3 ms·

He is "correct" in a way. It is the inevitable logical extension of current society's view on sexual relationship (consent based). This is just a repeat of what

by oiq 7y ago

He is "correct" in a way. It is the inevitable logical extension of current society's view on sexual relationship (consent based). This is just a repeat of what happened in 70s with a bunch of intellectuals: Foucault, Derrida, Althusser, et al argued that age of consent should be abolished too [1]. Seems like the most rational men always come to same conclusion. Society slowly unravel that consent is such a fragile concept, and they have to resort to some finite number (age) to strengthen that stance. But, as the most rational amongst us found out, those numbers are indefensible too. A better and more defensible stance is the one Catholic's have (Humanae Vitae). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of_consent_laws https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of...

dragonwriter 7y ago
> It is the inevitable logical extension of current society's view on sexual relationship (consent based). No, it's not; a consent based view does not logically imply that children are capable of consent; in fact, the view that intoxication, mental disability, and other factors can make adults incapable of consent at least strongly supports an approach where children (to, perhaps, an age above the common ages of consent) ought to be viewed as at least presumptively, and possibly conclusively, unable to consent to sex; the dominant legal position is consistent in outline, though there may be room to debate the particular details. > A better and more defensible stance is the one Catholic's have (Humanae Vitae). Humanae Vitae didn't even reflect the most defensible stance within the Catholic intelligentsia, which is why the Pope had to dump the position adopted by the Second Vatican Council workgroup on the topic to issue it, and why the document is widely disregarded by the faithful and even large segments of the clergy and even heirarchy (see, e.g., the Declaration of Königstein).
- oiq 7y ago
  As you realized, you have to add bunch of qualifiers to make consent works: age-of-consent, condition-of-consent, etc. The defense then shifted into defending those qualifiers. From system design perspective, it operates on lower level rule-based design. This is weaker. I understand there's debate internally about Humanae Vitae, and it's good. But at least it gets the core design stronger by operating on higher level goal/paradigm constraint (the purpose of procreation)
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > But at least it gets the core design stronger by operating on higher level goal/paradigm constraint (the purpose of procreation) That's actually not how it works; the intricacies of the dual procreative and unitive function model in the theology under Humanae Vitae is no less complex than that of the consent-based system, but it's just based on a moral system with a larger number of specialized axioms; the consent-based system is based on a simpler set of axioms, because it doesn't need a specific set of axioms for sex; the principle of consent underlying the consent-based system of sexual morality is the same one underlying all of the liberal enlightenment political/social/economic ideology.
    - oiq 7y ago
      This conflates paradigm of a system with its rules (axiom). It's not the same.
nindalf 7y ago
> 4 famous men came to this conclusion. No links provided. From there we get the leap > most rational men always come to the same conclusion (the age of consent should be abolished) Motivated reasoning much?
repolfx 7y ago
Isn't the more obvious way to defend his belief pointing out the cases where teenagers above the age of consent, in consensual relationships with each other, keep getting arrested and jailed for making child porn because they took nude selfies on their phone? That seems like the most bizarre and harmful outcome of deciding there's no such thing as consenting 'paedophilia' - something as normal as two 16 year olds hooking up and using their smartphone can turn into a disaster. That can happen any time the definition of child for sexual consent is different from the definition of child for child porn laws, something that you'd think would never happen in any rational legal system, but does!
Fnoord 7y ago
> He is "correct" in a way. Perhaps if the age difference is very small, but see hereunder. However, there is a good reason why a minor isn't able to sign a (legal) contract. Because they're not an adult. The brains stop growing at around age 25. The body at around age 20 / mid 20 (depends on gender and differs per person). So at age 18, teenagers are still growing up. A teenager is unable to consent to an older adult because the relation isn't equal. The adult (presumably) is grown up. It has the huge potential to create a power vacuum. Which is why we need to be very careful to protect our minors. Which is why if the age difference is minor, its often tolerated even if it isn't exactly legal. Alas, the law is not perfect, but the lawmakers did did try their best to make the law as far as possible for all parties involved.

by oiq 7y ago

dragonwriter 7y ago

> It is the inevitable logical extension of current society's view on sexual relationship (consent based). No, it's not; a consent based view does not logically imply that children are capable of consent; in fact, the view that intoxication, mental disability, and other factors can make adults incapable of consent at least strongly supports an approach where children (to, perhaps, an age above the common ages of consent) ought to be viewed as at least presumptively, and possibly conclusively, unable to consent to sex; the dominant legal position is consistent in outline, though there may be room to debate the particular details. > A better and more defensible stance is the one Catholic's have (Humanae Vitae). Humanae Vitae didn't even reflect the most defensible stance within the Catholic intelligentsia, which is why the Pope had to dump the position adopted by the Second Vatican Council workgroup on the topic to issue it, and why the document is widely disregarded by the faithful and even large segments of the clergy and even heirarchy (see, e.g., the Declaration of Königstein).

oiq 7y ago
As you realized, you have to add bunch of qualifiers to make consent works: age-of-consent, condition-of-consent, etc. The defense then shifted into defending those qualifiers. From system design perspective, it operates on lower level rule-based design. This is weaker. I understand there's debate internally about Humanae Vitae, and it's good. But at least it gets the core design stronger by operating on higher level goal/paradigm constraint (the purpose of procreation)
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > But at least it gets the core design stronger by operating on higher level goal/paradigm constraint (the purpose of procreation) That's actually not how it works; the intricacies of the dual procreative and unitive function model in the theology under Humanae Vitae is no less complex than that of the consent-based system, but it's just based on a moral system with a larger number of specialized axioms; the consent-based system is based on a simpler set of axioms, because it doesn't need a specific set of axioms for sex; the principle of consent underlying the consent-based system of sexual morality is the same one underlying all of the liberal enlightenment political/social/economic ideology.
  - oiq 7y ago
    This conflates paradigm of a system with its rules (axiom). It's not the same.

nindalf 7y ago

> 4 famous men came to this conclusion. No links provided. From there we get the leap > most rational men always come to the same conclusion (the age of consent should be abolished) Motivated reasoning much?

repolfx 7y ago

Isn't the more obvious way to defend his belief pointing out the cases where teenagers above the age of consent, in consensual relationships with each other, keep getting arrested and jailed for making child porn because they took nude selfies on their phone? That seems like the most bizarre and harmful outcome of deciding there's no such thing as consenting 'paedophilia' - something as normal as two 16 year olds hooking up and using their smartphone can turn into a disaster. That can happen any time the definition of child for sexual consent is different from the definition of child for child porn laws, something that you'd think would never happen in any rational legal system, but does!

Fnoord 7y ago

> He is "correct" in a way. Perhaps if the age difference is very small, but see hereunder. However, there is a good reason why a minor isn't able to sign a (legal) contract. Because they're not an adult. The brains stop growing at around age 25. The body at around age 20 / mid 20 (depends on gender and differs per person). So at age 18, teenagers are still growing up. A teenager is unable to consent to an older adult because the relation isn't equal. The adult (presumably) is grown up. It has the huge potential to create a power vacuum. Which is why we need to be very careful to protect our minors. Which is why if the age difference is minor, its often tolerated even if it isn't exactly legal. Alas, the law is not perfect, but the lawmakers did did try their best to make the law as far as possible for all parties involved.