Reasoning or Rationalizing

There's a difference between reasoned positions and rationalizations. Most of has have both in our mental baggage, myself included.

A reasoned position is one that you take after looking at the evidence and bowing to what the evidence tells you.When you decide on a course of action based on a reasoned position, you combine the knowledge of what the likely consequences of that action are with your own fundamental principles telling you which outcomes you'd prefer to have happen.

A rationalization isn't precisely the opposite of a reasoned position, though it's often presented as such. A rationalization happens when you pick your course of action, and then look at the evidence selectively to find things that tell you that this course of action is in accord with your fundamental principles.

These two modes of thinking can quite often lead one to the same conclusion, but rationalizations suffer from a serious risk that your actions will lead to a world that isn't as closely in accord with your fundamental principles than you would like. On the other hand, establishing reasoned positions is exhausting, requiring constant re-examination of your chosen courses of action, and the occasional devastating moment when you realize that you've been on the wrong path for some time, doing more harm than good, and needing to reverse course.

The saying "you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into" is about this divide between reasoning and rationalization.

I try to limit my rationalizations, even if I'm occasionally guilty of them. I try instead to keep my actions and principles in proper alignment, and often challenge others to do the same. One of the biggest rationalizations I've still got rattling around in my psyche is this one: I didn't reason my way into the position that I shouldn't have sex with kids. I adopted that conclusion then came up with rationalizations for why that is the correct course of action.

The evidence tells me that if I want to normalize adult-child sexual relationships, the most effective way to do so is for as many people as possible to engage in them. Stygma is removed by familiarity, and the world as a whole benefits from the progress made. If those of us who care, and who want compassionate, consensual, loving relationships weren't the ones avoiding relationships, we wouldn't have seceded the field to those individuals who don't care about love, consent, and compassion.

But to follow this course of action requires a sacrifice, and it isn't one I'd be making alone. My hypothetical lover would be put through the wringer along with me, and the idea of asking someone I care about to do that causes a nearly instinctual recoil.

But to shine the harsh light of reason on my rationalization once again, I hold as a principle that competent human beings have a right to make their own decisions, and the evidence tells me that young people are quite competent to do so. They certainly would for anyone I would consider entering into a consensual physical relationship with. So do not my principles demand that I let them agree or not based on their own will, rather than attempt to shield them from such a relationship out of a misguided protective impulse?

I don't have all the answers. I'm still struggling to put words to some of the questions. I know there's something wrong with my thinking on this one, and until I've got it sorted out, I'd rather not act. But isn't that just one more rationalization for what I was going to do anyway?

News Commentary: Kaitlyn Hunt

I don't do a lot of news commentary here on this blog, because I feel that the issues I'm talking about are fundamentally timeless. That said, I'm pissed enough about the case of Kaitlyn Hunt to break from that just this once.

For those unaware, Kaitlyn is a young woman who turned 18 recently, and is being prosecuted for her sexual relationship with an underage girl from her high school. The media is painting this as anti-gay discrimination, and the conversations that have started because of it need to be addressed.

Let's start with the idea that this prosecution is because the girls are in a homosexual relationship. Yes, the parents of the younger girl are alleged to be prosecuting because the older girl "turned their daughter gay". That doesn't make the prosecution a case of anti-gay discrimination. Every high school boy who has ever been prosecuted and had his life destroyed because of the overprotective parents of his lover can attest to the fact that this is a shining example of equality, at least in the fact that the law is prosecuting.

There is some discrimination here, though. And it's the media who's doing it. No one gives a shit about the excesses of age of consent laws until it's a photogenic young woman who's suffering because of it. And once the media uproar inevitably subverts the legal system and ensures that this woman will escape punishment, everyone will go back to not giving a shit about the awful age of consent laws that will still be in place.

As I've said elsewhere on this blog, I do not support the age of consent. Kaitlyn should not be prosecuted or punished for a consensual relationship. I take Kaitlyn's lover at her word that the relationship was consensual, since she is the one who ought to get to decide that.

The conversation has also spawned much hand wringing about why this isn't covered under the "obvious" Romeo and Juliet clauses many states have in place for just this set of circumstances. First off, not every state's age of consent has an exception for minors who are close in age to one another. Secondly, no state should have such an exemption.

By setting an age of consent, the state is declaring that everyone under the line is incapable of consent, and it is under that justification that individuals who have sex with them are prosecuted. As such, whether Kaitlyn is an 18 year old from her same school or a 70 year old, what matters is that her lover is legally declared incapable of making her own choices about sex.

The very idea that you can be competent to consent to sex with teenagers but not to consent to sex with adults would be laughable if it were not the explicit law of the land, punishable by sentences harsher than some murderers get.

What these laws do is say "this group is particularly vulnerable, so let's create an entire class of people who are only legally allowed to fuck people in that particularly vulnerable class."

Either Kaitlyn's lover is competent to make her own decisions about her own body and who she shares it with, or she isn't. I think she very much is competent to make that decision, whether the person she decides to have sex with is a photogenic young woman or not.



Update:

Kaitlyn has accepted a plea bargain that nets her less than a year in jail and no need to register as a sex offender. We can all stop panicking now. The photogenic white woman won't suffer the insane consequences we always intended only for those evil, creepy men. Words cannot adequately express my disgust at the national dialogue. Though one emotion I can put into words is "unsurprised".

Treating "Yes" The Same As "No"

There is an incredibly harmful narrative that's wormed its way into the mainstream discussion about sexual consent.  The idea that we should ignore "yes" and "no" when it comes to sexual consent.

What's that?  That isn't mainstream, you say?  That's rapist talk?  Why yes, that is rapist talk, but that doesn't mean it isn't mainstream. 

I am, of course, talking about those underage individuals who desire and pursue sexual relationships with older individuals.  The very fact that the age of consent exists as a law is proof of the existence of such individuals, since you don't make laws against things that never happen.

The politically driven policy is to treat the kids who said "yes" exactly the same as the ones who said "no".  I'm not talking about the adult not having sex with the kid, for those of you still unsure where I stand on that.  I'm talking about how society is to treat those kids who did end up having sex with someone in violation of the age of consent. 

What happens when you treat someone like a rape victim?  They start acting the part.  So much of the trauma that comes from rape stems not from the mere act of forced sex, but from the societal reaction.  To take one example, the feelings of bodily impurity that may come about naturally when someone is forced into sex are added to by a cultural narrative that says that a person who has been raped will never be the same again.  If the person didn't feel violated or sullied before, the cultural narrative can do the job of making them feel violated retroactively all on its own. 

By treating "yes" the same as "no", we make damn sure that everyone who said "yes" and meant it ends up exactly as traumatized as the ones who said "no" and meant that. The pattern is so consistent, an alien observer would be forced to conclude that was the point. 

The virgin/whore false dichotomy is at the root of a lot of harmful ideas the mainstream of society has about sexuality, and here we have yet another example.  The people pushing the agenda of treating those young people who honestly and enthusiastically said "yes" precisely the same way we treat those who've been the victims of force or coersion aren't doing so because it's healthy for those kids. They're pushing that agenda because in their narrow minds the only other option is to call the kid a slut and move on with their day. 


There is no inherent need to make such a child devalue his/her own choices and judgements.  There is no value in making that child feel vulnerable and exploited. If we were actually concerned with the health and sanity of those kids, we would be looking for any way to make them feel safe and empowered, rather than deliberately imposing a victim narrative on those who haven't reached that point naturally. 
The crime of rape is the crime of ignoring another person's explicit consent.  Whether they said "yes" or "no", the rapist does what he/she was going to do anyway.  Consent is all about the importance of that distinction.  By ignoring that "yes", we're making sure that whether they said "yes" or "no", someone is going to ignore their opinion on the subject and mistreat them accordingly.  

Age Appropriate Content

I am a hardcore believer in the idea of free speech, open exchange of ideas, and the fundamental goodness of knowledge.  Censorship in all its forms is anathema to me.  The best use I can think of for a time machine would be to go back and save copies of the books that were burned throughout history.

I'm also a person who believes that children are people, and deserve to be treated like human beings.  These two passions of mine combine whenever the phrase "age appropriate" is uttered to send me into a sputtering, incoherent rage.  Thank goodness for the written word, where I can be articulate even in moments like these where I can't vocalize anything beyond threats and obscenities at best and animal snarls at worst.

Somehow the adults of this society have fallen into thinking that information about sex has the same effect as cracking open Lovecroft's Necromonicon.  I mean this quite literally with numerous pieces of propaganda being spread that claim that children "exposed" to "age inappropriate content" display the same symptoms as those who were directly sexually abused.  If I believed for one second that molesting a child would do no more harm than them seeing a RedTube video, I would have done so ages ago. 

Since the dawn of the internet, an enormous industry has sprung up to censor it.  Governments try to block content they don't like, and not just dictatorships like China.  The likes of Sweeden have gotten into the act of censoring explicit sexual content for everyone "for the children".  Home based firewall solutions have been the flavor of choice for the rugged individualists in the United States, but whether the nanny is the state or the parent, the internet is being censored. 

The censorship efforts don't stop at blocking the content itself, however.  After all, if the consequences were really so horrific, it would be criminally irresponsible to stop there.  No, efforts are made to ensure that young people never develop the knowledge base to frame the questions that might lead to them seeing something "age inappropriate" in the first place. 

Avoiding the subjects of sex and sexuality isn't a silent, seamless act.  A five year old can tell when you're dancing around a subject you don't want to talk about.  That's where shaming starts.  They know that whatever it is you don't want to talk about, it's shameful and taboo.  That is, in fact, the first thing they learn about it when you behave this way.  This discourages them from asking questions, because that would mean violating the taboo they've already learned is in place. 

Of course, discouraging questions is more thorough than that.  When adults do respond to questions about sex, they always give as little information as possible.  The idea, of course, is that they should only give them as much information as they explicitly ask for, lest they be "exposing" those children to sexual knowledge.  The trouble with this method is, again, a five year old can figure out that you don't want to give a complete answer for some reason, and will thus be discouraged from asking those followup questions that this method theoretically relies upon. 

If you're old enough to ask the question, you're old enough to know the answer.  The whole answer.  If you can articulate the question of how to define acceleration mathematically, you're old enough to learn calculus.  If you're old enough to ask about sex, you're old enough to get a thorough overview of the subject matter. 

But what of that most universal followup question to the clinical minimalism so many people prefer?  "Why would anyone want to do that?"  It's the most important question in any discussion of sex, and it's the one that's explicitly left out of sexual education curriculums and parental lectures alike.  Surely answering that question will just make them go out and do it, right? 

They asked the question.  They're going to want to know the answer, and it can either come from you actually answering the question, or it can come from them experimenting in whatever unsupervised time they have available.  And they'll wait for the unsupervised time because, again, by not answering the question, you're communicating that the subject is taboo and that any further attempts to get answers should be hidden from you. 

I'm not above exploiting the violent hysteria and frothing hatrid people have for my kind in order to advance my causes, and this is one that matters to me.  The children who are most vulnerable to child molesters are the ones who are most ignorant and have been taught most thoroughly that sex is a taboo.  If they don't know what sex is, they've no reason not to believe that this new "game" is legitimately just that.  Your efforts to silence their awkward questions also silences any hope of them telling you they've been molested.

Circumcision

I am a man, and I was circumcised at birth.  It was done for "hygiene" reasons as a default by the hospital.  This was approved of my my parents.  I have experienced no observable dysfunction, and am quite happy with the state of my genitals. 

None of that makes what happened to me right. 

I'm a big fan of the concept of informed consent.  The idea that you don't do anything to another person's body without their informed consent is one of the most rock solid ideas in the whole of medical and sexual ethics. 

But what to do when a decision has to be made and the person can't give informed consent?  Maybe they're in a coma, maybe they're mentally unsound.  That's when you have someone designated to make the decision on the behalf of the patient.  For children, that decision often ends up in the hands of the parents in these circumstances. 

Most of the time, however, the default when the person can't provide informed consent is that you do nothing and wait until they are able.  The only time it's ethically justified to act without informed consent is when there is urgency and there is no expectation that the person will become able to provide informed consent until it's too late. 

Circumcision has no urgency to it.  It can be performed on an adult who can provide informed consent.  It can be performed on a child who has demonstrated the full understanding of what he is consenting to.  To perform this procedure on an unconsenting infant is thus completely unacceptable, for exactly the same reason it would be completely unacceptable for a parent to consent to have their infant molested. 

I don't hate my parents for being misled into thinking this procedure was in my best interests, and I don't hate my body because of the nonconsensual cosmetic surgery that was performed on me as an infant.That doesn't make what happened right, and the fact that it happened to me with so few consequences is no justification for subjecting other children to it. 

There's a genuine human impulse to say "I had it rough, so I'm not going to let you have it any easier."  This impulse impedes progress and only perpetuates a cycle of injustice.  Fortunately there is another genuine human impulse to see to it that our children have it better than we did. 

The RMSC

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.

Conclusion:
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?

Sexual Ethics

I'm going to take a controversial position.  Informed consent is a moral requirement, and any sex act that happens where there is not informed consent is morally rape, regardless of the legality of whatever you're doing.

What's that?  You say that isn't a controversial position at all?  I don't think you've been paying close enough attention.

Informed consent means that everyone involved in a particular sexual act is fully aware of what they are agreeing to, understands the relevant risks they are taking, and is fully free to accept or decline.  It does not simply mean "everyone's over 18".

When you claim to be STD free and you aren't, you do not have the informed consent of your partners.  When you claim to be on birth control and you aren't, you do not have the informed consent of your partners.  When you claim to be in a committed relationship with your partner and you're cheating on them, you don't have the informed consent of your partners.

When you try to trick people into performing sex acts using lies, you make informed consent impossible, and transform whatever you are doing into a rape, regardless of whether the law acknowledges it as such.

There are a ton of people over the legal age of consent who have received a poor or nonexistent sex education, and regardless of what the law says, those people are not capable of providing informed consent.  One of the major problems with legally defining an age of consent is that it sends the message that anyone over that line is fully informed and capable of practicing informed consent. 

There are people who argue that the age of consent is the age at which a person should be ready to practice informed consent, and if they aren't, that's their fault.  They argue that they have a right to sexually exploit the ignorance of others, and that any blame rests with their victims.  These people don't care about protecting the vulnerable, and regardless of the legality of their exploitative behavior, they are still rapists.

Treating the age of consent as a starting gun is a serious problem with our culture, and at its root is the failure to understand and really internalize what informed consent really means and why it's so important.