Post a response:
|
Harm Prevention It sounds like you are arguing that we should move the AoC to 12 so that MAPs don't rape teens instead. And that you think one of the benefits of a 12 AoC is that it would keep us from raping younger kids. It kind of makes it sound like you have to give us some age of kids who we can have sex with or we'll go rape one instead. That's not a great look for MAPs. It's a particularly bad look for people who's AoA's don't extend past 12. It makes us sound like a bunch of sex craved maniacs. Further, I'm very reticent of any argument that risks sounding like we are pushing to lower the AoC for MAPs sake. Any argument (at least any argument you want to sell to the public) I think should put youth well being front and center. Widespread MAPness Cite sources for the claim that "A BL sexual orientation is more common than a gay orientation." That's a pretty bold claim that warrants a source. Also I would avoid the evo-psych. Plenty of things highly disadvantageous to group selection have persisted because they are advantageous to individual selection. Individual selection is a much more powerful force than group selection in biological evolution, even in small groups. Consider violence or peacocking for example. (Cultural evolution is another story, but by all indicators MAPness seems to be biological not cultural). Even then evolution is a very imperfect mechanism. Consider gene drives, homosexuality, or vestigial organs. Evolution is not a good place to look for ethics. Lastly the Victorian London thing. So I know you have sent me sources on this before. And I admit that I haven't done as much research on this as I could. However, regardless of my knowledge I think it is fair to say that this is kind of an obscure take. I think you either should do a lot more background on it, or more likely just drop it. Otherwise it feels kind of out of the blue. Could be a good subject for a different essay. Brainstorming/The Proposal So I'm with you that the law should both include additional protections for minors, and that it should not include criminal penalties for ambiguous stuff like "corrupting a minor". I am worried however that "deceptively exploited the accuser's lack of sexual knowledge or interest" is exactly that sort of ambiguity I would like to avoid. I know that this causes a bit of a problem, because it either means that the additional protections have to be really clearly defined (which I think is hard to meaningfully do) or very narrow (in which case they are of less help). I really do think that TOC and PIE were on to something with the idea that the right solution is to move these sort of soft protections out of the criminal court and into the civil courts. We have a whole class of family courts that I think would be well suited to making these types of more subjective civil judgments. That said, I also recognise that moving aspects of statutory rape into civil court is kind of a wonky fix that risks going over the head of the general public. So... I don't really know where that leaves us. Maybe your answer is the least bad solution that the general public can quickly understand? We're already making some compromises by aiming for an AoC of 12, so I guess it's not crazy to compromise here too. But it's an issue I thought I should bring up. General Thoughts I do think it's worth throwing a bit somewhere somewhere about general sexual freedom. Yeah I know, people are big about fundamental rights in principle but seem to be quick to compromise them in practice. But it's worth remembering that statutory rape is not just stopping an adult from having sex with a child, it's also stopping a teenager from having sex with who he wants to. And telling people who they can and cannot have sex with has kind of a long dark history. I think most people would agree that the government should get involved in people's bedrooms as little as reasonably possible. I admit that it's a much harder sell to push that down to children, but the principle does still seem to hold. |