NationStates Jolt Archive

In a few moments, there will be a discussion here. :) Right now I just need to hold a spot for it, so I can provide the link in another thread. Stay tuned.

comes in and sits down patiently

Looking forward to weighing in on this one myself.

Alright. Now, for those who wish to join in, some background recap is required. This is a discussion stemming from the debate in the United Nations (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11448082#post11448082) on the banning of child pornography. A point of debate between the Community of Kuraurisand and the Republic of Compadria has been over the ability of a "child" (not as defined by the resolution, but the typical world definition of a human being that has not yet attained the age of.... well, actually, I guess I can't put a number here, since I'm on the other side of the debate. I call on the honorable delegate from the Republic of Compadria to insert whatever number is most appropriate to Compadria's side of the argument) to consent to sexual activity of any kind - in front of the camera or not, with an adult or with another child.

This point of debate is not relevant to the resolution itself, and thus we have elected to remove it from the formal resolution debate to avoid cluttering the issues that need to be discussed there. However, in the interest of further understanding between two amicable parties in the search for truth, we continue the discussion here.

Some quotes worthy of recap ([comments in brackets] added by me for context reasons, and I left my own stuff out of official quote bubbles for ease of format):

'Love' is not simple. It is mysterious and it is, to quote the film title, a "Many-Splendoured Thing". The fact is that a child may understand parental love, love in terms of attachment. But can a child understand passion? romantic love in its true sense? Can he understand and differentiate between infatuation and genuine committment which characterises love? Limerence? Can a six year old truly handle the accompanying emotions of the sexual act? Not at all. It would be foolish in the extreme and destructive to their welfare, to permit their exploitation in this manner. Sexual behaviour of the adult variety is not natural in a child and should not be normalised, as the honourable delegate is suggesting.

Well, there is a two-pronged difficulty with this argument. The first is the assumption that the true agape love in a committed relationship is the only legitimate form of sexual expression. Certainly, Double-Edged Sword was trying to tout that value, and nationally, it is considered to be the highest and most valuable of relationships, worth reaching for. However, old fashioned decadent roll-in-the-hay casual sex requires neither love nor even friendship, and a casual relationship which clearly expressed such boundries would not have to deal with "passion" or any other emotional context. Such expressions are /very/ natural, and have occured both with and without adult intervention since the dawn of time. Other countries call this "playing doctor" syndrome or something of the like - our culture is somewhat more blunt on the subject, and when two of our children are caught fooling around in public, we merely emphasize the need for privacy and direct them to their rooms. (We tend to save the more formalized talk regarding the dangers of the behaviour for afterwards, when they'll be much more likely to listen without distraction).


I would view "old fashioned roll-in-the-hay casual sex" as lust driven and that is unlike love. Lust can be extremely destructive and we should discourage our children from acting upon their still forming sexual emotions until we can be sure that it would not be damaging to their welfare to do so. Agape love is of course desirable, yet even that is unlikely to manifest the same way in children as it does in adults. Rather it would take different outlets, different forms of behaviour, which wouldn't necessarily be primarily sexual in purpose and nature.

You keep proving my point, Ambassador. The word "unlikely" [in the description of agape love above] has another implied word that goes with it: possible. We maintain that individual rights must take precedence in the mindset of this assembly.


Possible, hypothetical, etc. Are we to say that the smallest of minorities, those children who actually want to engage in consensual sex (an impossibility given their age and immaturity) must take precedence over the rights of other children to be protected? I know minorities must be protected, it is something that must be passionately pursued, but we are talking about a minority for a matter where I find it better to enshrine the majority than shield the minority, especially when I doubt the exist of the minority in question. I am not dogmatic, I will vary my ideological stance depending on the issue, but for this I cannot but say that no, I will not hold the rights of an alleged minority over the rights of an enormous majority.

-------------------------------------
They cannot [consent], because they cannot truly, in the case of the overwhelmingly vast majority, understand the ramifications, dimensions and potential problems involved with the sexual act or the act of true, adult love.

[Overwhelmingly vast majority?] By your own admission, there is a minority, even in your own lands, who would, in fact, be mature enough to understand the ramifications. With proper education and openness, I would assert that that minority would grow significantly, but even if it didn't, is it not the responsibility of a free society to protect the rights of the individual? If there's even one in the world with both the ability and desire to engage in such activity, do our laws not need to take that into account? Aren't there other ways to protect the majority without drawing a blanket line in the stand and impugning individual rights?

To put it bluntly, they will have to wait. Children are not fully formed individuals and they are still in need of societal and legal protection from exploitation or from promotion of acts that could lead to their exploitation. The majority should respect the minority's right to difference, but the minority must respect the majority's welfare and well-being as being equal to their own. As such, it is often necessary to curtail individual freedom to protect the individual from them self.

Again, there are so many assumptions here that it is hard to know where to start. The assumption that one must be a "fully formed individual" in order to engage in sexual activity. The assumption that every person identified by the resolution as a "child" (some even as old as 17!) is not a "fully formed individual". The assumption that waiting is even an option - I guess a terminally ill child is just out of luck, then? And who are we to tell two competent, rational, mature individuals in the throes of a loving relationship that they must delay physical expression of that love because their next door neighbor couldn't handle it?

Hell, why stop at children? Why not force every immigrant to adhere to interference in their personal affairs until they obtain citizenship? After all, they don't have the experience of a native, so therefore we know what's better for them, right?

Those that engage in premature sexual activity will find themselves questioning the act, being damaged by its repurcussions. I do not think a "child" can really understand what sex involves or what it symbolises. I do not think people should jump to assumptions based upon a minority and most of all I do not think that the two competent rational mature individuals you cite would exist under the aegis of this proposal.

-------------------------------------------------------

And finally, the line of thought which brought us here:


You're continued belief that children are able to consent to appear in these films alarms me. A child is by definition immature and unformed, not having attained adulthood and full majority. If we cannot hold children legally liable for their actions, as is the common case in many legal systems, how can we then simultaneously assume that they can consent to such an activity. Children need protection and to leave them open to abuse is not protection, but neglect. To phrase your argument another way, you might as well be saying that we should enshrine the freedom to be raped, or the freedom to be enslaved. Those are naturally ridiculous and contradictory prepositions, as is the notion that children can consent to appear in such productions.

As does your continued attempt to discredit the notion without offering a shred of evidence to back up your position. To date, your only elaboration on this is to imply a number of times that the occasional exception can exist, but that since "everyone knows" the majority is unlikely to contain this mystical ability to say "yes" to something, then there should be no provision to take the exceptions into account.

You haven't shown me any evidence to back up the assertion that children can make a decision of that gravity, I base my opinion on what I know and my own experiences as a child, where, in retrospect, I would never claim to have understood or been able to consent to sexual intercourse.

Very well, we shall prepare a prospectus. In the interest of not slamming the assembly with irrelevant spam, we'll place the prospectus in another room...
-----------------------------

Next post, I will begin to make the argument with the evidence requested. Frankly I need a little time to breathe, that recap was exhaustive. :)

OOC:
Something to bear in mind is that Age of Consent is variable between nations and that many nations (even in RL) use different legal ages for a number of purposes:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Consent
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_majority
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_infancy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriageable_age

For the purposes of NationStates, I've imagined that Mikitivity is a confederation of cantons (once loosely based on cities -- hence "City States") and that these ages vary slightly from canton to canton. Furthermore, these ages are different.

Other players might be doing the same thing, so there is some room for confusion here.

Finally, these ages can easily be different based on gender (there are a few RL examples of this even today).

First, why aren't you posting this in the same thread the original discussion is in? And second, I don't think this goes in the Nationstates forum. NS is for in-character roleplay.

First, why aren't you posting this in the same thread the original discussion is in?

OOC: Because it is no longer a United Nations issue, and therefore no longer belongs in that forum.

And second, I don't think this goes in the Nationstates forum. NS is for in-character roleplay.

OOC: We are having the discussion in our roles as the Ambassadors of our countries, and will no doubt continue to cite examples referenced from our own country's "history". So yes, we are here to roleplay as much as we are here to debate the issue. (Hell, for all we know, our OOC opinions on the issue align perfectly. I only know Compadria's IC stance)

However, it will be impossible to give "evidence" that can be established as credible without making references to RL history and events - otherwise what's to stop me from just making up a superchild in my nation that can jump whatever hoops I say he can? So for the purposes of "meaningful RP", we will likely refer to the RL world as a "distant region" with relevant examples worth citing.

That's my justification, anyway. If the mods decide to move us, I won't question their judgement call on it.

First, why aren't you posting this in the same thread the original discussion is in? And second, I don't think this goes in the Nationstates forum. NS is for in-character roleplay.

What if the question was "At what age are individuals in your nation legally allowed to give consent to X?" It isn't the sort of question that would be limited to UN nations, but a question about a "RPed" status -- sort of similar to "What is the name of your capital".

I would like to speak a bit on the question of passion. In my home territory, there is a young person who, age-wise, seems to fit neatly under the umbrella that the respected speaker from the Republic of Compadria has raised. This child has indeed felt passion, deeply so (<<OOC :in its fourth definition (http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?va=passion) as simply strong emotion>>). This passion was a rage, born from events that have nothing to do with the other debate, but otherwise, for sake of decorum and privacy, shan't be gone into here.

Is that, then, the only sort of passion a "child" can feel? Can, then, a "child" only feel this passion from certain external events? I would respectfully offer the belief that that one case allows for the existence of other forms of passion, from other sources. An accepted axiom can be translated as, "Where there is one (where 'one' is anything, in this case a child feeling passion), the probability of another, even only tangentially related, is exponentially increased."

Alright, the Community of Kuraurisand will now formally take the floor.

Firstly, a definition clarification is in order. The dictionary definition of the word "consent" is as follows:To give assent, as to the proposal of another; agree. Essentially this is the ability to say yes or express agreement to something. We highly doubt that the Republic of Compadria is arguing the inability of anyone with linguistic skills to say the word "yes", or even for the inability of those without linguistic skills to find some way to express acquiescence or resistance.

The issue, from Compadria's standpoint, is not accurately about consent but about informed consent - defined by the same dictionary as the voluntary agreement or acquiescence by a person... with requisite mental capacity who is not under duress or coercion and... has knowledge or understanding [of the potential consequences and significance of the act].

With respect to the honorable delegate from Compadria, we would take issue immediately with the assumption that informed consent is requisite to avoid damage. There are innumerable occasions in human history where people have moved headlong into a situation without understanding of the potential ramifications, only to come to a benificial (admittedly usually fortuitous) resolution. "You learn to swim", goes the old adage, "by jumping in the water." We do not consider this an invalid approach to the question of sexuality, particularly in a society which takes great care to protect it's citizenry en masse from the consequences (STD screenings are mandatory by Kuraurisandian law, performed on a yearly basis during a citizen's birth month, starting at birth, so it is highly unlikely that any Kuraurisandian citizen can transfer a sexually transmitted disease unknowingly. Knowingly taking the risk of transmitting an STD without informing your partner of the risk is a felony of the third degree, regardless of whether you infect your partner or not). We do, however, acknowledge that it is not the ideal approach, and the remainder of our argument will proceed on the assumption that only informed consent is considered valid.

Let us first address the requirement of "knowledge and understanding". The issue is whether or not a human brain can fully comprehend the implications of the decision to be made before a certain point of development. Well, how does a human brain develop, then? We refer to the authoritative psychological research of Jean Piaget, an expert on cognitive development from some strange and distant nation called "Switzerland", with which we are admittedly not very familiar. His research findings are described in detail here (http://evolution.massey.ac.nz/assign2/LO/piaget.html), but there is a more simplistic chart available here (http://www.pgce.soton.ac.uk/IT/Learning/Cognitivism/Piaget.jpg).

Note that the last stage of cognitive development, the essentially fully formed adult brain, is attained at approximately eleven years of age. In plain English: The only difference between the typical adult brain and the typical eleven-year-old brain is the amount of experience. In all other aspects they function in exactly the same way. This fact alone already sets the bar earlier than just about every age of consent law in the world. However, the research findings also indicate that as early as seven, people are capable of logical and rational comprehension of information, and prior to that, the area of cognitive ability that is most missing is empathy skill, or the ability to see the perspective of others. Two things to note here - that these are /typical/ ages, meaning that it is possible for a six year old to think logically as well (and, conversely, an eight year old to not. Our argument is not that any child can pass the test of informed consent, only that this is an individual thing, undefined by age, and that the current laws oppress the majority of the individuals it affects). The other is that there is a motivated self-interest prior to this stage, making it more likely that even the perception of a negative consequence for sexual activity could be enough information to sway someone in that stage of cognitive development away from making an affirmative sexual choice.

This information is sufficient to spur a lot of discussion, and we will await a response from the Republic before we continue to the "duress and coercion" area of the definition.

Regards,
Ambassador Arin mac Nihil
The Community of Kuraurisand
"In labor the body, law the mind, and care the heart."

A well-said collection of points, Ambassador mac Nihil. I would raise a question in turn: Those comments seem more from a "nature" side of the age-old nature-versus-nurture debate. If so, what do you think of "nurture?" Could, in such a case as this, the society in which such acts take place impact the young person's psyche to any appreciable degree either way?

Originally Posted by Compadria: Sexual behaviour of the adult variety is not natural in a child and should not be normalised

I'd like to begin my comments here if I may. I'm not at all sure of the varacity of the argument above, but I don't believe this was the subject under discussion. We are in fact discussing sexual behavior of the child variety, and whether and when it should be permissible. The answer seems self-evident. If a child wishes to engage in sexual behavior, who are we to say no? Humans are sexual beings, from infancy. To deny that is to deny basic biology and flies in the face of all reason.

I don't know what the culture is like in your country, but in Suvyamara 'playing doctor' to borrow a term, is not an activity that is discouraged. Nor is it encouraged. Curiousity about sex and sexuality is, we feel, a natural part of the maturation process and so we allow it to progress in a natural way, without interference from the older members of our society. As I understand it, this type of sex play is also tolerated in other societies.

So at what point do other societies declare that sexual exploration is criminal? I can cite examples of those same countries, so tolerant of 'playing doctor' who place their age of consent at 18 years of age and criminalize sexual behavior between consenting partners below that age. So at what age does
'playing doctor' or exploring their own sexuality with age mates become criminal? 5? 8? 12?

This delegate has read of a recent news item from a place called America where a 13 year old girl became pregnant by her 12 year old boyfriend. Both were charged with second degree felonies, citing the other as the victim. Why? Because children of that age are ruled incapable of consent. This same country has just ruled in another case involving a pregnant 13 year old. In this case the girl is being denied the right to have an abortion, a right guaranteed to females who have reached the age of consent. The reason? She lacks the maturity to make such a decision. With an age of consent of 18 in her area one must assume that 1 month before her 18th birthday she would still lack said maturity, but magically gain it the following month.

So the question becomes, when does a person attain the maturity necessary for such decisions? This land of America has age of consent laws in each of it's states ranging from approximately 14 to 18, with the majority in the 16 to 18 range. The equally distant land of Spain has an age of consent of 13. These are both world governments. Do the Spainiards know something the Americans don't? Or are they perhaps simply a backward land who don't know any better?

Better for all perhaps would be the ability to make such decisions for themselves. It's all well and good to state that you're protecting your children with your draconian sex laws, but where is the truth in that when it's the children themselves who are being caught up in the net and made to suffer?


Originally Posted by Compadria
Those that engage in premature sexual activity will find themselves questioning the act, being damaged by its repurcussions. I do not think a "child" can really understand what sex involves or what it symbolises.

This delegate remembers with great fondness his first romantic/sexual relationship at the age of 12. Will you tell me that I was unaware of what I was doing? I can assure you I suffered no damage. I can also assure you that I knew exactly what sex involved, and those things I didn't know, I quickly learned through repetition. [nudge, nudge]

I do find myself curious, as a 40 year old adult, what exactly sex 'symbolises'. It seems to me that this would have to be open to an individual's own interpretation. For some, closeness, for some conquest, for others, excercise. Do you propose to dictate what meaning sex should have for the participants? Do you feel perhaps that a minor's motivations and interpretations are somehow less valid than your own?

I submit that so long as a person, regardless of age, is aware of such issues as pregnancy and STDs and willing to engage in sexual activity that they should not be hindered. Further, I can see no logical reason for any other point of view, although I'm certainly willing to be enlightened. I yield the floor.

Jethael Sorolon
Ambassador
Republic of Suvyamara

Suvyamara, we've got fudge.

A well-said collection of points, Ambassador mac Nihil. I would raise a question in turn: Those comments seem more from a "nature" side of the age-old nature-versus-nurture debate. If so, what do you think of "nurture?" Could, in such a case as this, the society in which such acts take place impact the young person's psyche to any appreciable degree either way?

Kuraurisand does not believe in nature /vs/ nurture, but sees a combination of the two at play in the world around us. Our initial argument focused on nature-based points, because our opponent's primary position is that allowing child sexuality represents some kind of interruption to the natural order of the world. Nurture, however, most certainly does play a role, particularly in the consequences of sexual behaviour. A 12 year old girl dating an adult man in Compadria is going to have all sorts of problems that the same girl, raised and living in Kuraurisand, would not - problems involving the shame of feeling like she's doing something "wrong" in the sense that she is enjoying something her society says is nasty and immoral (the enjoyment is assumed because, well, if she's not enjoying it, then she's likely not consenting, and nonconsensual sex is and should be unacceptable and criminal), and problems involving the inability to express herself (If they get into a lover's quarrel, who can she turn to for advice, without risking his freedom from incarceration and her freedom from forced psychotherapy? And can they see each other often without arousing any suspicions?). All of that is going to cause tremendous psychological stress - and that's just if the relationship goes undetected. Add to it the strain of being ripped away from the relationship kicking and screaming upon detection, watching their partner hauled off and punished... it would certainly be nigh unbearable torture to anyone to live in such a manner.

By contrast, in Kuraurisand, the girl will be able to talk to peers, parents and police openly about every aspect of her relationship, from before the first kiss all the way to either breakup or marriage, and know one thing with utter certainty: that the decision will ultimately be her's. As often as not, that freedom has led to a decision that sex just isn't for them, that it's the wrong time or the wrong person. There's no forbidden allure, you see - no craving to try it just because people around them say it's not for them. Most simply say it would be wiser to wait, and that subtle suggestion holds more power than a hundred prohibitions.

So yes, the environment is definitely paramount in the child's reaction (well, frankly, that kind of environment would be equally paramount to a relationship between /adults/. Just look at what happens in societies that still outlaw homosexuality in general). An adult in Compadria would frankly be just as culpable as the Compadrian government says for harming a child through sexual activity - not because it's inherently harmful, but because they should know that the nature of their society is going to inherently taint things.

Anyway, on a side note, Compadria has responded. Apparently they didn't understand what we were doing here, and responded back in the United Nations hall. Their comments, naturally, are quoted in front of our response.

[Note: this first point was a response to my original consent definition, but showed no sign that the honorable delegate from Compadria had read the informed consent definition that followed. (OOC: He's going away for a month RL, and I think he was just being a little hasty so he could get back to RL packing and stuff. Totally understandable, and normally I doubt he'd have let it slip like this. But hey, it's IC, and I need to score where I can, hehehe).]

That's a rather different point. Your analogy is misleading. Saying "yes" to express mere assent or resistance is not quite the same as saying "yes" to something like sexual intercourse. The emotional ramifications are rather different. Saying "yes" if asked "do you want me to stop hurting you" and "yes" to "do you want to have sex" involve different considerations and different problems. I certainly think a child can say "yes" to indicate their mood, but only as a rather rough reflection, nuance is still something they are learning and sex is certainly a process requiring mental nuance whilst making a decision. Do I want to have sex? Do I feel ready? Is this the right person? Right time? Right motivations? Right set of circumstances? etc.

Yes, we're aware of that, which is one of the reasons the informed consent definition followed. We still feel the need to point out that being unable to fully answer these questions is not in and of itself an inherent guarantee of harm being done by making the choice. We understand that harm is possible, certainly... and we have non-prohibitive ways of trying to minimize that harm within Kuraurisandian society.

But your argument, Ambassador, is that a blanket ban on any possibility of this action is justified in the name of protecting those who need it, even to the point of infringing on individual rights. That may be worth considering if you could prove that significant harm was extremely likely and occured in the majority of cases, but pointing out that some kids might not be able to fully form or answer these nuance questions is a far cry from that. All that proves, at best, is the vague possibility of an undetermined degree of harm in a random percentage.

Piaget merely stated that the process began at eleven and continued through adolescence up into adulthood. He also noted that some individuals do not complete this stage and remain in the third, "concrete operational stage". As such, I find it hard to believe that his views, whilst interesting are a ringing endorsement for permitting child abuse.

Your interpretation of the text is intriguing, Ambassador. Perhaps you could point out where in our cited documents the word "begins" is used when describing the Formal Operational stage? We couldn't find it, although we found the phrase "is now able to" more than once. Also, if you could point out where you saw any documentation regarding individuals not getting past the third stage, that would be helpful too.

Oh, and clarify for me exactly whether those people who haven't passed the third stage would thereby be unallowed to consent to sex in your country even after passing the magic number age.

A traumatic sexual experience such as child molestation could easily sway the child away from making an "affirmative sexual choice" too.

Yes, that's undoubtedly true. However, we will assume that by "traumatic sexual experience" you are referring to a nonconsensual situation, since you would have assuredly given some evidence of the trauma involved in consenting sex before you tried to use the word in that context. And traumatic sexual experiences might sway the child away from /future/ affirmative sexual choices, but unless the little tyke has prognosticative abilities, they are, by definition, incapable of affecting the first one.

So abusing children is beneficial you're saying. Aha, of course, silly me for not realising that the traumatic experience of sexual abuse might indeed be beneficial for a child and as such we should view it as a perfectly normal and acceptable act. Thank you for removing the splinter from my eyes ambassador.

The definition of the word "abuse" is to use wrongly or inappropriately. I challenge you to demonstrate, through evidence, the inherent wrongness or improperness of all child sexuality before you use this term again.

Your sincere position declarations will be considered carefully and weighed against current Kuraurisandian understandings and, if we find your logic sound, we will change our views accordingly. Your rhetorical sarcasm and use of emotionally charged buzzwords like "abuse" or "molestation" will be met with nothing more than a roll of the eyes and a condescending, patronistic lecture on proper decorum.

Within the context of a child being defined as "under the age of consent", the whole point of an age of consent law is that it is assumed for legal and societal purposes that individuals beneath that age have not got the requisite maturity and composure to make a decision about their sex life and sexual health accurately or objectively enough, to warrant permitting them to harm themselves potentially traumatic. I think my descriptors were perfectly accurate when compared to this.

Even your own language highlights the absurdity of this kind of thinking. "The whole point of an age of consent law is that it is assumed for legal and societal purposes"... when has it ever been okay for a lawful, civilized society to ASSUME anything when it makes legislation? These are people's lives at stake, Ambassador, and we dare not curtail their liberties based on mere assumption.

No, but a lot of them can mis-interpret information and still carry considerable misconceptions.

As can a lot of adults. Civilized societies don't prohibit people from controlling their own destiny based on what kinds of mistakes they "can" or "might" make.

Sex education is a good thing, don't get me wrong here, but it's no guarantee that people will automatically start making responsible sexual choices. Too much information without the right conditioning can have adverse affects.

CONDITIONING? I beg your pardon?

If you are advocating some kind of societal brainwashing pattern here, then I think you really need to examine whether you can call yourself a proponent of free society.

A more pressing factor on child pregnancy rates is often poverty and cultural factors, which can be hard to overcome,the first by inhibiting access to education or meaning it is provided in a less than complete fashion. The second can condition people towards certain rigid views of sexual conduct and custom, which may push up teen pregnancy rates. There is also the matter of evolutionary hard-wiring to start child-bearing during the late teens to early twenties.

http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=895962006

Your article makes a fundamental assumption - that a 0 teen pregnancy rate is the ideal goal we should be reaching towards. I guess you haven't fully grasped the concept that we see this as THEIR decision - if they want to get pregnant and have kids, it is not our responsibility to interfere. Kuraurisand has no child labor or compulsory education laws, so it's not like they would be unable to provide for a family, in an economic sense.


I have no wish to see a child be traumatised and violated in order to learn.

There you go again with the buzzwords. What, exactly, about the revelation of, "Damn, shouldn't have slept with him" is necessarily, inevitably and unequivicably equated with with trauma and violation? It's a regret, Ambassador, not an amputation.


The world may be a cruel place, but some things are too cruel to be permitted in my opinion. Better they are hurt as adults when they are more resillient, rather than as children.

Surviving childhood experiences is what /makes/ adults resilient, Ambassador.

I think I poorly communicated my argument. What I meant, which I evidently didn't say adaquately clearly, is that if material is agreed as pornographic by a clear majority of parties concerned, then sharing information ought to be encouraged strongly, if not considered de facto mandatory.

Ummm... well, you were clearer last time. What constitutes a "clear majority"?

I think you'll find that "hopeful wish" is what most resolutions would fall under, but we can't do anything other than 'wish-hopefully', otherwise the NatSov zealots would veto it.

So we should not try to find compromise, or indeed make anything effective at all, because it is likely to meet with resistance.

No wonder you like these black and white line-in-the-sand, "easy way out" laws like age of consent. Simplicity seems to be very appealing to you.

Your product = your responsibility. I find it hard to believe a weapons manufacturer, understanding that war is endemic and people in the weapons trade don't tend to have too many qualms about moral issues like the ones you mentioned above, so whether or not they directly specified is somewhat besides the point. They put it in the world and given the nature of the material in question, they surely knew and know that it will not conveniently restrict itself to where they want it to go, once it leaves their hands. The same applies to child pornographers.

Take five seconds to think about the implications of that argument. Essentially, no product or service could ever be made available, then, because someone would find a way to misuse it or do something illegal with it, and the producer would always be liable. The very concept of that violates the spirit of Resolution #30's idiotic negligance standards. Everything from knife manufacturers accused of murder up through those cigar makers from that strange land called "Cuba" being dragged before the courts of countries that prohibit their import. Ludicrous.

[This last thing was about logical fallacies over on the other thread.]


I was merely pointing out that if you were accusing me of this, you were guilty of the same thing. Which you were.

First of all, which "this" are we speaking of, Tu Quoque or One-Sidedness? Secondly, would you care to quote an example of where I committed such a fallacy? It's easy enough to point to examples of one-sidedness in your arguments - your rant above about "abusing children being good", the one regarding taking the splinter out of your eye, which clearly does nothing to refute the actual implication I was making, being that the unquantified risk of possible harm of an unknown degree is not sufficient reason for prohibition.

I sincerely hope you have time to respond to this before you are recalled to your nation.

Regards,
Ambassador Arin mac Nihil
The Community of Kuraurisand
"In labor the body, law the mind, and care the heart."

Suvyamara']I submit that so long as a person, regardless of age, is aware of such issues as pregnancy and STDs and willing to engage in sexual activity that they should not be hindered. Further, I can see no logical reason for any other point of view, although I'm certainly willing to be enlightened. I yield the floor.[/I]


As well you should. You've already admitted in another debate to diddling a 14-year-old boy. This august body is not the forum to attempt to justify your repugnant predilictions.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

What does "love" have to do with any of this thread, I don't remember any UN resolution reqiring love to be involved in sexual relationships.

What does "love" have to do with any of this thread, I don't remember any UN resolution reqiring love to be involved in sexual relationships.

I didn't say anything about love. One can love a child without wanting to touch him or her sexually. Parents love their children. That doesn't mean they have sexual relations with them.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

I love how we love to strictly define words here like consent. I say we define the Consent as the ability to agree and asset something and willingly comply. A child is unable to make decisions under your theory of them being unable to give consent. That means that if someone takes a child anywhere that kid is unable to give consent and is being kidnapped. It means that if a picture is taken of a child that child is unable to give consent for such an action(regardless of nature of picture) and it is invasion of privacy. It means that telling them to do chores that they can't consent to is slavery. It means that anything a child does is forced upon them by outside and completly unconsentual on their part regardless of what it is.

I love how we love to strictly define words here like consent. I say we define the Consent as the ability to agree and asset something and willingly comply. A child is unable to make decisions under your theory of them being unable to give consent. That means that if someone takes a child anywhere that kid is unable to give consent and is being kidnapped. It means that if a picture is taken of a child that child is unable to give consent for such an action(regardless of nature of picture) and it is invasion of privacy. It means that telling them to do chores that they can't consent to is slavery. It means that anything a child does is forced upon them by outside and completly unconsentual on their part regardless of what it is.

Nice attempt at twisting the debate here. You should stick to masturbating to child pornography on the Internet. You're better at that, I'm sure, than debating.

Respectfully,
Sheik Nadnerb bin Cluich
Cluichstani Ambassador to the UN

Why? I love mock debates. And I am not entirely wrong here, defining when someone can "consent" in such a general term is a pitfall. I may be overly satirical in presentation, but I am not entirely wrong. And even beyond that, does that consent include like aged individual, and if so than how far appart should the ages be. If the age of consent is 18, the day you turn 18 you are suddenly a pedophile for having a 16 year old girlfriend(actually ephibiophile). where as the day before you could have had a 12 year old girlfriend with no trouble. I would prosecute the 17 year old molesting the 12 year old before I even paid attention to the 18 year old datting a 16 year old. And should the age difference be static across age or should the consent mean that no age restriction applies anymore. Meaning you can date anyone within x years of your age, but you hit the age of legal consent and you are free game to all those who like the "barely legal" thing. This is a very complex issue that should be taken care of in local culture and national governments.

BTW thanks for calling me a pedophile, I really apppreciate that asshole, I was trying to make a point and crossed to here from the UN proposal on child pornography.

Have the 10 finger salute:
|:upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:|
|:upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:|
||||||:upyours: :upyours:||||||

BTW thanks for calling me a pedophile, I really apppreciate that asshole, I was trying to make a point and crossed to here from the UN proposal on child pornography.

Have the 10 finger salute:
|:upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:|
|:upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours: |
|||:upyours: :upyours:|||

Great way to keep the conversation mature. Good for you for sinking to the level that you condemn. Bravo.

Have the 10 finger salute:
|:upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:|
|:upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:|
||||||:upyours: :upyours:||||||

OOC: Way to express your intelligence...

Great way to keep the conversation mature. Good for you for sinking to the level that you condemn. Bravo.


OOC: gmta ;)

Wow the salute thing was taken way to seriously. And the last time I checked saying "fuck you" to someone was not the same level as calling them a pedophile.

Why? I love mock debates. And I am not entirely wrong here, defining when someone can "consent" in such a general term is a pitfall. I may be overly satirical in presentation, but I am not entirely wrong. And even beyond that, does that consent include like aged individual, and if so than how far appart should the ages be. If the age of consent is 18, the day you turn 18 you are suddenly a pedophile for having a 16 year old girlfriend(actually ephibiophile). where as the day before you could have had a 12 year old girlfriend with no trouble. I would prosecute the 17 year old molesting the 12 year old before I even paid attention to the 18 year old datting a 16 year old. And should the age difference be static across age or should the consent mean that no age restriction applies anymore. Meaning you can date anyone within x years of your age, but you hit the age of legal consent and you are free game to all those who like the "barely legal" thing. This is a very complex issue that should be taken care of in local culture and national governments.


OOC: That's why, at least in the US, most states have exceptions for age differences. Yeah, sure, an 18-year-old guy in high school can have a 15-year-old girlfriend in most states. It's not that complex. It just seems to be certain people that want to muddy the issue really...

Wow the salute thing was taken way to seriously. And the last time I checked saying "fuck you" to someone was not the same level as calling them a pedophile.

Did you expect it to not be taken seriously? Honestly, what did you expect?

OOC: gmta ;)

OOC: I've told you that on numerous occasions. Geez. :D

Well, this is off to a stunning start.

Keep it in character. If I see more OOC flaming, this sucker gets locked, and you can carry on your personal debate -- sorry, "in character" debate -- over telegrams. Because, seriously, this appears to be little more than an OOC debate shrouded in the thinest veil of being in character so as to keep it out of General.

I'll wink and nod at this, but you all had best keep up the sham, or it's over.

-The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator

OOC: I've told you that on numerous occasions. Geez. :D

OOC: You didn't have to tell me, Karmi. :p

Still OOC: And my humble suggestion (and it's just a suggestion, of course), your Glorious Hackness, would be just to lock this shite. It won't end well.

I will strongly oppose any UN legislation on age of consent unless said legislation explicitly gives nations the right to decide their own age of consent. Y'all don't need to be screwing around with ages of consent in other nations anymore than you need to be screwing around with children. Screw around with other consenting persons or don't screw around at all.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

That is entirely counter-productive to the entire point of the bill. The UN may allow a age range for consent, but it will not give a nation complete freedom to choose it's own age of consent, because if it did there would be no point in the bill anyways. The whole point of this is to force nations with either no age of consent or an age of consent we feel to be inadequate to comply to our rules. I suppose it is POSSIBLE that we could simply have a resolution requiring nations to have an age of consent regardless of what it is, but what would really be the point of that. That would work as well as there being no resolution in the first place.

Hey, that reminds me. There is no resolution now and nations have the right to choose themselves. Maybe that's a sign of the way it should be.

Have the 10 finger salute:
|:upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:|
|:upyours: :upyours: :upyours: :upyours:|
||||||:upyours: :upyours:||||||

In most cases one of those is more than enough ... but unless you happen to be a centipede, throwing up 10 fingers at once is more commonly referred to as a "double handed cheerleader Go-Team-Go wave". Don't be blonde.

Seriously, I do think it is wrong to call anybody who disagrees with the resolution a pedophile -- so I honestly do understand your's (and many other people's) anger / feelings. But please, one "angry face" is easily worth a hundred (for the millipedes amongst us) "upyours".

I will strongly oppose any UN legislation on age of consent unless said legislation explicitly gives nations the right to decide their own age of consent. Y'all don't need to be screwing around with ages of consent in other nations anymore than you need to be screwing around with children. Screw around with other consenting persons or don't screw around at all.

HotRodian UN Representative
Accelerus Dioce

The various cantons within Mikitivity can not even agree upon a standard age of consent ... or age of majority or marriage age etc. There is no danger of my government supporting any effort to take the actual decision making away from the local governments.

Mikitivity would quickly join any Texan based political activity to oppose any such legislation.

Howie T. Katzman

OOC: You didn't have to tell me, Karmi. :p

Still OOC: And my humble suggestion (and it's just a suggestion, of course), your Glorious Hackness, would be just to lock this shite. It won't end well.
OOC: Not with you antagonizing anyone who presents opposing viewpoints, it won't.

First of all, I applaud the idea and effort that the Delegates from the Community of Kuraurisand and the Republic of Compadria took to excise this sub-debate from the resolution thread and give it its own channel. It shows a marked sensitivity to both the original thread and to this subject, which clearly needed its own place.

As to the nature of the current topic, it's fraught with pitfalls of emotional, legal, semantic, biological and psychological natures (and probably a few more I couldn't think of while typing).

Having read the opening page of this debate and hearing both sides of the traditional demarcation issue: there needs to be an age of consent (PRO-DEMARCATION) and sexual exploration/education happens when it happens and is neither especially discouraged nor encouraged (CON-DEMARCATION), I can see both points clearly. In the following paragraphs, I hope to be able to re-state those sides from another point of view, which may be helpful, or not. I welcome corrections should I misrepresent either side.

DEMARCATION

PRO: If a person is too young to be contractually eligible, that is, enter into legally-binding contracts with another person or entity, they are too young to grant informed consent to sexual activity of any kind.

CON: Intelligence and readiness for the introduction of sexuality cannot measured by an arbitrary number -- if a "vast majority" of young people aren't ready, this implies that a minority is.

I understand both points here -- both the need to draw a line and the fact that a line always leaves some on the "other" side of it. CON-DEMARCATION might argue that the "playing doctor" or introductive sexual play of young people is akin to the training wheels of a bicycle. A metaphor might be that of course you don't give an 8-year-old a 220mph racing bike, you start them off on something in the 50cc range and let them "graduate" to larger and faster bikes. There are kids who don't have the capacity to operate any mechanical machinery until they're in their late teens, and there are 12-year-olds with 100+ logged hours in a single prop-engine aircraft. A more blunt sexual description: going from "you show me yours and I'll show you mine" straight to BDSM or multiple partners isn't what CON-DEMARCATION is suggesting (I hope). However, to deny a range of empirical readiness is to deny humanity.

PRO-DEMARCATION might argue that those on the "other" side of an A of C line are such a small minority that having no age of consent would leave the door open for predators who would likely not care to distinguish between the majority and the minority. Since the majority deserves protection from such predation, a line must be drawn. Additionally, PRO-DEMARCATION might insist that those parents of sexually precocious young people who feel so strongly about their children's freedom to discover sexuality without stigma or repression might find saome way to do it in the privacy of their own homes.

Which leads me to this possibility: exposure to "adult" things such as alcohol and adult-themed entertainment (such as those films which, in the far-off land called the "United States of America" garner an "R" or "TV-M" rating) is often something parents allow for their children who are under the nominal legal age for such things. The common reasoning is that the parents are there to guide or explain things to their children. Such parents often feel that these types of experiences prepare their children for the eventuality of exposure to the same kinds of things by and with their peers.

The aforementioned "minority" of sexually precocious young people might be served by a law granting parents the right to expose their children to basic sexuality without being considered perverts and subject to action from their nation's child protective services agency. My youth was informed by books my parents gave to me explaining in words I could understand with accurate but illustrated (non-photo-realistic) images of the people, organs, and even gametes involved. I recall being about 7 or 8 when I read a book entitled Where Did I Come From?, which explained exactly that. The specific images didn't involve vulva or penis, but did involve a "mom" and "dad" "hugging" one another very closely -- an image which, as a boy, I walked in on by accident more than once.

Looking back, I'm glad my parents didn't tell me that "daddy and mommy were wrestling", or some other such trite dismissal. I did not grow up to become a deviant, and in fact did not have any sex-intended experience (as opposed to mutual exploration experiences) until I was 18, and intercourse until I was 21.

My goal in explaining all of this is not to attempt to solve this problem of demarcation or where to draw the line. I also have no idea how a law allowing the "minority" some avenue of defensible sexual gradation (instead of going from no clue to the back seat over a summer), would work, or how it would even be worded.

I hoped merely to further illuminate either side from different angles and perhaps propose that if demarcation is an issue we cannot agree upon, perhaps no overarching law is necessary. Those who feel their child was being taken advantage of will engage the legal/penal system. Those who feel their child was not taken advantage of will not. Each parental figure has a unique rapport with each child, and should have the greatest say in regard to the issue. That said, where CPS comes in in the case of a parental figure who's unfit...is a problem in itself, and is perhaps the best reason to err on the side of restriction and caution and draw a line.

The next question would then be -- where?

Magister Jubal Harshaw
Minister Benjamin Royce
The Iconoclastic Swingdicate of Intangelon

It doesn't look like Compadria is going to be able to respond, so odds are that the debate, at least as originally intended, is going to fade shortly as well. However, we would take this opportunity to respond to those who have spoken out:

As well you should. You've already admitted in another debate to diddling a 14-year-old boy. This august body is not the forum to attempt to justify your repugnant predilictions.

Erm, "this august body" is down the hall, Ambassador. While we agree that the delegate from Suvymara would be off-topic over there, his remarks are relevant here. And I would humbly submit to you that you have forgotten the most basic rule of debate - attack the argument, not the arguer.


What does "love" have to do with any of this thread, I don't remember any UN resolution reqiring love to be involved in sexual relationships.

Something does not have to be a United Nations resolution before it is worthy of discussion. Love, good sir, is just about universally recognized to be the ideal goal of sexual expression, and although it may not be required for the act, a discussion of whether or not it would be wise to disallow people who cannot experience love in such a way to participate in sexual activity is certainly relevant. Kind of like suggesting that it's not okay to climb Everest unless you have at least the potential to reach the top, because, well, you could suffer severely, even die, if you try for the top and don't make it.

Naturally, the issues at debate are whether or not a minor inherently can't reach the top, and if not, whether there's any harm in letting the minor at least climb from Base Camp to the ABC as long as they /know/ they're not trying for the top.

I didn't say anything about love. One can love a child without wanting to touch him or her sexually.

Very true. One can love an adult without wanting to touch him or her sexually as well, and yet there seems to be a certain kind of love out there which almost mandates physical expression, in which people have literally declared that not expressing themselves in that way is painful to the soul.

The point of debate is whether "children" can experience that love themselves.


I love how we love to strictly define words here like consent. I say we define the Consent as the ability to agree and asset something and willingly comply.


Ummm, we /did/ define consent that way. We also defined informed consent, which is what our opponents believe requisite for a person to truly agree to a situation of "sufficient gravity", e.g. a sexual relationship.

If you wish to argue that informed consent is not necessary (beyond the argument that Kuraurisand has already made), then please cite a reasoning, beyond all of the ludicrous situations that would erupt if informed consent was required for everything, since no one on the other side of the debate has even suggested that.

OOC: That's why, at least in the US, most states have exceptions for age differences. Yeah, sure, an 18-year-old guy in high school can have a 15-year-old girlfriend in most states. It's not that complex. It just seems to be certain people that want to muddy the issue really...

OOC: I would love to respond to this ICly. :P

Well, this is off to a stunning start.

Keep it in character. If I see more OOC flaming, this sucker gets locked, and you can carry on your personal debate -- sorry, "in character" debate -- over telegrams. Because, seriously, this appears to be little more than an OOC debate shrouded in the thinest veil of being in character so as to keep it out of General.

I'll wink and nod at this, but you all had best keep up the sham, or it's over.

-The Most Glorious Hack
NationStates Game Moderator

OOC: Aye sir. :) Although if I can point out something, at least from a philosophical standpoint, I think most of us who come to this game make our first "character" as a carbon copy of ourselves, since, after all, who can resist seeing how a nation would develop if our own beliefs were applied unilaterally to it? So it's not so much that it's an OOC debate with a veil, as it is that our characters' viewpoints aren't exactly seperated from our own.

I do intend to make another account at some point in life, and run it from a character who's views contrast my own sharply, but, well, frankly, just this one seems to take up a lot of my online time as it is. :)

I will strongly oppose any UN legislation on age of consent unless said legislation explicitly gives nations the right to decide their own age of consent. Y'all don't need to be screwing around with ages of consent in other nations anymore than you need to be screwing around with children. Screw around with other consenting persons or don't screw around at all.

Is there a non-UN perspective on the issue that you might want to share?


That is entirely counter-productive to the entire point of the bill. The UN may allow a age range for consent....

This is NOT a United Nations debate! No UN resolution is being considered here. This is about the philosophy of law, and the ability to find a solution as idyllic as possible for a problem that pits the rights of the individual youth versus the well-being of youth collectively.


Hey, that reminds me. There is no resolution now and nations have the right to choose themselves. Maybe that's a sign of the way it should be.

It is a sign of nothing. If there were no anti-slavery resolution, would slavery then be acceptable from one nation to another? And how would you handle the international incident of a runaway slave entering your country for asylum, his owners demanding that you return him?

We do agree that a few things out there should be standardized across the board. We might even agree this is one of them. But what we would not agree to is a solution that does not account for individual capability, one which does not have, essentially, an "it's okay under circumstances A, B and C" clause, where none of those circumstances in an arbitrary demographic like the age number.

First of all, I applaud the idea and effort that the Delegates from the Community of Kuraurisand and the Republic of Compadria took to excise this sub-debate from the resolution thread and give it its own channel. It shows a marked sensitivity to both the original thread and to this subject, which clearly needed its own place.

Thank you.

DEMARCATION

PRO: If a person is too young to be contractually eligible, that is, enter into legally-binding contracts with another person or entity, they are too young to grant informed consent to sexual activity of any kind.

CON: Intelligence and readiness for the introduction of sexuality cannot measured by an arbitrary number -- if a "vast majority" of young people aren't ready, this implies that a minority is.

We would add that the "if" you've stated in the con side is not established fact, since obviously the higher you set that number, the smaller that "vast majority" becomes, and we still assert that under the current tally of ages of consent worldwide, it is actually the majority of those affected that is ready, and being unfairly oppressed.

Other than that, yes, your summary of both sides seems very accurate, as we understand it.

A metaphor might be that of course you don't give an 8-year-old a 220mph racing bike, you start them off on something in the 50cc range and let them "graduate" to larger and faster bikes. There are kids who don't have the capacity to operate any mechanical machinery until they're in their late teens, and there are 12-year-olds with 100+ logged hours in a single prop-engine aircraft. A more blunt sexual description: going from "you show me yours and I'll show you mine" straight to BDSM or multiple partners isn't what CON-DEMARCATION is suggesting (I hope).

Well, in /theory/, yes, this is exactly what we're suggesting. As you said, conventional wisdom is that you start small and build up, and thankfully, in practice, our citizenry seems to see the wisdom in that. We obviously don't have firm statistical data on the sexual practices of our citizens, but from a medical standpoint, we see less than fifty cases a year of youthful citizens suffering medical complications from "advanced" sexual activity, which we take to mean that wisdom is prevailing and young people are either abstaining or taking it very slow.

However, from a legislative standpoint, we can't exactly turn a blind eye to that one 8 year old who can handle the 220mph bike from the get-go.

PRO-DEMARCATION might argue that those on the "other" side of an A of C line are such a small minority that having no age of consent would leave the door open for predators who would likely not care to distinguish between the majority and the minority. Since the majority deserves protection from such predation, a line must be drawn.

Again, they have yet to prove how small this minority is, or even that it /is/ the minority. And regardless of how many people are on each side of the line, we agree with our sister and brother nations that there need to be protections in place for those who aren't ready. Age of consent simply isn't an acceptable choice for that protection, given its inability to be applied on a case-by-case basis.

Additionally, PRO-DEMARCATION might insist that those parents of sexually precocious young people who feel so strongly about their children's freedom to discover sexuality without stigma or repression might find saome way to do it in the privacy of their own homes.

Actually, most Pro-Demarcation countries call that "incest", and frown as much (if not more) on that then they do on "regular" child sexuality. Unless I misunderstand your suggestion in some way.

Exposure to "adult" things such as alcohol and adult-themed entertainment (such as those films which, in the far-off land called the "United States of America" garner an "R" or "TV-M" rating) is often something parents allow for their children who are under the nominal legal age for such things. The common reasoning is that the parents are there to guide or explain things to their children.

One of our core points, actually. In Pro-Demarcation countries, parents have the authority to stop their children from engaging in this sort of behaviour, and children, resultingly, stumble into their experiences covertly on their own. This is often /why/ they're not ready.

In Kuraurisand, the final decision belongs to the child - largely because any child has the right remove him- or herself from the home and move into a state commune residence if the biological parents make any attempt to curtail the child's autonomy. Far from dividing families, however, this tends to make children in our society a lot more receptive to seeking out advice from their parents on all issues that face them, and, resultingly, make better choices with their parents' guidance.


My goal in explaining all of this is not to attempt to solve this problem of demarcation or where to draw the line. I also have no idea how a law allowing the "minority" some avenue of defensible sexual gradation (instead of going from no clue to the back seat over a summer), would work, or how it would even be worded.

In our society it works the other way. Instead of assuming everyone incapable of consent and drafting legislation which returns rights to the exceptions, we assume everyone capable of consent and draft legislation which can protect the exceptions from the consequences.

For example, we have the following laws in place:
- mandatory STD testing on a yearly basis, done during a citizen's birth month, beginning at birth

- Felony laws preventing people who have an STD from knowingly engaging
in a sex act without informing their partner of the risk. (And they can't say they didn't know because of the aforementioned yearly mandated test)

- Felony laws preventing people from sexual relations "with purely selfish motivations" (the /purely/ part is usually what is emphasized at trial, meaning that it would have to be proved beyond the shadow of a doubt that the accused had absolutely no real romantic interest or friendship with their partner. This prevents a lot of coersive manipulation, although, of course, it's very difficult to prove.)

These three tend to shield our youth from the worst of the possible consequences. It's not perfect, and some of them do get hurt, but again, it cannot be emphasized how much the open support of family and friends that the youth can feel comfortable talking about their experiences with minimizes the actual damage that is caused. In the worst case scenarios, the pain is nothing more traumatic than everyone experiences after their first breakup, which is, unfortunately, an experience just about everyone has to go through at some point or another.

Those who feel their child was being taken advantage of will engage the legal/penal system. Those who feel their child was not taken advantage of will not. Each parental figure has a unique rapport with each child, and should have the greatest say in regard to the issue.

We could not disagree more. It is the CHILD that should have the greatest say in regard to the issue - that's our entire point.

Regards,
Ambassador Arin mac Nihil
The Community of Kuraurisand
"In labor the body, law the mind, and care the heart."

I understand that age of concent is not going to be the same in all places. I also don't think it should be. In RL it isin't and neither should it be in NS. But at the same time age of concent in differnt countries is similar. So what could be done is make a minimum. An absolute age would be impossible to agree upon and very unworkable. But if the UN says something like it has to be above a certain age.

For example if it said something like at least above 10. It let's countries choose depending on the circumstance within there country but still stops people from making age of concent at 0 so they can exploit the loop-hole.

A fascinating discussion. I have but one comment to make, and that is to state my opinion that it serves little purpose for the UN to establish a normalised age of consent given the diversity of nations, cultures and even races brought together under the auspices of the United Nations.

Benedictions to you all.

As well you should. You've already admitted in another debate to diddling a 14-year-old boy. This august body is not the forum to attempt to justify your repugnant predilictions.


OOC: Actually that debate was entirely OOC, while you quoted from a position that was related IC. I thought that was the point and that the two were viewed separately.

So if you are unable to debate my argument on it's merits I'll ask you to hold your tongue.

'Diddling'. Hmph.

Suvyamara']OOC: Actually that debate was entirely OOC, while you quoted from a position that was related IC. I thought that was the point and that the two were viewed separately.

So if you are unable to debate my argument on it's merits I'll ask you to hold your tongue.

'Diddling'. Hmph.

Your "argument" is merely an attempt to excuse predatory behaviour towards children.

Your "argument" is merely an attempt to excuse predatory behaviour towards children.

Actually, it's far from it. My OOC position on the issue is that sexual relationships between adult and child should not take place. In this society such a relationship is doomed to failure, with any possible benefits being far outweighed by the potential for harm.

Perhaps next time you'll ask my opinion before telling others what it is.

For example, we have the following laws in place:
- mandatory STD testing on a yearly basis, done during a citizen's birth month, beginning at birth

- Felony laws preventing people who have an STD from knowingly engaging
in a sex act without informing their partner of the risk. (And they can't say they didn't know because of the aforementioned yearly mandated test)

Laws that would be unworkable in all UN member-nations, because of the confidentiality clause in the 'Patients Rights Act'...

Suvyamara']Actually, it's far from it. My OOC position on the issue is that sexual relationships between adult and child should not take place. In this society such a relationship is doomed to failure, with any possible benefits being far outweighed by the potential for harm.

Perhaps next time you'll ask my opinion before telling others what it is.

OOC: Aye, "in this society" you are correct, no doubt much to your chagrin. But in NS, we're dealing with imaginary societies, where it seems you feel you can set an age of consent more consistent with your repulsive predilictions. "Whee, I can make a nation in which it would be perfectly legal and acceptable for me to diddle a little boy! Ah, what a dream!" Thankfully, though, we've got a resolution in this game outlawing pedophilia, so guess what? You can't do that.

And WHAT THE FUCK "possible benefits" are there to a sexual relationship between an adult and a child, aside from you getting your rocks off? You sicken me.

I understand that age of concent is not going to be the same in all places. I also don't think it should be. In RL it isin't and neither should it be in NS. But at the same time age of concent in differnt countries is similar. So what could be done is make a minimum. An absolute age would be impossible to agree upon and very unworkable. But if the UN says something like it has to be above a certain age.

For example if it said something like at least above 10. It let's countries choose depending on the circumstance within there country but still stops people from making age of concent at 0 so they can exploit the loop-hole.

Setting a minimum age for humans might be possible: Applying that same minimum age to all of the other sapient species that are present amongst the member-nations' populations, or trying to define minimum ages separately for each of those species, however?

OOC: Aye, "in this society" you are correct, no doubt much to your chagrin. But in NS, we're dealing with imaginary societies, where it seems you feel you can set an age of consent more consistent with your repulsive predilictions. "Whee, I can make a nation in which it would be perfectly legal and acceptable for me to diddle a little boy! Ah, what a dream!" Thankfully, though, we've got a resolution in this game outlawing pedophilia, so guess what? You can't do that.

And WHAT THE FUCK "possible benefits" are there to a sexual relationship between an adult and a child, aside from you getting your rocks off? You sicken me.

OOC: Firstly, as I have nowhere stated what the age of consent is for my imaginary country you have zero basis for making such assumptions. Secondly, if I wish to institute a national policy of putting babies on spikes then I fail to see what possible concern it is of yours or how it affects you in any way. Third, have the balls to refute my arguments on their merits rather than relying on name calling and erroneous conjecture.

Finally, I suggest you direct your last question to the thousands of young men and women who seek out relationships with older partners every day. There must be some perceived benefit or it wouldn't happen.

p.s. Your holier than thou, all knowing, all seeing attitude sickens me as well. Open your eyes to the fact that the world is not the black and white picture you seem to have in mind and that you could learn a thing or two if you'd care to make the effort to remove your head from your ass.

At least I don't have my dick in a 14-year-old boy.

OOC: Cluich, Suvy... chill out, please.

Suvy, respect that it's very hard to remain emotionally detached when dealing with this topic. Many of us know young children personally, children who seem so fragile as they struggle with concepts that we have come to take for granted, like how to drink from a cup without grabbing it with both hands or what the names of all the little crayolas in the box are. True, this discussion is generally about kids older than that, but it's not /entirely/ about kids older than that, and even if it were, well... we all have a tendancy to hope that these special, lovable people in our lives can hold onto their wild imaginations about what the world could be like before they are brought into the realm of all the things, good and bad, that it is actually made of. You can't blame a person for wanting to defend that, or getting passionate about the defense of it.

Cluich, a person's past does not dictate their present, nor does their motivation justify a dismissal of their perspective. Yes, he did something in the past that you find heinous. But ask yourself - what would you have done, in his place? Struggling with feelings you don't understand, feelings no one else is willing to talk about. Going along with the idea that it's wrong at first, but then this boy comes into your life, presumably a walking hormone bomb like they all tend to be, and you discover that he wants this release as badly as you do, that whether he knows what he's asking for or not, the chance exists that together you might be able to find some kind of peace that neither of you can find alone. I can tell you that if I were Suvy, I probably would have made the same choice he did. The choice he know realizes was wrong, but hey, hindsight's always 20/20. Where was the mistake? He's decided that it wasn't the age difference or the boy's maturity level that caused the damage, but the way society is set up to handle this sort of thing. Does that make him less responsible? No - you can't lean on a wall that you know isn't sturdy and then blame the wall when it falls and hits someone. But is he right? Would the relationship have worked in a different society?

That's the issue we're discussing here. Debate the issue, and debate it well, but stop beating each other up and stop letting your biases drive what you say before Hack comes and shuts us down. Because if your collective outbursts prove nothing else, it's that we really /have/ to start talking about this kind of thing more often as a society. And THAT I mean completely OOCly.

Laws that would be unworkable in all UN member-nations, because of the confidentiality clause in the 'Patients Rights Act'...

Mmmmm.... it would seem so. Well, modifying the resolution to make an exception would probably not be hard. It's only a diagnostic test being forced on the populus, and the only sharing requirement is with potential sexual partners prior to engaging in a sex act - it's not exactly wide distribution. True, we've had a few cases where the partner blabbed to the world, but, well, that's just part and parcel of the risk you take when you open up to someone.

At least I don't have my dick in a 14-year-old boy.

OOC:
Neither do I. Are we even now? I stated in another thread I haven't even talked to a boy in 10 years. You're ready to take the rest of my statements at face value, why not that one? I suppose I'm the one at fault here, presuming to have an argument with someone who has gone through life mistake free.

With a bow of respect to Kuraurisand I'm going to drop this antagonistic argument. If you wish to continue the debate IC then I'll respond in kind. If you are willing to look beyond your prejudices and discover some of my OOC views and feelings then again, I'll be happy to provide whatever assistance I may. If you wish to live on in ignorance then I'll respect your right to do so.

Setting a minimum age for humans might be possible: Applying that same minimum age to all of the other sapient species that are present amongst the member-nations' populations, or trying to define minimum ages separately for each of those species, however?

The UN can clearly not mandate for each and every humoid species. Concidering how most are only in one nation it is extreme micro-management. At the same time can be brought into just about any resolution to say it is invalid. So I think it is important for the UN to ignore other species while legislating resolutions or otherwise debates will get filled with things like "My species live forever so why do we need healthcare":)

OOC:

Suvy, respect that it's very hard to remain emotionally detached when dealing with this topic. Many of us know young children personally, children who seem so fragile as they struggle with concepts that we have come to take for granted, like how to drink from a cup without grabbing it with both hands or what the names of all the little crayolas in the box are. True, this discussion is generally about kids older than that, but it's not /entirely/ about kids older than that, and even if it were, well... we all have a tendancy to hope that these special, lovable people in our lives can hold onto their wild imaginations about what the world could be like before they are brought into the realm of all the things, good and bad, that it is actually made of. You can't blame a person for wanting to defend that, or getting passionate about the defense of it.


OOC: Just a quick note. I don't at all blame a person for wanting to defend that. What I resent is the assumption that I'm somehow on the opposing side of that statement. I'd defend those things just as readily as anyone else.

At least I don't have my dick in a 14-year-old boy.

Flamebait right there! Take a break from this entire subject PLEASE!

-M

Again, they have yet to prove how small this minority is, or even that it /is/ the minority. And regardless of how many people are on each side of the line, we agree with our sister and brother nations that there need to be protections in place for those who aren't ready. Age of consent simply isn't an acceptable choice for that protection, given its inability to be applied on a case-by-case basis.
Well argued, but the question remains, what is your solution? You say "protections in place for those who aren't ready" -- do you have any examples?

Actually, most Pro-Demarcation countries call that "incest", and frown as much (if not more) on that then they do on "regular" child sexuality. Unless I misunderstand your suggestion in some way.
Whoa, yes. I think I've unintentionally led you the wrong way. "Privacy of their own home" was not meant to condone incest. I do understand that there are a few (very few) families or communities who introduce sexuality to their children in much the same way as they'd introduce any other concept. I also understand that the outrage such familial behavior, while completely understandable, is not always justified. I don't know which does more harm, the behavior or the social ostracism and stigma attached to it. Judging from how cruel people who claim the moral high ground can be, however, I'm inclined to think that societal reaction is the greater of the two worries. I recall a friend's parents being shocked to high heaven when I told them I was allowed a glass of wine with dinner in my home (going on to explain that milk masks, rather than enhances or combines with flavors, as do sodas and juices...water with dinner is fine, but boring). I also knew a hell of a lot more facts about basic reproduction and sex, once being forbidden to play with a female friend at age 7 when her mother overheard me explaining that the stork had nothing to do with where babies come from (seriously, where the eff did we get "stork" from?).

Why do we want complete strangers, peers or not, educating children about only this one topic? Does this mean parents or siblings should be encouraged or allowed to engage in intercourse with their family members? No. But even a frank conversation without some sort of depiction or instruction denies any learner a complete educational experience, no matter what the topic. I see both sides here, and I have no idea how they can be reconciled, if at all.

One of our core points, actually. In Pro-Demarcation countries, parents have the authority to stop their children from engaging in this sort of behaviour, and children, resultingly, stumble into their experiences covertly on their own. This is often /why/ they're not ready.
Indeed. The whole concept is explained nicely in the musical The Fantasticks when the two parents of the protagonists share their understanding that the best way to get a child to do something is to forbid them from it. In fact, as a young child afraid of water, that's how I learned to swim. I didn't get over my head sexually as a teenager because I wasn't cloistered from knowledge of sexuality.[/quote]

In Kuraurisand, the final decision belongs to the child - largely because any child has the right remove him- or herself from the home and move into a state commune residence if the biological parents make any attempt to curtail the child's autonomy. Far from dividing families, however, this tends to make children in our society a lot more receptive to seeking out advice from their parents on all issues that face them, and, resultingly, make better choices with their parents' guidance.

It sounds like a system worth trying, given the result of bringing children into a more frank and trusting relationship with their children. Unfortunately, popular sentiment seeks to retain the sense of complete control instead of guidance. Children are people, not property.


In our society it works the other way. Instead of assuming everyone incapable of consent and drafting legislation which returns rights to the exceptions, we assume everyone capable of consent and draft legislation which can protect the exceptions from the consequences.
This is not the way the exponential majority of parents see things, and as such, you'd never pass those laws virtually anywhere else. I am not in favor of attempting to force a parent's hand when it comes to how they raise a child, no matter how "repressed" the child might be. It simply isn't my business, nor is it the business of the state unless proof of direct harm to the child can be shown.

OOC: As a fomer public school teacher, I was a "mandated reporter" of anything that even obliquely seemed might be abusive. As a newbie to the profession, I was paranoid about it and actually lost one of my best singers because I overheard him describing a beating he received from his mother the night before. The law in Washington states that if I hadn't reported what I heard and something had happened to that student, I'd be liable for non-feasance of duty with regard to the Mandated Reporter law.

I learned that attempting to even monitor, let alone restructure, parenting is akin to basting yourself in blood and swimming with sharks. /OOC

We could not disagree more. It is the CHILD that should have the greatest say in regard to the issue - that's our entire point.

I must ask you, then, who hears the child's point of view? Who hears what the child considers to be a reasoned argument and declares that it is or it isn't? A judge? A panel? And what are their qualifications? Where does such a decision happen and under what circumstances? There are too many variables and unanswered questions for me to fully endorse your position, even though I agree with many of its underpinnings.

You cannot simply dismiss the centuries of "parentoia" as irrational nonsense and legislate it away. There are far too many who will disagree and shout you down. Or, in the case of the semi-Honorable Nadnerb bin Cluich, hunt you down. Your argument needs to take more into account and deal with current realities before it could ever be even remotely considered.

I applaud your bravery in presenting it in an honest and thoughtful debate, however. You are truly an outstanding voice in the NSUN community.

Suvyamara']OOC: Just a quick note. I don't at all blame a person for wanting to defend that. What I resent is the assumption that I'm somehow on the opposing side of that statement. I'd defend those things just as readily as anyone else.

OOC: Yes, well, perhaps it would surprise you to know that I would not. Those sentiments are all well and good, but they are inherently self-destructive. Look at all the self-esteem problems we face as adults today, constantly questioning our worth and the value of our ideas. That's because we spent the first 18 years of our lives being told that we had nothing of value to contribute, that we were to shut up, do what we're told and leave the decisions to our elders. You think all that conditioning just drops away when we reach the magic number? Do we ever /really/ convince ourselves that the rules have changed, that we're the important ones now? We don't.

And then there are the motivational issues. Lazy people who see nothing as worth doing. Well, when no one had any real expectations of you for the first 18 years, why would you suddenly feel the need to rise to a challenge? More to the point, if the first 18 years are all play and imagination and you're told that every day past the 18th birthday is going to be hard work for survival, what would you have to look forward to?

I think childhood itself is a bad idea. It was invented with the printing press, because before then, it was impossible to convey information between adults without the children also intercepting it. And it has started dying since the television, because it is now no longer necessary to have a skill (the ability to read for long periods without going ADD) to understand the primary method of information dispensement. The sooner it is dead, and we can return to a world where social problems can be solved with contributions of adult experience and youthful creativity working hand in hand, the better.

I will not mourn the loss of the cute, innocent little kid struggling with the crayons when he turns around and cures cancer before growing his first pube.

OOC: Perhaps the initial post was unclear then. I would certainly wish to protect our children, but I don't mean by that we should lie to them and pretend the outside world doesn't exist. I'm not in favor of shielding our children from the realities of the world, but rather of acting as a filter for those realities, allowing them to experience things at a rate they can comfortably handle.

Someone said in an earlier post something along the line of not allowing certain things be experienced during childhood, waiting instead until adulthood, when people are more resilient. I thought it common knowledge that children are more resilient than adults could ever hope to be.

Well argued, but the question remains, what is your solution? You say "protections in place for those who aren't ready" -- do you have any examples?

Well, there are a number of alternatives. The laws mentioned in our last post minimize the threat of STDs and take at least some steps to prevent exploitation. We are satisfied with these protections - they're not foolproof, but they have a failure rate that we can live with. Some in our society wanted to go further, to actually establish a sexual licensing board that would operate similar to the drivers license procedures, but that suggestion keeps being overruled because there is too much discrepancy over what standards would have to be met to get a license. What kind of test could truly measure readiness? And besides, as Michelle Coulton, a psychologist from Dulai University, postulated: "You're never ready the first time, whether you're seven, seventeen or seventy. It is one of those activities that simply doesn't lend itself to learning through description; you have to learn by doing."

Whoa, yes. I think I've unintentionally led you the wrong way. "Privacy of their own home" was not meant to condone incest. I do understand that there are a few (very few) families or communities who introduce sexuality to their children in much the same way as they'd introduce any other concept. I also understand that the outrage such familial behavior, while completely understandable, is not always justified. I don't know which does more harm, the behavior or the social ostracism and stigma attached to it. Judging from how cruel people who claim the moral high ground can be, however, I'm inclined to think that societal reaction is the greater of the two worries.

To be honest, I'm surprised no one's brought this up before, because it's the biggest flaw in our argument. "If societal impressions are the only cause of the damage," they could say, "then you would be more than happy to support incest, bestiality and necrophilia by removing the societal attitudes against them, right?" Our country currently bans these things for medical reasons only, but, of course, that justification is pretty weak, since we can't quote inbreeding as a reason why two male relatives, a father and son for example, can't engage in sexual activity, nor is the argument compelling for heterosexual relations in a day where contraceptives are readily available.

Thankfully the issue hasn't yet been pushed to the courts, because if it were to come today, we would have no choice but to admit that we are not living up to the meaning of our national motto - "in law the mind", the shelving of all emotional considerations when considering legislation. We have faith that by the time is does become an issue, we will have a better understanding of the instincts that tell us it is wrong, and whether those instincts have a legitimate logical basis that perpetuates our survival, e.g. "fight or flight".

Why do we want complete strangers, peers or not, educating children about only this one topic? Does this mean parents or siblings should be encouraged or allowed to engage in intercourse with their family members? No. But even a frank conversation without some sort of depiction or instruction denies any learner a complete educational experience, no matter what the topic. I see both sides here, and I have no idea how they can be reconciled, if at all.

Well, think of it like science lab - the teacher describes the process of dissection, but the actual dissecting is done with your lab partner. Certainly you could always call the teacher over, per se, and ask if you're doing it right, but generally, it's not necessary, as the diagrams and instinct alone seem to be enough to intuitively tell you how to hold the scalpel, how hard to push, and so on.

Indeed. The whole concept is explained nicely in the musical The Fantasticks when the two parents of the protagonists share their understanding that the best way to get a child to do something is to forbid them from it. In fact, as a young child afraid of water, that's how I learned to swim. I didn't get over my head sexually as a teenager because I wasn't cloistered from knowledge of sexuality.

Yup. Yet another example that in the struggle to protect these people, the so-called "wisdom" of the AoC seems only to put them in more danger than they'd have been in otherwise.


It sounds like a system worth trying, given the result of bringing children into a more frank and trusting relationship with their children. Unfortunately, popular sentiment seeks to retain the sense of complete control instead of guidance. Children are people, not property.

You echo our viewpoint completely. It is true, parental authority in a lot of these cultures is so ingrained and assumed that the very notion of removing it seems alien to them. Much, we imagine, like it must have seen to slave owners when they were first told they had to free their slaves.

This is not the way the exponential majority of parents see things, and as such, you'd never pass those laws virtually anywhere else. I am not in favor of attempting to force a parent's hand when it comes to how they raise a child, no matter how "repressed" the child might be. It simply isn't my business, nor is it the business of the state unless proof of direct harm to the child can be shown.

Mmmmmm.... this seems in contrast with your comment above. Let us make sure our position is clear - we are not in the business of telling parents what values they must attempt to instill in their children. They may guide their children in any direction that they see fit. However, the moment that guidance turns into a demand, the moment the line is crossed into controlling behaviour, then there'd better be a reason that has nothing to do with age or familial relationship. (For example, if your two year old is about to throw your remote through your TV set, or is about to drink bleach, you are certainly justified in stopping him. You are not justified in stopping him because he's two, or because he is your child and must abide by your wishes. You are justified because you would stop anyone in those situations.)

OOC: As a fomer public school teacher, I was a "mandated reporter" of anything that even obliquely seemed might be abusive. As a newbie to the profession, I was paranoid about it and actually lost one of my best singers because I overheard him describing a beating he received from his mother the night before. The law in Washington states that if I hadn't reported what I heard and something had happened to that student, I'd be liable for non-feasance of duty with regard to the Mandated Reporter law.

I learned that attempting to even monitor, let alone restructure, parenting is akin to basting yourself in blood and swimming with sharks. /OOC

OOC: It's tough, isn't it... you might have saved that child's life, protected him from a fatal beating down the road. Or you might have completely turned his world on it's ear and had him essentially kidnapped by the state over an isolated (possibly exaggerated) incident. And you'll never know for sure which it was.

Not that I blame you, you didn't really have a choice in the matter. Self-preservation still has to come first. But like I said to Suvy, I don't envy you the choices you have to make in this world. :(

I must ask you, then, who hears the child's point of view? Who hears what the child considers to be a reasoned argument and declares that it is or it isn't? A judge? A panel? And what are their qualifications? Where does such a decision happen and under what circumstances? There are too many variables and unanswered questions for me to fully endorse your position, even though I agree with many of its underpinnings.

You cannot simply dismiss the centuries of "parentoia" as irrational nonsense and legislate it away. There are far too many who will disagree and shout you down. Or, in the case of the semi-Honorable Nadnerb bin Cluich, hunt you down. Your argument needs to take more into account and deal with current realities before it could ever be even remotely considered.

Who hears an adult's point of view, and judges it? Nobody, under most circumstances. Their decisions are merely accepted. So it is with children, especially since the first belief that is instilled in them (well, right after love for self and others, anyway) is the belief that their decisions should always be well thought out. We give an assignment on the first day in our kindergarten classes, a fairly simple one - "take two of your favorite shirts out of your dresser, and before the next day, ask three people which shirt they think you should wear to class and why." The next day, when they come to class, each of them gets up and talks about the shirt that they're wearing, who they asked for advice and what that advice was. Naturally, we get all sorts of reasons, ranging from which shirt looks better on them through which one provides them with better protection from the weather and which one fits more practical concerns, like number of pockets and such. A good number of children encounter contradictory advice, and in those cases, the teacher asks why they eventually decided to follow the one person over the other. All of this serves to develop those critical thinking skills which are so important in all areas of life, among them this one.

On a side note, we confess that our approach does have one fairly major drawback - our people don't respond to time-critical situations very well. They've been taught for so long that 99% of the situations in life are not emergencies, that they can take a moment to stop and think it out, and as a result their response timing in those emergency situations is substandard compared to the rest of the world. Our "basic training" in the military tries to counteract this as much as possible, as do our medical schools, since those occupations tend to encounter the highest rate of snap decisions.

I applaud your bravery in presenting it in an honest and thoughtful debate, however. You are truly an outstanding voice in the NSUN community.

Well thank you. We hardly claim to know all the answers - perhaps someone else will use our position as a springboard to come up with a better solution, and that is the best we could ever hope for. Brainstorming together to make the world a better place is the most rewarding, worthwhile thing our nation can give to those who follow us.

Regards,
Ambassador Arin mac Nihil
The Community of Kuraurisand
"In labor the body, law the mind, and care the heart."

Yup. Didn't think you could manage it.

I said in character. When every post starts with "ooc", you aren't in character. This isn't the General forum.