Debate Guide: Power disparity

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

"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"

First of all, if such an argument should be taken in the defence of an age of consent law, you will have to explain the cases in which, for example a 15 year old boy has more physical power, status and money than a 25 year old woman or man.

Secondly, we have to consider whether there is a gap, and it's very nature. Whilst an adult may excel in physical power, they may have absolutely no legal standing in such a relationship. Even the slightest giveaway could have the police knocking at the door, so the adult is technically on the 'backfoot', when trying to maintain a relationship free of threat. Do we ever consider psychological harm because of this? No, because our dogma tells us that the adult is an indestructible perpetrator. Much of a minor's power over an adult is covert in nature - see Michel Foucault for ideas as to how this is manifested. Most parents should also know that a minor can always say 'no', often in the most expressive of ways, so one would have to explain the mechanism by which a physical relationship cancels out this strength of will.

Thirdly, the presence of a natural power gap in no way means that it will be utilised or abused. As a child - lover (in a literal sense) a Pedophile typically views sexual interaction as a means of pleasing and receiving pleasure from their partner. This is in contrast to a "situational sex offender" who might simply be taking advantage of the proximity of a minor and using the taboo nature of the act to instill fear of exposure. Psychopathic crimes are of course a completely different class altogether and thankfully very rare, and one must recognize in any instance that these and other abuses of power that cause harm in situ would remain against the law even if consent laws were scrapped altogether.

It is also no safe bet that an abuse of power will lead to any physical or psychological harm. Children suffer and repeatedly come through beatings and bullying. In playground games (seen as crucial socializing experiences) and at bathtime for example, small children are regularly felt up against their will, in ways that would be deemed indefensible with a mere deviation in "motive". These interactions are never seen as leading to the mental torture of even a small child, nor as having lifelong consequences, and thus the view that harms are inevitable is totally unwarranted and only risks becoming a dangerous, self-fulfilling prophecy.

As well as pointing out the hypocrisy of celebrating the importance of non-consensual play among and 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.

See also

• Against: Cognitive ability - Some argue that sexual intimacy requires a level that minors have not yet reached.