Sunday, December 2, 2012


Some time ago, I was involved with the creation of this proposal.  It came about as the result of a back and forth between myself and another individual going by the handle PoeticVengence.  I asked what the function of Age of Consent was.  I asked what people who were under the magic age line supposedly lacked that people above the magic age line supposedly had.  The feedback PoeticVengence and others provided, both during and after this initial back and forth, served as the base for this proposal.

Proposed Relational Maturity and Sexual Competency (RMSC) testing schema:

In order to be declared mentally competent to engage in consensual sexual activities (rather than having had a certain number of birthdays) under the proposed system, the test-taker proves his/her mental competence by passing a test.

The testing requirements include:
1.) Factual knowledge about sex, sexuality, reproduction and STDs.
1.a.) Subject must understand the mechanics of sexual intercourse.  Sexual anatomy, some common intercourse activities (at least the big three oral, anal and vaginal), masturbation, and outercourse activities (mutual masturbation in its various forms) should all be understood at a mechanical level. 
1.b.) Subject must understand the mechanics of human reproduction.  Ejaculation, sperm fertilizing egg cells, warning signs of pregnancy including missed periods, a basic understanding of the nine month gestation period, childbirth, and the intrinsic physical risks of pregnancy.  (Including factors that can increase those risks, ie low body mass and lack of physical development.)
1.c.) Subject must understand his or her options in terms of preventing pregnancy.  Subject must be aware of the existence and usage of barrier methods like condoms, hormone options like birth control pills, sterilization procedures like vasectomies, spermicide options, and demonstrate an understanding of the relative failure rates of these products.  While it is not necessary to be able to prattle off statistical failure rates, an understanding of which are most and least effective must be demonstrated, as well as the understanding that they can be more effective when used together. 
1.d.) Subject must be aware of abortion, what it is, the legal status of the procedure locally, and, if legal, the risks inherent in this procedure. 
1.e.) Subject must know about STDs.  Subject must be aware that exchanging bodily fluids, particularly sexual fluids runs the risk of transmitting diseases.  Subject must be aware that some such diseases are incurable.  HIV in particular should be understood in terms of its transmission methods, and its effects. 
1.f.) Subject must know where to go for testing and medical advice regarding STDs. 
1.g.) Subject must be aware of methods besides abstinence for preventing STDs, in particular the efficacy of barrier methods and the risks of multiple partners and anonymous sex. 
2.) the capacity to use critical thought to judge situations (consequence acknowledgment, goal setting, etc)
2.a.) Subject must understand that actions have consequences.
2.b.) Subject must be able to use prior experience and provided factual information to select the course of action leading to the best outcome in a hypothetical situation.
2.c.) Subject must be able to recognize when there is not enough information provided in a question to provide a meaningful answer.
3.) Ability to identify the fact that people lie to and use each other, and be able to judge (to a certain extent) when that's occurring in certain examples.
4.) Understanding of the concepts of rejection (both non-personal caused and personal caused rejection, as well as being able to reject people themselves).
4.a.) Subject must understand that not everyone wants to have sex with them.
4.b.) Subject must understand sexual orientation, and that some people just don't want sex with certain categories of people.
4.c.) Subject must recognize that some people do not want to have sex with them personally.
4.d.) Subject must be able to reject others.
5.) Understanding sexual ethics (like how rape is considered wrong, using sex to hurt people is considered wrong, etc. All because these hurt people for no justifiable reason.)
5.a.) Subject must be able to differentiate between rape and consensual sex in examples.
5.b.) Subject must understand that rape is illegal.
5.c.) Subject must be able to recognize sexual abuse other than rape in examples.
5.d.) Subject must understand that sexual abuse is illegal.
5.e.) Subject must understand the consequences and implications of using sex as a commodity. 
5.f.) Subject must be aware of how to report the crimes they were required to be able to identify.
5.g.) Subject must understand that they have the right to request any potential sexual partners be tested for STDs before consenting to sex.
5.h.) Subject must be aware that they can insist upon a partner using adequate means of prophylaxis (STDs, pregnancy)

The proposed testing format is as follows:
Use a review board, and allow researchers to propose alternative testing methods, approved by the review board, and allow anyone applying to take the test to use whichever approved test they wish. (I should point out the need for an oral test, under the assumption that even illiterate adults or children could potentially have the necessary skills and knowledge even if they lack the skills and knowledge of reading and writing. And, of course, the need for a version of the test to be available in multiple languages so as not to discriminate against non-native english speakers.)

At the testing facilities, social workers will be present to evaluate and ensure that test takers are here by their own free will. Abuse intervention programs and counseling services will be available at testing centers.

On site sex education classes will be available in order to help prepare test takers for acquiring the factual knowledge required for requirement two. This should help alleviate the imbalances in educational backgrounds of test takers.

Upon having passed the test, a picture ID is issued indicating you are competent to have sex. Having sex with an unlicensed individual is treated as statutory rape.  Test status will be hidden from third parties (First is Child, second is Government) unless the first party decides to tell someone (Ostensibly to prove sexual legality).

If there is reason to suspect that an individual is trying to "play the system" (by deliberately remaining untested despite being actually competent in order to maintain access to partners unable to offer meaningful consent or by deliberately failing the test), the court could order that the parties involved be tested, and dealt with accordingly in terms of the results.  (A stripped down version akin to current criminal responsibility tests should be used in order to prevent deliberate failing.)  If one party is found be capable and the other not, it should serve as compelling evidence that this was a case that should be treated as statutory rape, and the now competent party would have to prove in some way that they only gained this competence in the intervening time between the act and the sexual encounter.  If neither party proves competent, there's nothing to be done, regardless of ages involved.  If both parties prove competent, they should both be held criminally responsible, but not to the same level as if they were the only one involved who was competent.  Likely a fine of some sort would be the best choice for such an infraction. 

A grandfather clause is included in this proposal, such that anyone who is over the local age of consent at the time this proposal goes into effect will not need to be tested so long as they wish to be sexually active only with other individuals who were also grandfathered out of the program. If they wish to be sexual with someone operating under the new system, they must submit for testing, and thereafter abide by the new system as though they had not been grandfathered out of it.

The primary difference is that actual competency as determined by the test, rather than assumed competency based on age is the primary determiner.

Thoughts? Additional testing requirements you feel are important?


  1. This is very interesting and I would wholeheartedly support it. But do you think governments would really be willing to implement such a program? No doubt it would be a costly change to welfare services from the arbitrary but easy "age of consent" test.

  2. I'm not sure it is that much more costly.

    The drivers license program would cost about $40 per person to administer if we were trying to administer commercial licenses that require a full background check. For a back of the envelope calculation, we can use this number as an estimate for how much the RMSC program might cost.

    Over 90% of Americans over the age of 18 have a drivers license, and that program requires the fees be paid by the applicant. If we thus assume about 10% of people would need to be subsidized by the remaining 90% in order to cover people too poor to afford the test on their own, that would push the per-person cost up to about $45.

    So if we want the program to be self-funded, we charge a $45 fee and have a waiver if you make under a certain income bracket.

    And that's assuming we have to build separate buildings and hire separate administrative staff instead of rolling some of this together with the existing drivers license infrastructure.

    The actual enforcement of this program is, by design, identical to the enforcement of the old system.

  3. An interesting proposal, but what's to keep the court system from requiring a minimum age at which one can take the test, effectively leaving us right back where we started?

    1. Someone breaks that rule and passes, resulting in a damn good argument that keeping them from taking the test was unjust in the first place.

      Or someone who's too young to take the test but is competent has sex with someone who's old enough to take the test but hasn't and isn't competent to consent, and the public's desire to punish the perpetrator leads to things being amended back to the standard of the initial proposal.

      Mind you, the courts don't make the laws anyway. That's the legislature's job.

  4. You don't believe rape is real so I'm surprised you included it. Next this ignores parents, you know the ones who are legally responsible to care for the child. Most parents will refuse your need to use up girls 0-10. Laws like this will never pass in the US because usually people want more for kids than pleasing your dick. People are focused on much more serious issues like food, shelter, education, well-being. Kids are doing fine with no having sex with adults pedos aren't. It is very one sided. Pedos like yourself should move to another country that allows your sexual craving instead of forcing kids here to be your sex slave.

    This is just sick you dedicate your whole life to fucking kids but show no actual proof that you view them as human beings. It is disgusting and scary.

    1. Of course this ignores parents. Given that the majority of molested kids are molested BY THEIR PARENTS, it would be the height of stupidity to give the parents explicit, legal power over their kids' sex lives.

      If a person can meet the standards defined by the RMSC, they demonstrate that they are capable of making their own sexual decisions for themselves. What possible value would including parental consent in this?

  5. Here is what other MAPs think of your ideas.
    But seriously this is pretty thorough and it's hard to imagine a logical counterargument that isn't economics-based (e.g. who's paying for all this? probably parents I guess through some kind of application fee)

    >no child is able to pass test, ever

    >pedos demand the scoring criteria be lowered

    lol ok bro if you seriously think you can find a prepubescent child that could pass even if you gave them the answer sheet to copy paste from (or a child that wants to have sex with you in the first place) more power to them

    This is crap. Normies would absolutely never accept it, and I, a complete pedo who believes that certain forms of sexual parenting should be not just okay but actually normal, think they definitely SHOULDN'T accept it.

    Section 1 can be taught to any child capable of reading without them really getting it, just like any other set of information schools shovel into their brains.

    Sections 2 and 3 cannot be reliably tested for; they involve forms of practical and emotional intelligence that are complex enough that we don't have a working model for them, as evidenced by how frequently animals surprise us with intelligence that they aren't supposed to have. Aside from that, it would arguably mean that almost no virgin and definitely nobody who has never conventionally dated can meaningfully consent to sex, ever. That kind of learning is heavily experiential; it is attained by being hurt by others, whether through accident or malice.

    Finally, Section 5 attempts to test for things that are fundamentally subjective, whether anyone wants to admit it or not. In fact, that's arguably the problem such a test would be meant to address, and yet it attempts to bake in the cultural cipher that we already acknowledge it isn't universally beneficial to adhere to.

    1. The specific objections raised in the numbered section responses for 1, 2, and 3 seem to be based on the operating assumption that we can never know if anyone knows anything whatsoever. Thus the entire idea of testing anyone about anything, for any reason, an entirely pointless endevor.

      Additionally, the objections to 2 and 3 seem to demonstrate that the reader misread those sections and assumes they have anything at all to do with sex specifically. Dating is not the only way to learn that actions have consequences.

      I would, admittedly like to hear more details about the objections to section 5. It seems like there might be some interesting discussion fodder, but since I assume you just amalgamated responses and didn't pen any of them yourself, I expect I won't get the chance to find out if there is any more detail.

  6. Hello, please post on most people are reasonable (there are some trolls and rape like discussions that occur). I love your ideas and want to hear more about this. Even if you just do one thread your articulation will be greatly impactful and intellectual.

    1. I'm not overly familiar with the chan posting format, but I've done as you asked, replying to the RMSC thread you reference above.

    2. Thank you. Could I interview you (ask questions and you answer?) I would love to post your responses. I think more MAP and supporters of MAP need your information. I tried to read another blog ( However he recently deleted his comments because got mad when I asked him questions. He thought I was trolling but I was curious.

    3. I'm happy to have such a discussion if you're interested.

      I maintain an open comment policy here specifically because I tend to believe that silencing your opposition means you lack confidence in your own convictions. You will never find any posts here deleted by me (barring me cleaning up people's accidental double-posts and the like).

  7. Sorry for the long delay.

    Start with a few:

    1) Do you believe MAPs should be covered under hate crimes laws? So more of us could come out and feel safer?

    2) How do you feel towards MAPs who are bigoted in other ways (sexist, racist, homophobic, etc? Do you believe they interfere with our cause or do you support their free speech.

    3) Do you believe guardians have no right over their child's sex lives? For example if a child passes the exam you created but the parents still believe the child isn't ready and plans on prosecution if an adult attempts to stop them what are your thoughts?

    4) Do you think you could ever be a public civil rights leader? You are an eloquent writer but this doesn't automatically translate into speech. Would you consider it if you saw that you could lead a movement that becomes successful?

    5) How do you illustrate that even though you strongly express your beliefs that you don't offend? I agree with what you say, but how do you still attach a disclaimer to those who believe they can act in a manner that breaks the law?

    Thank you for your time.

    1. 1) I think if we're going to have hate crimes legislation, those of us who are subjected to hate for our orientation obviously ought to be covered under it.

      2) I think bigots are bigots, and I don't much like them. I support their right to speak, because I value the principle of free speech, but I don't have to like anything about them.

      3) Guardians SHOULD have NO right over their child's sex lives. The fact that they do have such power under the current system is the reason so many children are raped by their own parents.

      4) I'm a far better writer than I am a speaker. I manage well in online debates precisely because they aren't real-time. I doubt I'd be well suited to such a role.

      5) I'm not sure I understand the question.