose laws against sex with people of "low intelligence" or prepubescents. A test could be set for pubescent children, or age restrictons could be done away with altogether. | Also, using this logic, why should we not bar geriatrics, people with low IQs and the mentally ill as well? Indeed, under such logic, age of consent laws come somewhat under challenge, as it is the cognitive ability of partners that matters, not the age. Therefore, it would be "sensible" to propose laws against sex with people of "low intelligence" or prepubescents. A test could be set for pubescent children, or age restrictons could be done away with altogether. | ||
Revision as of 17:05, 15 May 2008
"Children/Minors have not yet reached an adequate level of cognitive development to engage in sexual activity. They cannot consent because of this."
This argument relies on the assumption that sexual intimacy is really something so complicated and hard to master that it requires maximal cognitive ability. It is actually a rather basic human pleasure, that requires only a little taboo-free education. After that, sexual touching can be virtually risk-free.
It is also ageist to describe the cognitive abilities of children as inferior. Whilst they vary greatly, even taking into account the adult-centric intelligence tests, the mental state of a seven year old is in fact the superior state for a child of that age, as it represents a human adaptation.
Also, using this logic, why should we not bar geriatrics, people with low IQs and the mentally ill as well? Indeed, under such logic, age of consent laws come somewhat under challenge, as it is the cognitive ability of partners that matters, not the age. Therefore, it would be "sensible" to propose laws against sex with people of "low intelligence" or prepubescents. A test could be set for pubescent children, or age restrictons could be done away with altogether.