Wednesday 29 June 2016

What's the problem with sex with kids?


It seems that lately the MAP/CL world has become polarised into "pro-contact" and "anti-contact" camps - that is, people who say that having sex (or sexual contact) with children is OK, and those who say it isn't. (Actually these two camps have been around for donkeys' years, but it's only recently that they have identified themselves as such.)

There are various arguments used by both sides to support their view, but the problem is that a lot of these arguments don't hold water. Let's have a look at some of them.

First, the "anti-contact" side.

"Children can't consent." This one is so blindingly wrong I'm surprised it's still used. Any parent will tell you that children - even quite young children - are quite capable of giving or with-holding consent to anything they like or dislike, sometimes quite strongly. Ask a boy or girl if they would like a helping of spinach, or sprouts, or ice-cream.

"It's not informed consent, they don't understand the ramifications and consequences."
Would these ramifications and consequences be things like pregnancy, venereal disease, maybe a long-term relationship leading to marriage? These might be relevant when you're 20, but hardly so at eight. (And marriage is hardly a bad thing.) She isn't going to get pregnant and while VD is not impossible, considering the type of sexual activity involved the possibility is close enough to zero as to be irrelevant. Because children don't have the emotional baggage that most adults associate with sex, they don't have to worry about it. It's just something that feels nice and is enjoyable to do.

"It's abuse." The dictionary definition of abuse is maltreatment or cruel behaviour. If you say that any sexual activity is abuse, then you have to specify what you mean by the word and how it fits the activity. The opinion of the supposed victim must also be taken into account.

"It's always coerced/forced, because of the power imbalance."
This is actually relatively sensible, except that the argument is making a general assumption that isn't always true. While there is always the possibility, it is quite feasible that in any given situation any power imbalance is either not present or not a factor. Or, in fact, in the opposite direction.

"The child will always be harmed."
This is simply untrue. Again, with any statement that includes "always", you only need one example to the contrary to destroy your argument. There are many documented instances of children who had sexual relationships with adults and suffered no ill-effects at all, either at the time or later.

Now, let's look at the arguments for the "pro-contact" side.

"They enjoy it." While generally true, that's  not really a good argument for doing it. How do you know that your young friend is actually enjoying it at any given moment, or to the extent that you believe? I like chocolate, but I don't want it all the time.

"It's harmless." It probably is, most of the time, but how can you be sure? And how little damage is counted as "harmless"?

"It's not the sex, it's society that's got the problem." This might very well be true, but it's not really the point. The problem is that society's problem will become the problem of the child and his/her adult friend if anyone suspects what they are doing.

"It's fine, no-one will ever know." For one thing, there is no way to ensure this - it only takes a chance remark, or even a suspicion by a perhaps well-meaning busybody who puts two and two together, to set all sorts of wheels in motion and all hell will break loose. Society's problem, as mentioned above, will then be very much that of the people involved. Plus the fact that "no-one ever knowing" puts an unfair imposition of the young person, who has to keep secret what might be quite an important part of his or her life.

"But we love each other."
Love is, of course, wonderful, and something to be cherished, but being in love doesn't make you immune from the law, nor does it allow you to put the other person at risk.

"How can it be wrong when it feels so right?" Of course, this is a rhetorical question, though it is often asked. There is, at present, no sensible answer, but "wrong" is a value judgement and not actually relevant when deciding whether or not to do it at the time.

The problem is, regardless of the above, or other, arguments, it's illegal. If someone has sex with their young friend, they are breaking the law. In some places, the YF will be also. Let's look at the possible consequences of this. At the very least, the older person will be arrested, probably prosecuted, and very likely to be imprisoned. The police investigation will naturally also involve the young person, and the police may well interrogate him or her and not necessarily very nicely.

After that, there will be a court case, the older person will have a criminal record which will affect them for a very long time, possibly for life. They will be prevented from seeing their friend. They may be prevented from contact with their children or siblings.

The young person will have the trauma of seeing their friend arrested and locked up. They will be prevented from contacting them, so may have no idea what has happened and no way of finding out - it will look as though they have simply disappeared.

To avoid this, it will be necessary for the friends to keep their relationship, and possibly their friendship, secret. As I mentioned above, this simply is not fair on the young person; it is natural for someone to talk about their life and friends, especially when their life is happy and the friend is special. Even if they can manage this, a chance remark overheard by the wrong person can easily put the cat amongst the pigeons.

Yes, you can say that society has the problem, but when "society" - i.e. the authorities and the legal system, not to mention the tabloid media - gets on its hobby-horse, their problem very quickly becomes ours, and then the friends, both older and younger, are given the problems to suffer.

We must also, of course, mention those people who, for whatever reason (possibly one mentioned above, possibly not), will end up suffering mental stress following their relationship with their adult friend. We cannot deny this happens, though we may argue about the reasons. Can you say, with 100 per cent certainty, that your YF will not be one of these people? Of course not. Perhaps s/he won't; perhaps you can say s/he very probably won't, but that isn't good enough.

If you love someone, can it really be fair to put them at risk of all this happening? However unjust or invalid the rules might be, breaking them can cause so much trouble for all concerned that it really isn't worth the risk. Much better to enjoy a loving, fulfilling and mutually beneficial friendship without any risk of legal problems, than have some fun and run the risk of everything going pear-shaped.