Fantasies and Consent
28 February 2008Adult-attracted men - whether heterosexual or homosexual - often state that being attracted to children is wrong, citing a child’s inability to give informed consent as a justification for their stance. While I do not believe that children can give informed consent to engage in sexual activity with adults, for reasons both psychological and social, I feel that adult-attracted people are being horrendously hypocritical when referring to consent in fantasies.
It would be absurd to claim that adult-attracted people seek consent to fantasise about an adult. Indeed, men will typically fantasise about other men or women who would not - or could not - give informed consent to have sex with them. The fact of the matter is that most people don’t act upon abusive fantasies, which is also true in the case of paedophiles. Why is it that paedophiles’ fantasies - about people who can’t give informed consent - are apparently so different to adult-attracted peoples’ fantasies, which also frequently involve people who wouldn’t (or couldn’t) give informed consent?
People should analyse their own fantasies before they criticise those of others.
14 Responses to “Fantasies and Consent”
February 29th, 2008 at 6:55 am
Indeed:
Fantasy Is Not Reality - It’s Official …
http://forum.obu-investigators.com/viewtopic.php?t=890&highlight=fantasy
WM
February 29th, 2008 at 11:35 am
Most people are not particularly intelligent, but I think they can usually make some kind of distinction between fantasy and reality, despite the fact that they often expect the former to lead to the latter. It’s becoming increasingly evident that people hate MAAs primarily because of our fantasies, not simply because they expect all of us to offend.
We should attempt to show that most people don’t act upon fantasies which would cause harm, but - in a world where people are judged based on both their behaviour and their fantasies - we also need to challenge the idea that only MAAs fantasise about harmful behaviour
February 29th, 2008 at 10:06 pm
Blue ribbon you are just a piece of shit and know nothing, why are you still pretending to know something!
March 1st, 2008 at 9:42 pm
What a nice productive comment Llort.
March 2nd, 2008 at 4:09 am
Llort (AKA … too many to bother with),
What an intellect. Such an intellect, it is impossible to debate against.
Like with a worm.
Nigel.
March 3rd, 2008 at 12:17 pm
British law often prohibits materials, based on the possibility that they may “corrupt” someone, i.e. give them thoughts that may be inconsequential.
People should analyse their own fantasies before they criticise those of others.
Primarily, they should analyse the inconsequential (and remedial) nature of fantasies.
March 3rd, 2008 at 12:41 pm
“British law often prohibits materials, based on the possibility that they may “corrupt” someone, i.e. give them thoughts that may be inconsequential.”
UK law does indeed prohibit such material. It also prohibits material which has a tendency to “deprave”, under the same (Obscene Publications) Act. Precedents suggest that the Obscene Publications Act also prohibits materials which grossly offend against “the recognised standards of propriety”.
March 3rd, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Obviously I agree with the main point of your post – re. hypocrisy as it pertains to fantasy. Many would, however, query the ethereal notion of “informed consent” that you refer to – since there is no self-evident conceptual difference between a young person ‘consenting’ to go to the movies, to eating a bar of chocolate, or to engaging in physical intimacy. What definition of “informed consent” are you utilizing?
March 4th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
Strato,
First of all, penetration of a child by an adult could be harmful for physical reasons. Presumably you would not support such activity.
I also disagree with non-penetrative adult-child sex, as I believe that it can harm children psychologically. I feel that children who have not entered puberty do not have an innate ability to fully consent to sex; humans are only naturally ready to have sex once their bodies are sexually mature. If one is referring to sexually mature teenagers who are slightly under the age of consent, I suspect that harm would be caused primarily by social reactions and a lack of sex education.
Whether the inability to give informed consent is innate (as in pre-pubescents) or social (as in pubescents), I believe that an adult engaging in sexual activity with a child is engaging in an irresponsible and potentially harmful action.
March 6th, 2008 at 11:42 am
I take it that you were never a loved boy?!
Penetrative sex can always potentially be physically harmful, regardless of age or gender – but that’s no reason to criminalize it. Equally, playing football could be harmful, but it is not a criminal offense to do so. My position is therefore that no form of physical intimacy between two humans is a legitimate subject of criminal regulation.
Humans are ‘naturally’ ready for sex from birth. In exactly the same way as they are naturally ready to open their eyes or move their arms and legs. I had significant amounts of physically intimacy (’sex’) as a prepubescent, both with age-mates and adults. Telling another person that they cannot consent would be the equivalent of a Christian telling an atheist that god exists, but the latter just cannot see it; or a psychologist telling someone who has felt no harm that they were harmed, but are just in denial. In all such cases it deprives that other of their right to freedom of perspective, and is an attempt to impose a personal reality upon someone else’s reality. It may be that someone who did not experience being a loved boy is not able to conceive the possibility that a minor could ‘consent’…but again, that does not mean that the possibility does not exist for others. It all comes down to attempting to impose a personal view upon other people.
Perhaps where we diverge is also partly that you have a socially-constructed conception of ’sex’, i.e. upon the physical mechanics are placed culturally-imposed ’sexual mores’, which would naturally require the relevant socially-constructed notion of ‘consent’. My perspective on ’sex’ is of the physical interaction stripped of the burden of all received dogma.
The issue of an adult in contemporary society engaging in physical intimacy with a legal minor is one we have discussed previously: I can accept an argument to the effect that the minor may well suffer emotional harm as a consequence of a medical/legal investigation into the relationship if the relationship were discovered – and I certainly appreciate the logic and validity of such a viewpoint.
However, I would never accept a position that a mutual physical intimacy, in and of itself, would be harmful. I would also reject a position to the effect that the adult should make decisions on behalf of the minor – since that is to deprive the minor of his inherent free choice, and is, in effect, exactly the approach that the Antis currently take to intergenerational relationships (leading to a different outcome, perhaps, but it amounts to the same approach).
July 4th, 2009 at 12:55 pm
Strato, you make a valid point about the harmlessness of a mutually consensual sexual experience between two people reguardless of age, but I do not believe that a person is ‘ready’ for sex until he or she understands what sex is and has a genuine desire for it.
I also do not beleive that one who is not ‘ready’ as I have defined the term above would knowingly consent to a sexual act with an adult.
My advice to those attracted to children is this: Stick to lolicon, if you feel you need anything more than that and are willing to take the risks involved to get it, you are either dangerous or contributing to dangerous people, and you will not have me on your side.
If you obtained Child Porn without paying, you missed an opportunity to give whoever supplied it a piece of your mind, rather than taking their merchandice, as would have done anyone who cared a decent ammount for the safety and wellbeing of children.
July 6th, 2009 at 7:58 am
In response to Zen’s comment, I’m obliged to add that certain kinds of lolicon are illegal in some jurisdictions; illegal material should obviously be avoided. Generally, lolicon can be illegal if it is potentially obscene, or photo-realistic and pornographic or indecent.
November 15th, 2009 at 9:56 pm
I believe that if an adult is able to genuinely love a child and is able to express this love through physical intimacy and the child likes and welcomes this intimacy, then it is a good thing. Also, an adult should not probably expose their body to a child unless the child showed in interest or curiosity in such a situation. After all adults who are child lovers do not usually find adult bodies particularly attractive- one cannot automatically, or in some/most cases expect a child to feel any different. I hope the above is lucid enough.
November 18th, 2009 at 7:16 am
Thanks for your comment, anon.
For legal reasons, I must point out that certain kinds of physical intimacy and exposing one’s body to a child are illegal in many jurisdictions. This website advises everybody to avoid the risk of breaking such laws.