User:Lysander/Critique of Nature of the Problem
- This is an essay. The views expressed are not necessarily those of BoyWiki.
Nature of the Problem states:
| “ | Youth rights and participation must be an integral part of our eventual activism (without a broader movement to fall back on, we are doomed), and we must seek to challenge pre-existing belief systems and power structures as well as taking advantage of them! And whilst labelling may be of use at a personal, and consensual group level, attempts to label a whole movement with terms such as "sex offender" (implying only legal persecution) or "child love" (implying only pedophilia/older partner status, and most problematically, exclusive adulthood) need to be dismissed at this early, formative stage. It doesn't take long to find individuals working for our cause who conform to no such label. Political libertarians and dissidents of various forms. Adults who as youngsters, experienced a physical relationship in terms that our culture does not allow them to express! Lets encourage such people, because without them, we are weaker and far easier to dismiss! | ” |
Do we really need to be part of a larger youth rights movement, in order to succeed? Children currently have very few rights, but they are allowed to have sex with each other. Why would it be a big deal to expand that autonomy to allow them to have sex with adults as well?
The framework within with adult-child sex could take place need not be one in which children have freedom of choice, though. Already, children lack freedom of choice with regard to what chores they'll be forced to do, or what time they'll go to bed. Their parents or guardians are given the responsibility of making those decisions for them. Why would it be such a radical proposal to also have parents of guardians make sexual decisions for the children under their care?
Parents are even allowed to make decisions for their children that some might regard as permanently harmful, such as circumcision or spanking. They can choose their children's education, subject to a few regulations established by the state. They can choose what church, if any, their child goes to. They can choose what filters will be placed on their child's Internet browser, or ban their child from the Internet altogether. They can search their child's room and person at any time. They can forbid their child from associating with whatever other people they consider a bad influence on their child. They can tell their child "give me a hug" or "give me a kiss" and basically demand affection. Etc., etc. So what is the big deal about also choosing with whom their child shall have sex, especially once this has become socially accepted and normalized?
