Children's liberation

[Amusing Scrotum]

It is I believe vital that any liberation of the working class, also liberates children. The family, schooling and children's rights etc. would all be changed and some things may even be scrapped.

What I was wondering was how far should children's liberation go and should there still be an age of consent written into law?

Personally I am in favour of an age of consent of sorts. My preference would be that there should be a certain age, say 16, which is the age of consent. However this should only apply with regards people over 16 sleeping with people under 16. I couldn't care less if two 13 year olds have their fun, their mental development will likely be equal enough for them to consent to having sex. There are real problems in my opinion with people who are either in their late teens or older, having their fun with people in their early teens.

Maybe 16 is to high or perhaps to low, I used it because thats what the legal age for girls is in Britain. Though the exact age is really beside the, what I really want to know is whether people think that there should be some sort of age of consent and whether they think this would interfere with the idea of children's liberation?

[rioters bloc]

i'm against the idea of an age of consent. criminalising sex just propagates the idea that sex is 'wrong' or 'immoral' and also promotes the view that anyone under 16 is an idiot and incapable of thinking for themselves. i understand where you're coming from with the age difference thing, but i think that saying that a 17 year old who has consensual sex with a 15 year old is 'breaking the law' is just stupid. it's something that has to be looked at on a case by case basis - their mental development, their experience, and how the relationship was forged [positions of power, etc] are all things which need to be examined. sometimes you'll even find that the older one is the one being taken advantage of.

[Ownthink]

Word. I'm in agreement with Rioters Bloc.

PS - I saw your photo in that thread. You're pretty, RB

[Amusing Scrotum]

i'm against the idea of an age of consent. criminalising sex just propagates the idea that sex is 'wrong' or 'immoral' and also promotes the view that anyone under 16 is an idiot and incapable of thinking for themselves.

Thats a fair point. As I said though its not about criminalising sex, if two 13 year olds want to have sex thats cool with me. Actually I'd be quite jealous been as when I was 13 I was doing no such thing and I am also experiencing a drought of sorts at this point in time. :(


i understand where you're coming from with the age difference thing, but i think that saying that a 17 year old who has consensual sex with a 15 year old is 'breaking the law' is just stupid.

Maybe it would be better to say it is illegal for anyone over 21 to have sex with anyone under 16. That seems a slightly more sensible option to me.


it's something that has to be looked at on a case by case basis - their mental development, their experience, and how the relationship was forged [positions of power, etc] are all things which need to be examined. sometimes you'll even find that the older one is the one being taken advantage of.

Yeah some form of jury trial would be useful, its just a question of what gets brought before that jury. Murder will obviously be a crime, so will hiring workers' and child abuse needs to have a description.

As for the older one being taken advantage of, well that would come under rape.


PS - I saw your photo in that thread. You're pretty, RB

:wub:

:lol:

[Simotix]

First I will like to add that I believe there is a 3 year rule for age of consent, or atleast that is what it is practiced in my state (NJ).


Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 14 2005, 01:40 AM
However this should only apply with regards people over 16 sleeping with people under 16

I can find several faults in this. What if a 16 year old sleeps with a 15 year old? Illegal? Don't think so, chances are they are in the same classes too due to birthdays.


I believe that with the three year rule there wont really be any problems.

[Amusing Scrotum]

I can find several faults in this. What if a 16 year old sleeps with a 15 year old? Illegal? Don't think so, chances are they are in the same classes too due to birthdays.

Scroll up -


Maybe it would be better to say it is illegal for anyone over 21 to have sex with anyone under 16. That seems a slightly more sensible option to me.

[Simotix]

Originally posted by Armchair Soc[email protected] 14 2005, 04:53 AM

Maybe it would be better to say it is illegal for anyone over 21 to have sex with anyone under 16. That seems a slightly more sensible option to me.
I read this and this had me put in the second part of where I talk about the three year rule.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 01:01 PM
Word. I'm in agreement with Rioters Bloc.

PS - I saw your photo in that thread. You're pretty, RB
:lol: awww shucks :blush:


i don't know, i really think it needs to be looked at case by case. i'm not in any way or form advocating pedophilia or ephebophilia at all. but say for example, i have a 16 year old friend who is going out with a 23 year old guy and has been for about 18 months now, since she was 15 and he was 22. they live with each other and have a very healthy, stable relationship, and they've been having sex since she was 15. should that be legislated against? personally, i don't think so - she was clearly mature enough at that age to decide what she wanted.

[Amusing Scrotum]

i don't know, i really think it needs to be looked at case by case. i'm not in any way or form advocating pedophilia or ephebophilia at all. but say for example, i have a 16 year old friend who is going out with a 23 year old guy and has been for about 18 months now, since she was 15 and he was 22. they live with each other and have a very healthy, stable relationship, and they've been having sex since she was 15. should that be legislated against? personally, i don't think so - she was clearly mature enough at that age to decide what she wanted.

Fair enough.

The problem for me is that I think there should be a certain age, say 12, where someone can become sexually active. There may well be an incredibly intelligent 11 year old girl who has sex, but is that age is she emotionally ready to have sex?

Alternatively we could just say that you reach sexual age when you have your first period or in the case of boys, when you realise something other than pee can come out of your soldier.

By the way, what is ephebophilia? ...I couldn't find it in the dictionary.

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 14 2005, 05:11 PM
By the way, what is ephebophilia? ...I couldn't find it in the dictionary.
an attraction to young adolescents, around the age they hit puberty

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia

:)

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Ecuador has the best policy I've seen on this question so far. There is no "age of consent" per se. If someone sees a sexual relationship as problematic decisions are made on a case-by-case basis.

[Monty Cantsin]

There should be an age of consent to stop sex with prepubescent children. Adolescents though are a different thing. This reminds me of the “North American Association for Man Boy Love” which the poet Allen Ginsberg deafened after some gay rights international or something kicked them out. Some call it a group for cover organisation for the advancement of pedophilia though.

[redstar2000]

Some years ago, I suggested the following:

1. People who have reached puberty should not be permitted to have sex with people who haven't.

2. People in positions of authority should not be permitted to have sex with anyone subject to their authority.

People Are Not Property -- Part 2 (June 15, 2003) (http://www.redstar2000papers.com/theory.php?subaction=showfull&id=1082855384&archive=&cnshow=headlines&start_from=&ucat=&)

I have not, since then, seen any reason to modify those criteria.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[YKTMX]

Abosolutely. I agree with RS on this.

Pre-pubescent children can't "consent".

[Black Dagger]

When does one become pubescent? That is, are we saying that 14 year olds are pubescent but 13 year olds are not? Is it an age to be established or a contextual measure to be determined by an analysis of the individuals involved in each case?

I completely support the latter.

[Simotix]

Originally posted by rioters [email protected] 14 2005, 05:50 AM
i don't know, i really think it needs to be looked at case by case. i'm not in any way or form advocating pedophilia or ephebophilia at all. but say for example, i have a 16 year old friend who is going out with a 23 year old guy and has been for about 18 months now, since she was 15 and he was 22. they live with each other and have a very healthy, stable relationship, and they've been having sex since she was 15. should that be legislated against? personally, i don't think so - she was clearly mature enough at that age to decide what she wanted.
good alternate solution. I believe the three year rule can be tied into this.

[Amusing Scrotum]

1. People who have reached puberty should not be permitted to have sex with people who haven't.

2. People in positions of authority should not be permitted to have sex with anyone subject to their authority.

Could you please define authority and who would be in a position of authority?

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Armchair Socialist+--> (Armchair Socialist)Could you please define authority and who would be in a position of authority?[/b]

Are you in a position to make someone's life more unpleasant unless they do what you want?

That's authority.


Black Dagger
When does one become pubescent?

Ask their doctor.

A crude "rule of thumb" is that period when they start to "think about sex" all the time.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[rioters bloc]

Originally posted by Armchair [email protected] 14 2005, 01:35 PM
As for the older one being taken advantage of, well that would come under rape.
well when i said taken advantage of, i meant more like 'used' for sex, rather than forced into sex. anyway that's immaterial really, just wanted to clarify.


really, i think the most important issue is educating children from a young age about sex and the potential consequences [pregnancy, std's, positive things too so they dont think its all bad :P] so that they're mentally prepared.

rather than look at how old someone has to be before they can have sex, i would prefer to formulate ways to prevent sexual assault, particularly towards those who are younger or don't have a clear idea of what sex is. so that they know what they're getting into.

[drain.you]

1. People who have reached puberty should not be permitted to have sex with people who haven't.

2. People in positions of authority should not be permitted to have sex with anyone subject to their authority.

I can agree with the first one but the second one, perhaps not. I have a friend who was dating a computer technician at our school when we were 15/16, he was in a position of authority over my friend but nothing bad came of that, infact it became useful for her to be dating a member of staff, although it is true to say that every case is different and should be treated so.


Ecuador has the best policy I've seen on this question so far. There is no "age of consent" per se. If someone sees a sexual relationship as problematic decisions are made on a case-by-case basis.
I agree with this, I don't really think there should be a legal age of consent. People will do it when they want to, if not then it is rape and should be reported as rape and dealt with in the way that we deal with rape cases. I mean, child abuse happens in the home and doesnt go reported nowadays, it would be no different if there was no law, I don't think the law can help people much who are victimised in their own homes.


, i think the most important issue is educating children from a young age about sex and the potential consequences
I totally agree, I wonder how I would have learnt about sexual things if it hadn't been for SexEd. SexEd however wasn't taken that seriously, mainly due to the immaturity of some students who found looking at condoms extremely funny for some unknown reason, well, I guess some people react like that to things that we have been taught are 'dirty' and 'wrong' :(

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by drain.you
I have a friend who was dating a computer technician at our school when we were 15/16; he was in a position of authority over my friend but nothing bad came of that; in fact it became useful for her to be dating a member of staff, although it is true to say that every case is different and should be treated so.

I must disagree. The "bad" that came from that arrangement is that your young friend learned that sex is a "useful" tool to manipulate authority for personal advantage.

Some years ago I read of a bourgeois sociologist with nothing better to do than to research the average university grade received by young women who have sex with their professors. It was an A. :lol:

It is perfectly understandable in a class society that young women may conclude that their sexuality is a commodity to be traded for preference...financial, academic, or whatever.

But I think communists should seek to put an end to that sort of crap.

People should have sex when they want to and with whomever is willing...for mutual pleasure, period. A climate in which sex is seen as a tool is not conducive to either good sex or an egalitarian society.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[BuyOurEverything]

good alternate solution. I believe the three year rule can be tied into this.

I don't see how as there's a seven year age difference.

I'd have to disagree with redstar's second point, though. Not only would it be impossible to measure or determine, most interactions one has in society are based on unequal power relationships. I think the real solution to this is what you proposed in your last post, decommodifying sex. The first step in this is curbing the importance people put on sex. Sex should not be viewed as 'a big deal' as much as it is.

[Axel1917]

Children will obviously end up having more rights due to the revolution and such, as ones of its goals is more communal parenting, giving them the right to think and freely criticize, etc. The totalitarian parenting methods and such that are around today are tools that are permitted for use by parents to help break their will and prevent critical thinking and such.

[drain.you]

A climate in which sex is seen as a tool is not conducive to either good sex or an egalitarian society.
Well their relationship continued for a year or so after we left school so I wouldn't say she was using sex as a tool to manipulate authority. Also this technician didn't teach classes or anything, just fixed pcs and kept the network running and up to date.

I do agree they manipulating authority via sexual means should be stopped and that sex as a commodity is wrong.

Children are the future, they deserve decent rights but they also deserve our protection, the question is, where does one draw the line?

[Amusing Scrotum]

Are you in a position to make someone's life more unpleasant unless they do what you want?

That's authority.

Thats slightly vague.

Most adults could be seen to have authority over teenagers in some sense and older teenagers can have an authority over younger teenagers.

Though I suspect many of the existing social systems, peer groups etc. would be "gotten rid of" during or after the revolution. So attempts to describe what would be a position of authority in a Communist society, is impossible, because we don't know what a Communist society would like.


It is perfectly understandable in a class society that young women may conclude that their sexuality is a commodity to be traded for preference...financial, academic, or whatever.

Has anyone else observed how people who can drive tend to get all the girls. A car seems to be the key to teenage girls hearts.

If only I could reverse, or turn, or change gear. :( :lol:

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by BuyOurEverything+--> (BuyOurEverything)I'd have to disagree with redstar's second point, though. Not only would it be impossible to measure or determine, most interactions one has in society are based on unequal power relationships.[/b]

But we are egalitarians as a matter of principle, right?

We may not be able to "abolish" inequality in some mystical absolute sense...but I think we would like to create a "social climate" which praises relationships between equals and discourages unequal relationships.

It's not a matter of "laws", "prisons", etc. It's more along the lines of what we think a "communist culture" should be "like".


Armchair Socialist
Most adults could be seen to have authority over teenagers in some sense and older teenagers can have an authority over younger teenagers.

Well, there is the "authority" of greater experience -- you "should" do "what I say" because "I know more than you".

But that's not what I had in mind when I suggested the formulation "no sex with those over whom you have authority".

I'm talking about implicit coercion..."I can make your life more pleasant if you agree to have sex with me and less pleasant if you decline to do so".

Indeed, such an arrangement is not really even about sex any more; it's about the exercise of power.

I don't think communist society should permit that to happen.


Has anyone else observed how people who can drive tend to get all the girls. A car seems to be the key to teenage girls hearts.

Dating is more convenient and pleasurable when private transportation is readily available.

But the reason goes deeper than that. Young women growing up in class society learn (often as a consequence of explicit parental instruction) that the financial resources that a young man might bring to a potential relationship are "very important".

It used to be said quite bluntly: It's just as easy to fall in love with a rich man as it is to fall in love with a poor man.

In addition, it was common to speak of women "marrying up" (a "good" thing) and "marrying down" (a "very bad" thing).

Only reactionaries use this kind of language now...but the cultural prejudices that reinforce this kind of thinking are still quite wide-spread.

You cannot "blame" young women for, at least on occasion, thinking in this way...it's just part of what it means to "grow up female" in a patriarchal society.

She must carefully consider her financial future and that of her potential children...she can't "count on society" to look out for her interests.

Needless to add, in a communist society every young woman (and young man) would have every confidence that their future material needs were 100% secure.

And I think that will make a significant positive difference in how women and men relate to each other.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[pcb]

I new so be gentle. At present when children reach the age of 16 they take on the characteristics of adults. the problem being is their mental and bodly development might not be in sinc. I hope that a communist society would have guidelines to ensure that those children under the age of 16 are not put into a position of thinking like many today that it is cool and trendy to be sexually active.
Dont get me wrong at that age I would have jumped anything, but the point is with hindsight, children at that age are not able to comprehend the consequences.
Free love does come with a price.

[drain.you]

Its still an issue of individual choice. And children should be free to make their own decisions after a certain age.

I do agree that 'when children reach the age of 16 they take on the characteristics of adults' and yes there is a problem with this. There is no gap between the world of children and the world of adults. Its just a quick switch which will act to isolate many people and creates confusion. We should aim to allow children to be able to comfortably adjust into the adult world of work and such.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by pcb
I hope that a communist society would have guidelines to ensure that those children under the age of 16 are not put into a position of thinking, like many today, that it is cool and trendy to be sexually active.

Don't get me wrong; at that age I would have jumped anything, but the point is, with hindsight, children at that age are not able to comprehend the consequences.

Free love does come with a price.

What part of that "price" is inherently a consequence of sexual activity and what part of it is a product of the existing society itself?

It was once widely believed that a woman who had sex with a man that she was not married to was a "whore"...someone who was unworthy of the respect shown to married women who only had sex with their husbands.

We now know that this "price" for "unlicensed sexual activity" was a social construct and, moreover, that the real purpose of that construct was the control of female sexuality in the interests of male inheritance of property.

So when you suggest the "free love" among people "under 16" has "a price", what are you getting at?

Do you refer to the existing "cultural disapproval" that might make the participants "feel bad about themselves"?

If so, then communist society will "let you down" in this respect. We will no more "disapprove" of adolescent sexuality than we will "disapprove" of eating, drinking, or breathing.

I can't imagine what else you may have in mind here. I know there is a mythology about the so-called "emotional damage" alledgedly "suffered" by those who become sexually active at a young age...but I have no reason to believe that there's a word of truth in it. It sounds like an idea made up by those who envy the young their youth and would like to spoil things for them as much as they can.

Sort of like "masturbation causes blindness and insanity". :lol:

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[JKP]

Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 05:25 AM

2. People in positions of authority should not be permitted to have sex with anyone subject to their authority.

In communism, I thought we would eliminate authoritarian relations.

[pcb]

The facts are out there about early sexual behaviours having caused serious problems further down the line. The Lancet (Medical Journal) has over the years published many reports into the effects of underage sex. Utopian ideas of children being equal to their parents doesl not bode well for the future. Children have all kinds of ideas which may sound fine to them, but in the harsh reality of today would scare the hell out of all parents. The historical practice is that of mother knows best, because historical who picked the child up when it cries, who looks after it, would teachs it how to interact, who feeds it. Will we be issuing the pill or condoms to children like they do now and hope that they act properly, for the good of society. Or are you advicating an anarchist approach to under age sex.
This society has over the years put in place guidelines to stop children being taken advantaged of. Responsiblity within a communist society falls on everyone to insure those unable to comprehend results of said activities are steered away from decisions that could effect them in the future.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by JKP+Nov 16 2005, 01:32 PM--> (JKP @ Nov 16 2005, 01:32 PM)
Originally posted by [email protected] 14 2005, 05:25 AM

2. People in positions of authority should not be permitted to have sex with anyone subject to their authority.

In communism, I thought we would eliminate authoritarian relations. [/b]
The promise of communist society is that a good deal of institutionalized authority that presently exists will no longer be around to plague us.

Our "cultural bias" with be against arbitrary authority no matter what kind of "legitimacy" it attempts to invoke.

But imagine this: a bright young (and rather attractive) woman wants to join a collective that is doing some kind of work that appeals to her...and she gets the not very subtle hint that her chances of getting accepted into this particular collective would improve sharply if she was willing to have sex with the guy who was conducting the interview.

That's abuse of authority even in a communist context.

And, as I noted, we should not permit that to happen.


pcb
The facts are out there about early sexual behaviours having caused serious problems further down the line.

Perhaps you should be more specific about this.

In particular, what portion of these "serious problems" are a consequence of living in a society which "officially" condemns adolescent sexuality?

Not to even mention, of course, all the "serious problems" that arise just from attempting to survive in a class society.

I rather doubt that there's much research into those kinds of "serious problems."


Utopian ideas of children being equal to their parents does not bode well for the future.

Well, they certainly don't "bode well" for certain kinds of "futures"...those who desire to "restore the ancient bonds" between parents and children seem almost certain to be deeply disappointed with the passage of time.

You know, of course, that all proposed changes in human society are customarily derided as "utopian".

That usually translates into something like I don't like it and "therefore" it will never happen.


Children have all kinds of ideas which may sound fine to them, but in the harsh reality of today would scare the hell out of all parents.

Well, it is precisely "the harsh reality of today" -- known as capitalism -- that we propose to overthrow and destroy.


The historical practice is that of mother knows best, because historically who picked the child up when it cries, who looks after it, would teach it how to interact, who feeds it.

Yes, but surely we have learned that "mother" and, for that matter, "father" as well do not necessarily "know best".

We are not simply animals that "instinctively" know how best to raise our young. It's something that must be learned.


Will we be issuing the pill or condoms to children like they do now and hope that they act properly, for the good of society?

I do not know what you mean in this context by the phrases "act properly" and "for the good of society".

I am completely certain that whatever the birth control/disease prevention technology of future communist society might be, it will be available to anyone on request.

I expect that technology to be a considerable improvement over what is presently available.


Or are you advocating an anarchist approach to under age sex?

Perhaps in your eyes I am. Certainly the very concept of "underage sex" sounds medieval to my ears.

Modern neo-puritans have a more "scientific-sounding" phrase: age-inappropriate sexuality. It's the same old crap but with a "new image".


This society has over the years put in place guidelines to stop children being taken advantage of.

No, I don't think the "guidelines" of which you speak have anything at all to do with "stopping children from being taken advantage of"...although that is often the rationale behind repressive legislation directed against the young.


Responsibility within a communist society falls on everyone to insure those unable to comprehend results of said activities are steered away from decisions that could affect them in the future.

Are you suggesting an "anti-sex" movement that goes around preaching to adolescents "just say no to sex"? :lol:

Won't happen.

http://www.websmileys.com/sm/cool/123.gif

[eyedrop]

1. People who have reached puberty should not be permitted to have sex with people who haven't.


Couldn't one even go more radical and extend direct democracy here. Maybe let a councel of pre-puberty children decide on it in each case?

It seems wrong to me that we as adults can decide what the childs can't and can do. If we decide it kids would be more likely to view adults and their world as an authority to their's.

The problem with it is how much pre-puberty children will be influenced by their family and such. But couldn't a communist society teach the children in viewing the world critically in even such a young age. (I know I was critical of the God concept at least before puberty, and had dismissed that we knew anything at all about it)

Are the children mature enough to make real decisions? If you make them responsible for some real decisions they will mature faster than now.

Is it better to let them decide than us? Doesn't it prepare them better for a communist society? Can we let them grow up with grown ups morals as authorities?