This is all ideologically based, I’m not encouraging or endorsing any illegal actions. These are my opinions on consent relevant to AMSC, human/nonhuman sex, and necrophillia.
I was going to wait until I did more reading on youth development before writing this but since that will probably take awhile I decided to write out my opinions in the meantime and just add a disclaimer: My opinions are currently founded mostly on my own thoughts and experiences, but also partly on research and observations. I’ll update the AMSC section after I’ve done more reading.
Laws should always be questioned, it’s not wise to trust authority just for the sake of trusting authority. Slavery and torture has also been legal; laws should never be the focus of your morality.
Adult/Minor Sexual Contact
I’m against AMSC and this is why I’ve used the term anti-contact. I’ve always used it as discouragement due to the risk of it causing harm, rather than thinking about consent as most people do. Instead of continuing to use this term I’m going to start saying this directly – “I’m against AMSC” If you want to still consider me anti-contact go ahead. If you want to consider me pro-contact I dislike that but I can’t stop you. Nobody has ever been happy with my contact stance except for me and the other anti-cs who use it the exact same way I have.
I haven’t elaborated on this before now but my actual ideological stance is pro-reform. I believe in youth liberation and I don’t believe in sex-negativity. I believe more support is better than oppressive control. This is also a relatively new stance so I haven’t gotten around to talking about it yet. I recommend reading the entire article linked.
The common belief (in the general public but also among some anti-contacts) is simply “minors can’t consent” and this is framing has multiple problems.
- This is a legal statement; Laws do not determine morals – They should be built based on harm prevention and support. They don’t determine development or capability.
- The AoC is different according to location and is often based more on “vibes” than science.
- Trying to define someone else’s experience for them is dehumanization and gaslighting.
- There are many people who experience AMSC as children and considered it positive.
- Of those people, some also experienced sexual abuse as children and the distinction between their consensual experiences and their abuse is important to them. Listen to all survivors, not just the ones who confirm your worldview.
I’m still against AMSC. Here’s why:
- Youth are an oppressed group who are legally dependent on adults.
- Sex education is poor to nonexistent, meaning most information would come from the adult.
- Youth are vulnerable due to less life/relationship experiences.
- Younger youth are still learning communication and developing reasoning skills.
- AMSC is illegal and therefor any relationship has to be hidden. This makes it much harder for either person to receive support if abuse begins. This can lead to social isolation. Youth wont feel safe seeking support if they risk endangering a loved one or losing their home.
- The legal system can be traumatic to both parties.
- Risk of danger. Even when a youth (usually teenage youth) desires a relationship there’s still severe social stigma, some people (who are looking for excuses to harm) will target the adult against the youth’s wishes, leading to harming both the youth and the adult.
- I don’t trust most adults to be a good partner and I don’t want to encourage them.
I don’t believe that sex is inherently harmful just based on age, here’s why:
- That ignores the experiences of many people. Yes, you can claim they were manipulated and brainwashed. But did you know law enforcement has also pushed children and teenagers, against their will, to make statements against adults they didn’t feel were true? How is that itself not manipulative? The youth’s experience and feelings should matter most of all. Expanding on that, stigma of AMSC and sexuality in general may add trauma if the young person didn’t originally feel traumatized.
- Sex, without social stigmas attached, is just a natural biological behaviour. It’s stimulation. Sex-negativity is puritanical, it comes from religious influence. Sex-shame is learned early because religious parents feel that sex is wrong and will teach this to their children through their attitudes about sex and sexuality. This internalized shame also causes harm as it will lead people to hide or repress aspects of their sexuality even into adulthood. Every person deserves the option for an open and fulfilling sexuality.
And for my own personal reason why, I fall under #5 of the reasons why “minors can’t consent” is a problematic statement. I experienced COCSA (around 13) and also experienced consensual sexual relations with adults (around 16) The former was unwanted and traumatic, the latter was desired. Those adults didn’t “groom” me, I sought them out online with the intention of getting sexual attention. I’ve never regretted it and I’ve never felt traumatized by it. Some aspects of those relationships were traumatic but not my sexual exploration, and at the point of those relationships becoming harmful I always cut things off. In contrast, the sexual harassment I received from my peer felt disgusting and traumatic. My consent isn’t equal to my violation; the distinction matters.
I also found the message of “minors can’t consent” traumatic as a teenager. I knew my own desires and feelings and adults (and the law itself) having ownership over my autonomy was deeply upsetting. I told myself I would never forget that, and I never have, and I never will. My body, my autonomy. I will never tell anybody they aren’t capable of knowing their own desires, even if I discourage acting on them.
I believe debating consent is somewhat beside the point though. AMSC has always existed and like it or not, it always will. What can we actually do to support those young people? We can empower them. We can listen to them and give them choices on how to move forward. In the majority of cases children who are abused and afraid to speak up, once they know the abuser wont have access to them again, will confide in safe adults. Young people will seek their own liberation from abuse if we empower them to do so. Instead of telling them how to feel we can just talk to them and support them; because they’re people and how they feel matters. Telling someone how to feel is manipulation.
I pose a question. Do AoC laws actually protect young people? I don’t believe they do. Children are legally owned by their guardians and 34% of CSA happens in the family, 53% are adults trusted with the child. 93% of CSA happens with someone who has direct power over a child, and as we all know, CSA continues to happen. This is because adults have direct and unquestionable power over youth. And since CSA continues to happen, regardless of even considering consent, we need to empower the child. The law (including AoC laws) strip youth of power and instead grant it to authorities or guardians. If a young person tries to report abuse or seek support in relation to AMSC they risk losing loved ones and/or their home, add onto that the social pressure over tearing your family apart, and most young people wont want to speak out. Our child protection laws are not only nearly useless, they may actually cause more harm by forcing secrecy.
Edit: Expanding on this because I didn’t go enough into my thoughts before. I don’t think they’re entirely useless laws. Every young person matters, so the laws are not sufficient as they are, but in current society I believe they’re better than nothing. At least I believe so. I appreciate there being a barrier keeping emotionally unhealthy and unstable adults from hooking up with or dating young people. But longterm this isn’t enough. Every young person needs access to support, fear of legal intervention outside their desires should not prevent that. They deserve empowered agency over their own lives.
Before we work on reforming the laws around that, the first priority should be addressing the way parental rights control young people and force them to stay in abusive situations. Its almost impossible for young people to escape abuse without abandoning everything they own, and because they often can’t work they also have no resources to stay afloat by themselves. While I dont like the idea of child labour, I recognize that the teenagers who want to escape abusive situations without being bounced around in an uncertain system deserve the choice to build their own lives up.
Another thing we need to work on is reforming society in multiple ways. The way we model relationships in media leading to unrealistic expectations, spreading mental health awareness, teaching better communication skills, and informing people of the ways youth are harmed in our current society. Thats the ultimate priority, that we support them and listen to them about their experiences.
I dont know if these issues will all be fixed in my lifetime, but I hope so for the sake of all youth. They deserve better. Growing up as a teenager sucked, I felt powerless and suicidal often. When told this, the counsellor at my school seemed awkward. He didn’t know what to say. No solutions were given, no advice beyond “stay in school” even though school at that time was having dire impact on my mental health (which was already very poor from abusive home life) – How many young people are growing up just like I did? I want better for all of them. (End of edit)
Please check out the National Youth Rights Association.
I’d also like to point out at this point that our legal system is more focused on punishing the wrongdoer than it is harm-prevention or support. Why? This ties into another belief I have removed from consent. The law doesn’t actually stop most abuse, but what it does do is make it impossible to talk about. Abusers (or even simply offenders) are ostracized whether victims want it or not, and we can’t address a problem we don’t understand. How can we best understand the problems as a society? Discussion. And how best can harmful people be rehabilitated? Support, which comes from discussion. And yet the law operates on fear and control that severely limits discussion. I believe the way the prison system currently works is not only unethical but also counterproductive. The answer has always been working together as people to solve our problems, no system of punishment and confinement will fix our problems for us. It can’t just be swept under the rug and ignored because it’s uncomfortable.
Anyway, I believe the answer to protecting young people is open discussion where they’re treated as actual members of society, and their thoughts and feelings are valued as such. Whether they choose AMSC themselves or are forced into it, they deserve the freedom to seek help without unwanted prosecution/relocation and with full support in enacting whatever progress they need. Youth that feel unsafe and mistreated wont choose to prolong their own misery, and a happy youth doesn’t need to be saved. Regardless of your personal feelings about AMSC, the young person’s happiness and wellbeing is most important because it’s their life and their feelings.
Other important information to consider: Emotional abuse of children is (likely) more common than CSA and generally has additionally harmful longterm effects. Obviously all abuse is wrong, but I think its interesting people will get reactionary over the mere idea of AMSC (whether considered positive or negative) and state the importance of protecting children – And yet, why is there no awareness about emotional abuse when it seems to be generally more harmful and widespread? Why does the abuse of our youth only make news or elicit outrage when it’s sexual? This is probably because of religiously influenced sex-negativity and sexual squicks, paired with a dire misunderstanding of the impacts of emotional abuse and neglect. This is also paired with people’s tendency to conform to social norms rather than challenge them. If everyone says something, it must be true, right?
I guess I’ll state here that I expect some people to assume the worst and assume I’d presenting this information for my own benefit being a MAP. I’d like to inform you that actually, minor attraction is a very minor (haha) part of my sexuality. Though people can believe what they want, I’m generally more attracted to adults than youths. I could pretend to be “normal” if I wanted to. I choose to be open because I try to stand for what I believe in, and I believe all feelings (attractions are feelings) are morally neutral and completely natural. I believe in reducing sex-shame of all kinds, and I believe normal is a construct that does more harm than good. I also want to be the kind of adult that would make my teenage self proud. I never forgot, have you?
I hope I’ve given you some things to think about. We need to build a safer future for our young.
Human/Nonhuman Sexual Contact
This one is kind of complicated (I say after having written an entire essay already) and my thoughts are much less well defined. I would classify myself complex-contact, leaning on the side of anti-contact. I don’t believe I can define others ability to consent, I think thats a pretty ridiculous claim to make. I’ve heard the argument before “They can’t understand what’s happening!” And I think thats simply foolish. A dog humping a pillow knows what its doing, it’s humping a pillow because it feels nice. Thats all there is to say. Nonhumans don’t have the complex pervasive sex-shame humanity does. The experience of pleasure alone isn’t going to be traumatic unless it becomes damaging.
However there are still a lot of factors here: What species, first of all? Because that in itself determines a lot. I’m also against any penetrative sex being done by the human, since consent in that state is hard to withdraw (a nonhuman might tense up/become afraid) and potentially damaging. There are also fawning behaviours where a nonhuman will do whatever might make the human happy. Theres also the possibility of the human being harmed, like one case I’ve heard about involving a horse.
I’m primarily sexually attracted to humans so this topic isn’t one I’m super invested in. I don’t have as much criticism for pro-c zoos as I do for pro-c MAPs if that says anything. With the obvious exception of pro-contact zoosadists (theres no argument for consent to be made there.) Pro-c zoos generally aren’t interested in just using and abusing nonhumans, they believe nonhumans are our complete equals. I have my concerns, but be respectful and careful, and be very mindful of the species (and individual’s) mannerisms. Want to reiterate I still don’t encourage this, even if you did everything right you could risk losing your nonhuman friend.
Oh, I do have one more point to make on this. I find it interesting how socially its considered more acceptable for us to farm, torture and confine nonhumans than for a human and nonhuman to have sex. Again, I can’t help but see the sex-negativity leaking in. Are you really concerned for the nonhumans, or are you just uncomfortable? If its about their consent, then why is it okay to imprison them in horrible conditions until they die and we eat them, surely they don’t consent to that.
Necrophilia (and cannibalism)
Finally, I get to say pro-contact to something! Pro-c with the requirement that consent be given before death. This one I do have an invested interest in, my ideal funeral would be a feast made of me. I love the idea of nourishing my loved ones and becoming a part of them. The cycle of life is beautiful, and I believe consensual cannibalism is a wonderful way to celebrate that cycle. Rotting in the ground or being burned to ash are both lacking in passion to me. My body, my choice, and I want to be eaten!
You can say technically thats not necrophilia, and thats probably true, but I see us in the same boat. I also definitely wouldn’t be against my corpse being used sexually beforehand, but I’m not particularly passionate about it either. If I can be eaten I’ll be satisfied.
There is no argument to be made against this position that holds any weight. Someone should be able to determine the fate of their own body after they pass. Restricting that is restricting autonomy and the wishes of the dead, and thats very disrespectful.
Thanks for reading, have a nice day 💙