Most adults would not dream of belittling, humiliating, or bullying (verbally or physically) another adult. But many of the same adults think nothing of treating their adolescent child like a nonperson. – Laurence Steinberg
I’ve written before about the “Cult of the Child”, that strange Victorian belief system which has made a comeback in the past few decades and teaches that children exist in what cultists term “innocence”, a state of divine grace which can only be violated by direct or indirect action of adults. The die-hard child cultist imagines that if children (and their definition of that term extends far beyond that Nature uses) could somehow be kept from “bad influences”, they would be pure, asexual little angels until granted the right to be otherwise by the adults who own take care of them. Furthermore, child cultists believe that the longer childhood is extended, the better; many parents are now working assiduously to carry it at least into college.
This is insanity; in pre-industrial cultures people assumed adult responsibilities as soon as they could, usually by about 14, and in those cultures there was no such thing as adolescent rebellion. Indeed, the concept of adolescence itself is a relatively modern one, dating to the establishment of compulsory education and child labor laws in the late 19th century. And though I don’t think anyone wants to see 8-year-olds working on assembly lines again, it isn’t necessary to restrict teenagers as we do in order to prevent that. Though these laws are intended to protect teenagers, there is considerable evidence they have the opposite effect; as psychologist Robert Epstein explains,
…infantilization makes many young people angry or depressed…In most nonindustrialized societies, young people are integrated into adult society as soon as they are capable, and there is no sign of teen turmoil…But [in the West] young people can’t own things, can’t sign contracts, and they can’t do anything meaningful without parental permission—permission that can be withdrawn at any time…They are restricted and infantilized to an extraordinary extent…American teens are subjected to more than 10 times as many restrictions as mainstream adults…and even twice as many as incarcerated felons…[there is] also…a correlation between infantilization and psychological dysfunction. The more young people are infantilized, the more psychopathology they show. What’s more, since 1960, restrictions on teens have been accelerating…
I’m not arguing that teens should be given adult responsibilities as soon as they hit puberty; modern culture is too complex for that now. But what I am saying is that Americans as a group suffer from the peculiar delusion that if a little of something is good, a LOT of it is better; if you believe that, how about a nice plate of salt for dinner? Some restrictions on teens are helpful to them, but equating them with toddlers helps no one, neither the teens nor the parents who are held legally liable if they are somehow unable to control young people who may be just as competent, intelligent, resourceful and strong-willed as they are. And nowhere is this more true than in the area of sex; it is the hormones of puberty that drive young people to have sex, not knowledge or culturally-induced “sexualization”, yet Americans are committed to the self-destructive delusion that if we keep teens in ignorance about sex they’ll stay “innocent” and never think of having it themselves (in exactly the same way dogs, cats and other animals remain celibate for life unless humans teach them to have sex).
With rare exception, teen runaways leave home for a reason; they’re not lured away by “bad influences” or abducted by “traffickers”, but rather pushed away by factors such as physical or sexual abuse or parental rejection of their homosexuality or transsexuality. But because our laws define people under 18 as chattel, they can be arrested by cops and forced back into the situation from which they fled, or else sentenced to “child welfare” systems so horrible many of them return to the street as soon as possible. Child labor laws keep them from getting regular work (and such work would expose them to capture by police anyway), which leaves them with roughly three alternatives: theft, begging or prostitution; the latter is nearly always the easiest and most lucrative. The “trafficking” dogma is based in the “innocence” fallacy: the child cultists want to believe teenagers could never think of prostitution on their own, but this is total nonsense; teen runaways don’t need to be forced or indoctrinated into a form of exchange which predates the human species, and in fact (as revealed by a recent DoJ-funded study) 90% of them are not. Yet, nearly all current programs for dealing with teen prostitutes are based on exactly the opposite assumption, and if such a girl denies she has a “pimp” she is assumed to be lying.
Anyone who buys the “trafficking” narrative (or its underlying assumptions) might not understand why I was so critical of disguised prisons like “Freedom Place”, but even those who recognize it for what it is might rightly ask, “What’s the alternative?” Here are a few ideas that have been suggested by sociologists, human rights activists, sex worker rights activists and others who have looked at the issue from a harm reduction perspective rather than from a moralistic or legalistic agenda:
1) There is no material difference between sex for compensation and sex for social reasons except that those who fall into the latter are less likely to use condoms or good judgment. So, the state needs to pick an age of consent and stick to it, thus eliminating criminalization of motives for having sex. This is not to say that the state shouldn’t set some higher age at which a brothel or escort service can legally hire a girl, as long as the state recognizes that doing so means that the only sex work an underage teen can do will be on the street, and that the law isn’t going to stop her if that’s what she intends to do.
2) Stop pretending sex is some horrible, life-destroying thing; treat AoC violation like any other status offense such as underage drinking, and place the consequences equally on the minor and whoever assisted her. Furthermore, strict liability (i.e. penalties are inflicted even if the accused can convince a judge or jury he honestly didn’t know he was breaking a law) is an abomination no matter what the crime.
3) Stop pretending that people under 18 are “innocent children”; if the state intends to criminalize sex below a certain age, it needs to do so and eliminate the legal fiction that teens are literally unable to give consent. When a young adult is held responsible for violating a law (however arbitrary or unjust in her eyes) she can deal with the consequences, but pretending she’s a passive victim denies her agency and subjects her to indefinite confinement and open-ended, dishonest punishment.
4) Recognize that 90% of underage whores sell sex to survive, because laws prohibit their doing any other profitable work and applying to any standard job would expose them to arrest and return to whatever situation they’re running away from. They don’t hook because some “pimp” abducted them from their perfect, loving parents; they hook because they ran away from some awful situation and they’re hungry, cold and dirty. If the state really wants to reduce the number of runaways selling sex, it should establish (or allow charitable organizations to establish) drop-in shelters where runaways can come for food, a shower and a bed without fear of arrest. If you allow such shelters to confine the young people, or let even one cop ever walk through that door or hang around outside to harass them, the project is doomed.
5) If the state wants to reduce the number of runaways in the first place, it’s going to have to make it easier for minors to lodge civil complaints against parents for sex abuse and other serious mistreatment, seeking not criminal penalties but emancipation against parental approval; this should be granted not on factual findings, but on the basis of competency tests.
This isn’t a perfect world, and nobody is suggesting that any of these suggestions will create a Utopia in which no teen ever suffers or is exploited ever again. The philosophy of harm reduction is that rejecting compromise solutions because they “send a bad message” sacrifices real human lives on the altar of an unattainable perfection, and that the greatest good we can hope for is to establish policies which reduce the harm from people’s own (perhaps unwise) actions, and eliminate the harm inflicted by the brutal and mindless enforcement of ill-considered and moralistic laws.
We were talking about Zimbabwe the other day – well, the Rhodesian Light Infantry used to recruit kids as young as 16. These guys were incredible, they saw action almost daily and, in many instances, several times daily – dropping in and out of combat zones in the bush wars. They were certainly SpecWar caliber and we used some of their tactics against the Taliban in Afghanistan.
It’s pretty hilarious that a young 19 year old Marine can dive into a firefight with the Islamoidiots – escape barely with his life – and then, once he gets back to the base … he can’t have a beer with his fellow Marines!
It’s pretty hilarious that the Navy is scratching it’s head in San Diego – wondering why so many young Sailors are becoming the victims of crime in Tijuana. News Flash dummies – they go down there to DRINK. We used to give ’em alcohol on the base – but then they stopped that during Bill Clinton’s term as CINC. Essentially we forced them to go “learn” how to drink responsibly in a FOREIGN nation that will sell alcohol to kids who are 18!
I mean – I say this is hilarious – but it’s really sad. This is what we do to people who are of legal age!
Hey, a big thanks to you Maggie – and also – I forget her name (the blogger over at Tits and Sass) for giving me a different take on rape and how it’s not the worst thing in the world. I am the “poster child” for overprotective Dad and I’ve raised one girl and almost got another one raised here. My protectiveness of them wasn’t any kind of desire of my own to “control” them – I just wanted to protect them until they got old enough to make their own decisions. I was paranoid something might “ruin” their life before they got old enough to take care of themselves. As a Dad, and quite frankly I’m like any other Dad really – it’s the MOM the kids are always close to – I figured my main job was to offer sustenance and protection …
I’d prolly still gut the man who sexually assaulted one of my daughters – but, at least, I can still see them recovering from it – and with the things you have told us, idiots like me know how to offer that kind of support if the worst happens.
Charlotte Shane is the name of the lady at Tits and Sass, and she has published a number of excellent articles that may reveal themselves to a Google search. 🙂
Point 5 of your plan addresses making it easier for children to pursue action against their parents for sexual misconduct. I have concerns about that which stem from a case that happened to someone I know.
In this instance a young teen girl from a first marriage accused her step-father of sexually abusing her and her infant step-sister.
The man accused was a licensed healthcare worker who was immediately removed from being able to make his living based solely upon the accusation. He was forced to leave the home he shared with his wife (the accusing girls mother) and daughter, then below the age of one.
For over a year he had to endure constant investigation, handicaps upon his earnings, deprivation of involvement in the life of his daughter in addition to being forced to maintain two households and pay legal fees.
The finding, over one year later, was that the abuse never took place.
How, under your vision, are adults protected from false accusations? I have provided a real-life instance of such abuse that already occurs. By giving more power to charge such abuse how can we ensure that more innocent people (of all ages) are not abused by the legal system?
It’s a good question, and I look forward to Maggie’s answer. I won’t try to answer it myself, but I will point out that this real life example occurred under the current system of teen infantilization. It was perhaps (and I can only say “perhaps”) exacerbated by the assumption that an “innocent child” wouldn’t make up such a thing. What does a baby know about sexual abuse, unless it’s been done to her?
1) Not children; adolescents. Big difference.
2) The problem is not with the fact of accusation, but with the rules of evidence and extrajudicial punishment. Laws that allow people to make accusations without having to do so in court, and without having to offer some kind of proof of those accusations, are always wrong because they open the door to monstrous abuses. Furthermore, punishing people (by incarceration, job loss, destruction of reputation, etc) for unproven accusations is also always wrong unless A) the crime is extremely serious, like mass murder; and B) a judge grants some order for such based on a preliminary evidence finding by a properly-convened grand jury or request for emergency confinement by some appropriate agency.
3) I do not support ANY kind of criminal proceedings on testimony alone, because even sincere eyewitness testimony is unreliable, and much of the rest is a mass of lies. Were I the dictatrix it would be a case of “no physical evidence, no trial”.
4) You will notice I said “civil complaints”, not criminal charges. I reread that paragraph and realized it was poorly phrased, so I’ve rewritten it to make it clearer. The ONLY result of such a complaint should be to allow the minor to leave the house and live on her own, free to work at any job for which she’s qualified regardless of calendar age, free to enter rent agreements, and free from the threat of compulsory return to the parental home. Certainly a few smart-ass kids will try this without good reason, but I doubt many will be willing to give up the free ride their parents provide unless they are strongly motivated to do so.
This sounds like the work of Child Protective Services – am I correct? I mean the cops violate rules all the time but they are generally forced to adhere to some general rules regarding constitutional rights.
But, when it comes to CPS – oh no. I’m clueless as to why they’re allowed to get away with it – but I’ve seen it happen again and again and again, where they just violate the hell out of an individual without even a “by your leave”. No one questions them – I’ve seen people who questioned them end up getting investigations filed on them! They work just like Gestapo.
I know Maggie don’t like Cops – but, in my opinion, Cops are an order of magnitude better than any CPS caseworker. The lowest bastards on the planet work for Child Protective Services – and, pardon me my estrogen-gifted sisters – but most of these caseworkers are women. Neo-Feminists … Feminazis …
If you are man and they have their sights set on you – you are a bear trapped in a steel trap and the only way you’re getting out of it is to cut your dick off. Do it with something dull and rusty – and maybe it will provoke some sympathy out of them … but I really doubt it since these witches are the lowest of the low.
The law is, and has to be, arbitrary. The problem has arisen with the gradual removal of the ability of the system to exercise judgement. Take the phrase, ‘informed consent’. We all know ‘children’ who could give such consent, just as we know adults who could not. The law sets an arbitrary age at which such consent can be given. But the system’s administrators were intended to exercise mature judgement when the law collided with reality; when the correct decision was to set aside the law, because of the special circumstances of that case. This was never perfect; but with ‘mandatory sentencing’ and other strictures, the arbitors of the system lack the power to make those judgement calls.
While thats the ideal, Bruce, and I support that ideal, Maggie’s examples highlight so many places where the reality falls deeply flat.
Corrupt, biased and politically incentivised judges; Corrupt lawyers with prosecution immunity for misdeeds; Corrupt cops lying under oath.
It’s … unrescuable if you ask me, without serious civil unrest.
Maggie,
Would you consider a minor who is successfully supporting themselves by non-aggressive means to be, ipso facto, an emancipated minor?
Yes, I think so, but of course the law doesn’t agree and would still classify such a person as a “child”, and thus subject to police “tracking” her into prison, a warehousing facility (“foster home”, “reform school”, etc) or the home she fled.
Maggie wrote:
While I agree that “emancipation against parental approval” is a major hurdle for many teens who desperately need emancipation, I think that at least in California (where I am somewhat familiar with general laws) the other requirements are fairly reasonable.
For an example, see the Orange County Courts synopsis:
What are the requirements for a judicial declaration of emancipation?
* You must be at least fourteen years old.
* You must be living apart from your parents with their consent.
* You must be managing your finances and have a legal source of income.
* The judge must find that emancipation is in your best interest.
* The judge also wants to see that you are in school or have a GED.
* If you are a dependent or ward of the Juvenile Court you must file your petition in the Juvenile Court.
A GED is not difficult to obtain. I’ve known motivated kids who did so simply to get out of HS and into college as soon as possible.
Having a job or legal source of income can be difficult in many cases. But one could simply take any minimum wage job for the purpose of getting emancipation papers.
This is not legal advice, but I think that if a parent has actual notice of an emancipation hearing (ie: there is acceptable proof that parent was served notice), but fails to attend or otherwise object through a representative, the judge might consider that to be consent or acquiescence by the parent.
It may also be possible for a minor to get free legal assistance for emancipation from various organizations such as Legal Aid, depending on where he lives.
I’m mentioning these things to point out that even under the present (and admittedly bad) legal system, it is still possible for a savvy and determined young person to become emancipated. The greatest present difficulty may be that there is not a well known and widely available organization from which such minors can get legal and other assistance for it.
“A legal source of income” though, often runs afoul of Federal Child Labor laws …
So this turns into another “soup sandwich”.
That all sounds very sensible and fair, though of course a parent can tie it up just by saying “no”. So really, my suggestion would only require getting around that (in California, at least).
krulac wrote:
Yep. Would also point out that a GED may relieve a minor of some of the limitations on hours.
Yeah I reread that and I think you are right. I still think it’s hilarious though that they have a limitation on working around certain kinds of machinery classified as “dangerous”. Maybe a donut cutting machine would be considered “dangerous”? Sooo – a kid can’t work in a donut shop?
Well why would he anyway – there’s so many cops in there afterall! 😛
Maggie wrote:
Another “footnote” to my general statement above — Courts have some power to waive parental consent. I don’t know the legal standard for a showing that waiver is proper in a given case. But if you look at the OC courts link above, click on What information should I include in my paperwork?, you will see that a court can waive the requirement for parental notice. It’s the last point in the list.
Another “footnote” — Nolo Press has a very informative book on emancipation. A young person considering petitioning for emancipation can probably find it at a public library.
Here’s a good book I would recommend to young adults:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0962959170/ref=mp_s_a_1?qid=1343950604&sr=8-1
Certainly our society sends mixed messages. Jurisdictions want to try adolescents as adults when it comes to crimes they are accused of but the same person is not considered and adult in any other circumstance.
I think you have a good vision that would be a great goal, but there are bound to be a lot of baby steps between here and there.
THANK YOU for pointing this out! I suspect most of us already know it, but just in case somebody doesn’t, or in case somebody forgot, it’s good to have it pointed out.
Somewhat OT but any thoughts on: http://townhall.com/tipsheet/elisabethmeinecke/2012/07/30/fbi_informants_speak_out_eric_holders_doj_is_ignoring_child_sextrafficking_victims
It seems unlikely. But I don’t see where any of the sources have previously outed themselves as liars.
Nutshell version: Even after redefining a dozen different crimes and offenses as “human trafficking”, the DoJ can’t conjure up enough victims to make the fanatics happy; therefore they must be “ignoring the problem” because if the facts don’t fit the theory, it is the facts which must be discarded.
Thanks for this; I can’t fit it in this week’s TW3 but it’ll go into the next one. 🙂
I can agree with all of your 5 points except #1. I believe that government should try to protect children from abuse by adults, especially those who have authority over them, without criminalizing the fact that they may want to do things on their own or with others near their own age. The graduated “age of consent” law they have in Germany is the best I’ve seen.
I would also like to see the law step back from criminalizing the discussion of sex where kids might read it, especially in places like Internet boards which can be monitored to prevent people from actually meeting. The biggest result of the “innocence” insanity is that many young people reach adulthood without any knowhow at all, because the system has effectively made any attempt to teach them what they’re doing a worse crime than teaching them how to build atom bombs. (My friends joke that every generation thinks it invented sex. How about a world where every generation *doesn’t* have to reinvent it?)
Good point, and in fact we insist that each generation reinvent sex via trial and error. Then we point to the errors and say, “You see?! You SSSEEEE!?! They’re too dumb for sex!!”
Maggie,
You know that most middle-class people will elect a dictator-for-life in order to “protect the children” – this is the reason that, while your argument is severe in its logic and reasonableness, many people will accuse you of blasphemy, more or less, people who would otherwise agree with you.
I do know this; I also know that “this too shall pass”, as it did in the first two decades of the 20th century.
>If the state really wants to reduce the number of runaways selling sex, it should establish (or allow charitable organizations to establish) drop-in shelters where runaways can come for food, a shower and a bed without fear of arrest.
Spot on. Something like this would do so much. Public health care, and the ability to utilize such without being arrested and sent home would be another big thing.
Now when I was 15, and first on my own, I had a good fake ID, and was able to get work waiting tables. and yes, I was serving alcohol under age. What of it? Serving it didn’t equal drinking it. I was barely able to make enough money to survive at this, and so, when I was 18, and the strip bar upstairs offered me a job, I took it.
I also made ends meet with occasional ticks. It was so easy. I never stood on street corners, dressed provocatively. I didn’t need to. To my initial surprise, I got propositioned just walking around, even heavily dressed against the cold.
[…] have no active role and that the legal fiction of a minor’s inability to give consent describes anactual, factual condition of passivity. Saying that a whore “is trafficked” automatically implies the existence of a […]
[…] The story treats this as though it were something remarkable, but it is nothing of the kind; the majority of underage prostitutes (or as they’re now labeled, “sex trafficking victims”) in the US have been in the “foster care” system at one time or another, and in the UK about 90% of teen sex workers who are forced into the system will escape at the earliest possible opportunity (though their agency is denied by the myth-makers, who claim they are “tracked down by their traffickers and disappear from care”). So entrenched is belief in the incompetence of young people, and so tenacious the need to believe in their asexuality and “innocence”, that child cultists prefer to imagine young sex workers as doggedly pursued by ninja “pimps” who can undetectably spirit them away from houses and institutions without ever getting caught, rather than recognize the obvious fact that they simply prefer making their own way in the world to regimentation, surveillance and virtual (or actual) imprisonment. As I wrote in “Too Young To Know”: […]