Since this concept has been making its rounds on the various boards and blogs I read, it feels appropriate to weigh in, in detail, on this subject.
Affirmative consent is the idea that avoiding a "no" in a sexual encounter is insufficient for true consent. That only a verbalized "yes" to each and every act performed is sufficient.
I'm actually quite fond of the idea.
The biggest stumbling block I run into when quietly contemplating a better legal situation than the current age of consent, or arguing for its abolishment in open forum, is the fundamental fact that our current system of consent for adults is fundamentally broken. We let adults abuse and manipulate one another in ways that should rightly horrify any human being of good conscience. Thus the idea of exposing children to those culturally and legally sanctioned abuses rightly causes us all to recoil from the idea.
I don't like recoiling from ideas. When I get that impulse, I choose to dig deeper. To find out WHY that reaction strikes me. Because if I recoil, I can't learn specifically what about the situation is so inimical to me, and I can't examine if those distasteful parts can be excised.
The way I figure it, if it isn't acceptable to do inflict something on a five year old child, it isn't acceptable to inflict it on an adult either. If you think we need an age of consent to protect children from predatory adults who would lie their way into bed with them, there is no valid justification for treating those same predators as harmless or even admirable just because they're doing the exact same thing to other adults.
Now, that isn't to say there aren't serious flaws with the concept of affirmative consent. Firstly, like all aspects of sexual consent in this culture, it's gendered, in that males need to get consent, and females need to give it, never the other way around. Not a problem specific to the concept itself, but a problem inherent in our culture and one that rightly needs to be called out whenever the subject of changing the standards of consent come up.
Second is that how far it needs to be taken is never sufficiently defined, nor will its proponents ever submit to limiting cases, always shreaking about their "better safe than sorry" nonsense. Under reasonable standards, this practice could force better communication between sexual partners, make everyone take accountability for their own agency in deciding to participate, and reducing the tragedies that currently result from our current standards of "implied consent". If stretched beyond reasonable boundaries, however, it becomes a standard no one can ever live up to, and thus redefines every sexual interaction as rape, with all the gendered and ageist asymetries that go along with rape accusations in our culture.
Some claim that this standard infantalizes women, because it denies their ability to speak up when something is bothering them about a sexual encounter, and instead relies on the man to ask for confirmation. Aside from the obvious sexism in the idea that only a man would need to be held to this standard (not that it isn't an objective fact of our culture that this would be the case), I actually agree that it's infantalizing. That's why I like it so much.
Maybe if we can get the level of discourse and behavior of the general population to a place where a child would have no difficulty navigating it, why would we need the age of consent or anything to replace it?
Showing posts with label sex. Show all posts
Showing posts with label sex. Show all posts
Thursday, October 10, 2013
Friday, July 5, 2013
Erring On The Side Of Caution
As my arguments have grown more refined, I've noted a particular argument of last resort among my opposition. After they've been forced to admit that it is a fundamental injustice that rational, competent human beings are routinely denied the right to decide what they do with their own bodies, rather than just accept that the situation needs to change, their final argument is that we must "err on the side of caution."
What this argument represents, is the false assumption that we simply cannot know for certain who is and is not competent to make their own decisions, and therefore we must restrict the rights of people we are actually fairly sure are competent in the hopes of getting all the ones who aren't "protected."
There are two fundamental errors with this argument. The first, and most obvious, is that there is no inherent need to "err" at all. It is perfectly possible to examine an individual's mental capabilities and knowledge base to determine if this individual is or is not up to the standard for informed consent. Talking about which way you would rather err means nothing when the goal is to simply not err in the first place.
Because, we should be clear, the individuals who bring up erring on the side of caution aren't talking about making the examinations potentially more rigorous than they would need to be. They're talking only about maintaining the failed system of age lines that, by this point in the argument, even they have been forced to admit are not capable of accurately sorting those who can provide meaningful consent from those who cannot.
The second error with this argument is that it assumes as a given that in the eternal debate of freedom versus security, the right and proper side to err on is security. That has been, by no means, established in any particular issue you care to mention, so there's no possible way for it to have been established in the general case as such individuals argue.
The entire point of a legal system founded on "better to let ten guilty men go free than that one innocent man be punished" is to err on the side of freedom. Everyone who's ever been offended by seatbelt laws, helmet laws, or speed limits understands that the tradeoff on freedom versus security is never cut and dried in favor of security.
I'll admit I am an extremist. Anyone reading this blog who is surprised by that has probably not been paying attention. I fully support the right to hate speech, even against me. I'm of the opinion that the right to bear arms means the right of the private citizen to bear any weapon that the government sees fit to place in the hands of its military, and that includes nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons so long as the government in question asserts its own right to those weapons. I may make another post in the future discussing this point in more detail, but suffice it to say that on the freedom versus security debate, I'm going to choose to err on the side of freedom every time.
The worst of it, though, is that choosing to err "on the side of caution" (including times when it isn't necessary to err at all) isn't a consequence free choice. There are real harms inflicted on people when they're denied their rights to bodily autonomy including sexual autonomy. You could try to argue that those harms are lesser than the harms inflicted on someone who has been improperly deemed capable of informed consent and thus "fair game," but you cannot deny that the harms in the former situation simply do not exist.
I've frequently suggested, in response to the idea that we should "err on the side of caution," that the correct course of action would then be to raise the age of consent to 40, 60, or maybe 80. For some reason, no one seems to think it's a good idea to "err on the side of caution" in those situations.
What this argument represents, is the false assumption that we simply cannot know for certain who is and is not competent to make their own decisions, and therefore we must restrict the rights of people we are actually fairly sure are competent in the hopes of getting all the ones who aren't "protected."
There are two fundamental errors with this argument. The first, and most obvious, is that there is no inherent need to "err" at all. It is perfectly possible to examine an individual's mental capabilities and knowledge base to determine if this individual is or is not up to the standard for informed consent. Talking about which way you would rather err means nothing when the goal is to simply not err in the first place.
Because, we should be clear, the individuals who bring up erring on the side of caution aren't talking about making the examinations potentially more rigorous than they would need to be. They're talking only about maintaining the failed system of age lines that, by this point in the argument, even they have been forced to admit are not capable of accurately sorting those who can provide meaningful consent from those who cannot.
The second error with this argument is that it assumes as a given that in the eternal debate of freedom versus security, the right and proper side to err on is security. That has been, by no means, established in any particular issue you care to mention, so there's no possible way for it to have been established in the general case as such individuals argue.
The entire point of a legal system founded on "better to let ten guilty men go free than that one innocent man be punished" is to err on the side of freedom. Everyone who's ever been offended by seatbelt laws, helmet laws, or speed limits understands that the tradeoff on freedom versus security is never cut and dried in favor of security.
I'll admit I am an extremist. Anyone reading this blog who is surprised by that has probably not been paying attention. I fully support the right to hate speech, even against me. I'm of the opinion that the right to bear arms means the right of the private citizen to bear any weapon that the government sees fit to place in the hands of its military, and that includes nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons so long as the government in question asserts its own right to those weapons. I may make another post in the future discussing this point in more detail, but suffice it to say that on the freedom versus security debate, I'm going to choose to err on the side of freedom every time.
The worst of it, though, is that choosing to err "on the side of caution" (including times when it isn't necessary to err at all) isn't a consequence free choice. There are real harms inflicted on people when they're denied their rights to bodily autonomy including sexual autonomy. You could try to argue that those harms are lesser than the harms inflicted on someone who has been improperly deemed capable of informed consent and thus "fair game," but you cannot deny that the harms in the former situation simply do not exist.
I've frequently suggested, in response to the idea that we should "err on the side of caution," that the correct course of action would then be to raise the age of consent to 40, 60, or maybe 80. For some reason, no one seems to think it's a good idea to "err on the side of caution" in those situations.
Friday, May 24, 2013
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".
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".
Tuesday, March 26, 2013
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.
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.
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
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.
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.
Monday, February 18, 2013
Lying About Sexual History
As I mentioned in one of my earliest posts on this blog, I have strong feelings on the importance of informed consent.
It's a fact that people lie to one another about their sexual history. Men stereotypically inflate their numbers, while women stereotypically deflate theirs. This is, of course, a response to the shaming responses both genders get as a part of gender policing, and most of the time the worst harm it does is in the form of failing to challenge that gender policing. I'm in no position to condemn anyone for the choice to avoid confrontations and difficult arguments in their day to day lives given everything I hold back, after all.
That said, a part of being in a relationship is establishing mutual trust, and within any relationship founded on a lie, informed consent is not a possibility. Those convenient lies that make our day to day lives easier need to be put aside, little by little or all at once if the resulting relationship can be said to be legitimate.
This is doubly the case when discussing a marriage. The "I do"s of a wedding vow can be rightly thought of as conditional on everything the couple has told one another up to that point being the truth.
Ah, but what of the situation where you know the other party will judge you for your past? When you're in love and absolutely sure that you were meant to be together? When you're sure that the truth will ruin everything and cause you both to miss out on a wonderful relationship and life together?
In that case, I ask: Why do you want to be in a relationship with someone who's only there because you lied?
First off, that certainty that your partner will judge you, that's you being unfair to the partner by not giving him/her the chance to show what the real reaction will be. You are so afraid of the worst case scenario that you've already assigned that reaction to your partner in your head, and you'll be blaming and resenting him/her for that reaction. That's poison to the relationship.
Second, if your partner rejects you because of your sexual history, that's his/her choice and you have to just accept that. Your partner is a human being with his/her own standards and expectations from the relationship, and just as much right to say "no" as you have. Whatever happily ever after you think you can build on a foundation of lies, that inkling that "what he/she knows can't hurt him/her" is you denying your partner's agency, violating his/her trust, and by far the more abhorrent act than his/her deciding that you shouldn't be together.
When spouses discover things about one another's sexual history years or even decades after the fact that had been deliberately concealed, it doesn't just mean that the long delayed confrontation is now at hand. It means that, but it also means that they have to deal with the fact that their partners lied to them every day of those years or decades they've been together.
This is exactly the same sort of betrayal that one experiences when their spouse has an affair. Trust going forward becomes impossible in light of the extended deception. The vows are every bit as broken as they would be in the case of the affair, because the person they said "I do" about didn't have that incident in their past.
The fact of the matter is that you aren't entitled to either sexual partners nor life partners. You have to have the fully informed consent of another human being for that, and if you can't get it without deception, you go without. Anything else is just another kind of rape.
It's a fact that people lie to one another about their sexual history. Men stereotypically inflate their numbers, while women stereotypically deflate theirs. This is, of course, a response to the shaming responses both genders get as a part of gender policing, and most of the time the worst harm it does is in the form of failing to challenge that gender policing. I'm in no position to condemn anyone for the choice to avoid confrontations and difficult arguments in their day to day lives given everything I hold back, after all.
That said, a part of being in a relationship is establishing mutual trust, and within any relationship founded on a lie, informed consent is not a possibility. Those convenient lies that make our day to day lives easier need to be put aside, little by little or all at once if the resulting relationship can be said to be legitimate.
This is doubly the case when discussing a marriage. The "I do"s of a wedding vow can be rightly thought of as conditional on everything the couple has told one another up to that point being the truth.
Ah, but what of the situation where you know the other party will judge you for your past? When you're in love and absolutely sure that you were meant to be together? When you're sure that the truth will ruin everything and cause you both to miss out on a wonderful relationship and life together?
In that case, I ask: Why do you want to be in a relationship with someone who's only there because you lied?
First off, that certainty that your partner will judge you, that's you being unfair to the partner by not giving him/her the chance to show what the real reaction will be. You are so afraid of the worst case scenario that you've already assigned that reaction to your partner in your head, and you'll be blaming and resenting him/her for that reaction. That's poison to the relationship.
Second, if your partner rejects you because of your sexual history, that's his/her choice and you have to just accept that. Your partner is a human being with his/her own standards and expectations from the relationship, and just as much right to say "no" as you have. Whatever happily ever after you think you can build on a foundation of lies, that inkling that "what he/she knows can't hurt him/her" is you denying your partner's agency, violating his/her trust, and by far the more abhorrent act than his/her deciding that you shouldn't be together.
When spouses discover things about one another's sexual history years or even decades after the fact that had been deliberately concealed, it doesn't just mean that the long delayed confrontation is now at hand. It means that, but it also means that they have to deal with the fact that their partners lied to them every day of those years or decades they've been together.
This is exactly the same sort of betrayal that one experiences when their spouse has an affair. Trust going forward becomes impossible in light of the extended deception. The vows are every bit as broken as they would be in the case of the affair, because the person they said "I do" about didn't have that incident in their past.
The fact of the matter is that you aren't entitled to either sexual partners nor life partners. You have to have the fully informed consent of another human being for that, and if you can't get it without deception, you go without. Anything else is just another kind of rape.
Saturday, December 15, 2012
Nice Guys, Bad Boys, and Rape Culture
Human beings are social creatures. We build our identities based on our relationships with the people around us. To the extent that our biology dictates anything, it dictates that we will care about what other people think.
Shunning and shaming have been used to enforce social and legal standards throughout human history and across cultural lines. Solitary confinement of prisoners has been rightly called torture, and permanent brain damage has been documented as a result of it.
It will come as news to no one that men and women get different social messages when it comes to sex. Men are told to have it, or else. Women are told not to have it, or else.
That "or else" is not a trivial thing. No one will beat you, imprison you, murder you, or otherwise do physical violence to you if you don't conform to these ideals (usually), but that doesn't translate into the ability to break from your assigned role without consequences. And as I noted, the consequences of social ostracism are very real for social creatures like human beings.
The more observant of you will have noted that the gendered expectations above are contradictory. Men are supposed to have sex with women, but women aren't supposed to have sex with men. It's impossible for both these outcomes to be happening simultaneously. No matter which way it comes down, someone will end up hurt and shunned.
In that context, I think I have an explanation for that old chestnut, "nice guys finish last" as it applies to dating.
Women want to have sex, but are told repeatedly that doing so will have negative social consequences. The term slut shaming has been used in feminist circles to describe this very real and not at all unreasonable concern women have. By consenting to sex, a woman opens herself up to shaming and ostracism.
Pickup artists figured this out a long time ago, and they've picked up on how women manage to have sex while attempting to shield themselves from the worst consequences of slut shaming. They never unambiguously consent to sex. Pickup artists council giving a woman plausible deniability, so that she'll be able to say "it just happened" when all is said and done, so she won't have to deal with the social consequences, many of them internalized, that come when she chooses to consent to sex.
Now, that's a problem for nice guys. Nice guys care about sexual consent. They care whether the other person is uncomfortable, and will always seek explicit, unambiguous consent at every stage of a relationship. And as a result, they're unintentionally denying women the ability to pretend that "it just happened."
Bad boys, of course, provide all the plausible deniability a woman could ask for. They demonstrate at every stage of the relationship that they do not respect other people's boundaries, so a woman with one never has to consent to anything.
It's a tidy arrangement, but for one simple fact. Sex without consent is rape, and women employing this strategy are never having explicitly consensual sex, by design. I can think of no clearer an example of rape culture than the fact that our standard relationship model involves women putting up boundaries explicitly so that men will push through them.
Meanwhile, nice guys are being told they're defective.
Remember those messages men get that tell them just as strongly and just as often that they are supposed to be having sex? So they start asking questions about why they are failing to get sex, often aggressively, because they are being shunned and shamed. Men aren't inherently sexually aggressive beasts any more than women are asexual ice queens. We're both trying to conform to social expectations because there are very real consequences to us when we don't.
So what answers do nice guys get? They get told about confidence, that jerks are confident, so they're more attractive than a nice guy who's feeling like a failure. But that's wrong. It isn't a lie. It's just wrong.
You look at a nice guy and try to see what's wrong with him, and you don't see any flaws. He's decent, caring, sensitive, and has his shit together. But you have to tell him something because what he's doing obviously isn't working, and you are a decent person and don't want to see him continue to be hurt by his romantic failures.
You look at what possible positive traits he could be lacking, and the only thing you can find is that maybe he's lacking in confidence. So you tell him to work on himself, try to be happy alone so that confidence can build up and then he'll naturally be attractive because that was the only thing you could perceive that might be even slightly wrong with him.
But that perception that nice guys lack confidence is rooted in two errors. First is that lack of confidence is an effect, not a cause. He lacks confidence because he's being subjected to shaming and ostracism for failing to conform to his gender role. He's experiencing exactly the same social pressure that you try to avoid when you worry over being called a slut. That's what is eating away at his self esteem, and the only way out of that trap is to either conform to his gender role and succeed at having sex, or to recognize the gender role for what it is and reject it outright.
The second error is mistaking a willingness to push through boundaries as "confidence". Being unwilling to push past boundaries and make someone else uncomfortable isn't lack of confidence. That's respecting the other person as a human being, and accepting the words and signals telling you that your advances aren't wanted.
So, with all that mess, what is a nice guy to do?
First off, you're a decent human being. Don't change that fact. Yes, pushing past women's boundaries in order to let them avoid slut shaming is what they want, but letting them play that game only makes it harder for them to come to own their sexual choices and desires.
Second, you're a decent human being. Decent human beings don't slut shame. When a woman agrees to have sex and owns that decision, never make her feel like she did something wrong. When someone else makes a woman feel like she did something wrong by agreeing to sex, that person is part of the problem, and needs to be called out not just because he's being an asshole and hurting that woman, but also because he's perpetuating the system that makes women think they need to be able to say "it just happened".
Third, and this is going to be the hardest part for decent human beings. Don't let a woman say "it just happened." When a woman uses those words, I recommend (and have used) the following script:
W: It just happened.
M: Were you raped?
W: No...
M: Then it didn't "just happen." You made a choice, and there's nothing wrong with that.
I realize that this is hard to say, but the truth is, you're doing a woman no favors by letting her hold on to her deniability with you. Because whenever you're told "it just happened," it's because she's afraid that if she told you she chose to have sex, you would slut shame her. This script tells her that you are not going to slut shame her, and that she doesn't need to pretend.
This won't get you sex.
That isn't what the goal is. You're a decent human being. You will feel like shit if you start pushing past boundaries and having sex without explicit consent. If you were willing to do that, you wouldn't be a nice guy having this problem in the first place.
This is about confronting the underlying problem that leads to all those boundaries being put up in the first place. The goal is to get to the point where women have the confidence to say they want sex when they do.
You want to have sex with women who want to have sex with you and aren't afraid to say so. Pushing past boundaries, no matter why they were put up won't get you that. Breaking down the cultural expectations that are telling women they're wrong to want sex with you might.
Shunning and shaming have been used to enforce social and legal standards throughout human history and across cultural lines. Solitary confinement of prisoners has been rightly called torture, and permanent brain damage has been documented as a result of it.
It will come as news to no one that men and women get different social messages when it comes to sex. Men are told to have it, or else. Women are told not to have it, or else.
That "or else" is not a trivial thing. No one will beat you, imprison you, murder you, or otherwise do physical violence to you if you don't conform to these ideals (usually), but that doesn't translate into the ability to break from your assigned role without consequences. And as I noted, the consequences of social ostracism are very real for social creatures like human beings.
The more observant of you will have noted that the gendered expectations above are contradictory. Men are supposed to have sex with women, but women aren't supposed to have sex with men. It's impossible for both these outcomes to be happening simultaneously. No matter which way it comes down, someone will end up hurt and shunned.
In that context, I think I have an explanation for that old chestnut, "nice guys finish last" as it applies to dating.
Women want to have sex, but are told repeatedly that doing so will have negative social consequences. The term slut shaming has been used in feminist circles to describe this very real and not at all unreasonable concern women have. By consenting to sex, a woman opens herself up to shaming and ostracism.
Pickup artists figured this out a long time ago, and they've picked up on how women manage to have sex while attempting to shield themselves from the worst consequences of slut shaming. They never unambiguously consent to sex. Pickup artists council giving a woman plausible deniability, so that she'll be able to say "it just happened" when all is said and done, so she won't have to deal with the social consequences, many of them internalized, that come when she chooses to consent to sex.
Now, that's a problem for nice guys. Nice guys care about sexual consent. They care whether the other person is uncomfortable, and will always seek explicit, unambiguous consent at every stage of a relationship. And as a result, they're unintentionally denying women the ability to pretend that "it just happened."
Bad boys, of course, provide all the plausible deniability a woman could ask for. They demonstrate at every stage of the relationship that they do not respect other people's boundaries, so a woman with one never has to consent to anything.
It's a tidy arrangement, but for one simple fact. Sex without consent is rape, and women employing this strategy are never having explicitly consensual sex, by design. I can think of no clearer an example of rape culture than the fact that our standard relationship model involves women putting up boundaries explicitly so that men will push through them.
Meanwhile, nice guys are being told they're defective.
Remember those messages men get that tell them just as strongly and just as often that they are supposed to be having sex? So they start asking questions about why they are failing to get sex, often aggressively, because they are being shunned and shamed. Men aren't inherently sexually aggressive beasts any more than women are asexual ice queens. We're both trying to conform to social expectations because there are very real consequences to us when we don't.
So what answers do nice guys get? They get told about confidence, that jerks are confident, so they're more attractive than a nice guy who's feeling like a failure. But that's wrong. It isn't a lie. It's just wrong.
You look at a nice guy and try to see what's wrong with him, and you don't see any flaws. He's decent, caring, sensitive, and has his shit together. But you have to tell him something because what he's doing obviously isn't working, and you are a decent person and don't want to see him continue to be hurt by his romantic failures.
You look at what possible positive traits he could be lacking, and the only thing you can find is that maybe he's lacking in confidence. So you tell him to work on himself, try to be happy alone so that confidence can build up and then he'll naturally be attractive because that was the only thing you could perceive that might be even slightly wrong with him.
But that perception that nice guys lack confidence is rooted in two errors. First is that lack of confidence is an effect, not a cause. He lacks confidence because he's being subjected to shaming and ostracism for failing to conform to his gender role. He's experiencing exactly the same social pressure that you try to avoid when you worry over being called a slut. That's what is eating away at his self esteem, and the only way out of that trap is to either conform to his gender role and succeed at having sex, or to recognize the gender role for what it is and reject it outright.
The second error is mistaking a willingness to push through boundaries as "confidence". Being unwilling to push past boundaries and make someone else uncomfortable isn't lack of confidence. That's respecting the other person as a human being, and accepting the words and signals telling you that your advances aren't wanted.
So, with all that mess, what is a nice guy to do?
First off, you're a decent human being. Don't change that fact. Yes, pushing past women's boundaries in order to let them avoid slut shaming is what they want, but letting them play that game only makes it harder for them to come to own their sexual choices and desires.
Second, you're a decent human being. Decent human beings don't slut shame. When a woman agrees to have sex and owns that decision, never make her feel like she did something wrong. When someone else makes a woman feel like she did something wrong by agreeing to sex, that person is part of the problem, and needs to be called out not just because he's being an asshole and hurting that woman, but also because he's perpetuating the system that makes women think they need to be able to say "it just happened".
Third, and this is going to be the hardest part for decent human beings. Don't let a woman say "it just happened." When a woman uses those words, I recommend (and have used) the following script:
W: It just happened.
M: Were you raped?
W: No...
M: Then it didn't "just happen." You made a choice, and there's nothing wrong with that.
I realize that this is hard to say, but the truth is, you're doing a woman no favors by letting her hold on to her deniability with you. Because whenever you're told "it just happened," it's because she's afraid that if she told you she chose to have sex, you would slut shame her. This script tells her that you are not going to slut shame her, and that she doesn't need to pretend.
This won't get you sex.
That isn't what the goal is. You're a decent human being. You will feel like shit if you start pushing past boundaries and having sex without explicit consent. If you were willing to do that, you wouldn't be a nice guy having this problem in the first place.
This is about confronting the underlying problem that leads to all those boundaries being put up in the first place. The goal is to get to the point where women have the confidence to say they want sex when they do.
You want to have sex with women who want to have sex with you and aren't afraid to say so. Pushing past boundaries, no matter why they were put up won't get you that. Breaking down the cultural expectations that are telling women they're wrong to want sex with you might.
Friday, December 14, 2012
Attraction to Virgins
I see people who are interested in having a virgin sex partner being mistreated a lot. There are a few different camps of these people.
The first, of course, are those who automatically assume anyone who expresses such a preference is a religious fanatic who will attack the speaker for not conforming to the tenets of their religion. They mistreat those who express a preference for virgin partners as a kind of preemptive attack. Doing unto others before they get the chance to do unto you.
For those who don't automatically assume a religious motivation (or who have already had such a motivation explicitly denied), there are those who still treat it as an attack. They've received so many messages judging them for sexually open behavior, they're certain anyone who expresses such a preference intends to look down on them or attack them for holding a different view.
Next we have the group who treats such an interest as a sign of immaturity. Much like the previous group, they've seen the social messages, but they treat it as a point of pride that they've rejected them. These people view anyone who would express a preference in line with what the mainstream message tells them is "correct" as someone who's too stupid or immature to make their own choices.
After them, we have those who assume anyone interested in a virgin is abusive. They assume that the attraction is all about finding someone vulnerable who will put up with physical and emotional abuse or just plain bad sex without complaint because they don't know any better.
Then we have the people who just plain don't get the appeal, and so attack others because it's human nature to hate what we don't understand. "Why would you want to be virgins on your wedding night? The sex will be lousy because neither of you know what you're doing yet."
For the sake of those genuinely interested in understanding the point of view instead of looking for an excuse to attack, I'm going to try to explain the appeal.
People care about firsts. A baby's first word is important to those who care about that child, even though that's the least articulate that child will ever be, even if all the words that come after will be clearer and convey more meaning. That fist word means something. It's a dividing point where what comes after will be different from everything that has come before. Likewise the first steps are things parents want to catch on film, memories they cherish, even if they're the clumsiest steps that child will ever take.
The first day of school is painful for a lot of parents because that's the first first that the parent can't be there for, can't share with the child.
By the time we're in the process of selecting lovers, partners, spouses, most of those firsts have already passed for both of you. Saving one first to share with a lover is giving them a chance to be there for an important moment, where what comes after won't be the same as what came before.
For those interested in a life partner, someone who you will care about above all others, and who will care about you in the same way, being able to share a first is a means of being a part of their history from that point forward. You may not be able to be there for their other firsts, but wanting to be a part of as many as possible is something a lot of us value, no matter what religion or lack thereof.
The first, of course, are those who automatically assume anyone who expresses such a preference is a religious fanatic who will attack the speaker for not conforming to the tenets of their religion. They mistreat those who express a preference for virgin partners as a kind of preemptive attack. Doing unto others before they get the chance to do unto you.
For those who don't automatically assume a religious motivation (or who have already had such a motivation explicitly denied), there are those who still treat it as an attack. They've received so many messages judging them for sexually open behavior, they're certain anyone who expresses such a preference intends to look down on them or attack them for holding a different view.
Next we have the group who treats such an interest as a sign of immaturity. Much like the previous group, they've seen the social messages, but they treat it as a point of pride that they've rejected them. These people view anyone who would express a preference in line with what the mainstream message tells them is "correct" as someone who's too stupid or immature to make their own choices.
After them, we have those who assume anyone interested in a virgin is abusive. They assume that the attraction is all about finding someone vulnerable who will put up with physical and emotional abuse or just plain bad sex without complaint because they don't know any better.
Then we have the people who just plain don't get the appeal, and so attack others because it's human nature to hate what we don't understand. "Why would you want to be virgins on your wedding night? The sex will be lousy because neither of you know what you're doing yet."
For the sake of those genuinely interested in understanding the point of view instead of looking for an excuse to attack, I'm going to try to explain the appeal.
People care about firsts. A baby's first word is important to those who care about that child, even though that's the least articulate that child will ever be, even if all the words that come after will be clearer and convey more meaning. That fist word means something. It's a dividing point where what comes after will be different from everything that has come before. Likewise the first steps are things parents want to catch on film, memories they cherish, even if they're the clumsiest steps that child will ever take.
The first day of school is painful for a lot of parents because that's the first first that the parent can't be there for, can't share with the child.
By the time we're in the process of selecting lovers, partners, spouses, most of those firsts have already passed for both of you. Saving one first to share with a lover is giving them a chance to be there for an important moment, where what comes after won't be the same as what came before.
For those interested in a life partner, someone who you will care about above all others, and who will care about you in the same way, being able to share a first is a means of being a part of their history from that point forward. You may not be able to be there for their other firsts, but wanting to be a part of as many as possible is something a lot of us value, no matter what religion or lack thereof.
Monday, December 3, 2012
Virgin Shaming
For those of you who missed the introduction, I'm a pedophile. I try to be clear about that fact in my online dealings. I want that fact to be doubly clear in this post, because that context should help make clear the absurdity of what I'm about to discuss.
Women and girls get judged for having sex. The word slut being used as a tool of social pressure is something we're all aware of, but it goes deeper than that. In a thousand different ways, women and girls are told that they become something lesser based on the number of sex partners they've had. This is the classical model of slut shaming and anyone who claims not to have heard of it is lying.
Men and boys get the opposite message. While females are shamed for having sex, males are shamed for not having sex. Every time an implication is made about a male's meager sex life as a way of insulting him, that's reinforcing in him, and in all the males in earshot, the idea that a male only has value proportional to how much sex he's able to have.
I get shamed for not having sex. Read the first sentence of this post again then think about what it means when people who know that I'm a pedophile still use shaming language to insult me for not having sex. That's how extreme this trend is.
And it's not just in the expected "you're only going after little girls because you can't find a woman who'll touch you" idiocy. People have literally called me less of a man for choosing celibacy instead of molesting a child.
More frequently, however, are those who have been informed of my orientation, then forget in the heat of the moment and just reach for their go-to insult. Those types will tend to act appropriately ashamed of themselves when the implications are pointed out to them, but it's telling that this type of insult is such a default that people can make that mistake in the first place.
People who judge others based on how much sex they are having are assholes. Christian conservatives who lambast people who are having too much sex in their opinion are assholes. The "liberated" types who judge people for having too little sex are not only also assholes, but they are the exact same kind of assholes.
I find I'm particularly annoyed when the discussion turns to marriage, since it brings out both kinds of assholes. The conservative asshole who declares everyone who's having premarital sex to be lesser is one I expect in such discussions. But I foolishly expected more from the liberated types.
Instead, they'll always be there responding to the conservative's shaming with shaming of their own. When the conservative issues judgement about matrimonial sex being less special because you haven't been saving yourself, the liberal issues judgement about the sex being awful because you haven't been trying each other out sexually before the commitment.
I think the conservative sex police are getting plenty of blowback for their hateful behavior. I don't think the liberal sex police are getting enough blowback for their hateful behavior. The real mark of maturity in dealing with these issues is not whether you favor more sex or less sex. The mark of maturity is that you're willing to let people make the decisions that are right for them, without judging them when those decisions are different from yours.
Women and girls get judged for having sex. The word slut being used as a tool of social pressure is something we're all aware of, but it goes deeper than that. In a thousand different ways, women and girls are told that they become something lesser based on the number of sex partners they've had. This is the classical model of slut shaming and anyone who claims not to have heard of it is lying.
Men and boys get the opposite message. While females are shamed for having sex, males are shamed for not having sex. Every time an implication is made about a male's meager sex life as a way of insulting him, that's reinforcing in him, and in all the males in earshot, the idea that a male only has value proportional to how much sex he's able to have.
I get shamed for not having sex. Read the first sentence of this post again then think about what it means when people who know that I'm a pedophile still use shaming language to insult me for not having sex. That's how extreme this trend is.
And it's not just in the expected "you're only going after little girls because you can't find a woman who'll touch you" idiocy. People have literally called me less of a man for choosing celibacy instead of molesting a child.
More frequently, however, are those who have been informed of my orientation, then forget in the heat of the moment and just reach for their go-to insult. Those types will tend to act appropriately ashamed of themselves when the implications are pointed out to them, but it's telling that this type of insult is such a default that people can make that mistake in the first place.
People who judge others based on how much sex they are having are assholes. Christian conservatives who lambast people who are having too much sex in their opinion are assholes. The "liberated" types who judge people for having too little sex are not only also assholes, but they are the exact same kind of assholes.
I find I'm particularly annoyed when the discussion turns to marriage, since it brings out both kinds of assholes. The conservative asshole who declares everyone who's having premarital sex to be lesser is one I expect in such discussions. But I foolishly expected more from the liberated types.
Instead, they'll always be there responding to the conservative's shaming with shaming of their own. When the conservative issues judgement about matrimonial sex being less special because you haven't been saving yourself, the liberal issues judgement about the sex being awful because you haven't been trying each other out sexually before the commitment.
I think the conservative sex police are getting plenty of blowback for their hateful behavior. I don't think the liberal sex police are getting enough blowback for their hateful behavior. The real mark of maturity in dealing with these issues is not whether you favor more sex or less sex. The mark of maturity is that you're willing to let people make the decisions that are right for them, without judging them when those decisions are different from yours.
Sunday, December 2, 2012
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?
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?
Saturday, December 1, 2012
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)