“Adults generally consider it entirely proper that their wishes are deemed more important than those of children. This applies to every sphere, from important things like friends and beliefs, to trivial things like clothing. It’s ridiculous to claim that we make one exception to this, that an adult cannot force sexual activity on a child. In reality it is an exception only on paper, not in practice.”
– Kevin Schoedel
From the archives: First published in Taking Children Seriously 13, July 1994
[In this article, which was based on an Internet discussion, Kevin Schoedel argues that age-of-consent laws are ineffective, misused, and counterproductive.1]
When I and other children’s rights advocates were discussing age-of-consent laws with people opposed to children’s rights, the argument became heated and confused when someone mentioned the North American Man-Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).2
Roy Radow, of the North American Man-Boy Love Association, has claimed that NAMBLA is not, in any way, associated or involved in sex tourism or child prostitution in Asia or anywhere else in the world. Citing research into intergenerational relationships, he further claimed: “None of the boys experienced force or coercion, and no negative outcomes were observed for any of the boys. This is by far the most in depth study in the field.”
I have the uncomfortable feeling that the position of NAMBLA ranges from wishful thinking to wilful blindness. What does NAMBLA really do, in practice, to prevent members or others from engaging in unethical behaviour? As far as I can tell, nothing. They say they are for children’s rights but are they really?
Matt L. wrote: “I’d like to thank Reader’s Digest, for without it I would not have found out about the unspeakable acts of NAMBLA, such as promoting the abolishment of the laws regarding age of consent laws for children, and covering up paedophile acts in Asia and the US. But I tell you don’t take my word on it, read Readers Digest, October 1991. Then I hope more teens will wise up and begin to get a hold of their minds and their bodies.”
Is Reader’s Digest, as part of the religious right, intent on having teens and children get control of their bodies? I rather doubt it.
Every jurisdiction in the western world, at minimum, has some kind of age of consent law, with variations from here to there, more or less restrictive, more or less harsh in punishment … But show me one that works! Show me the jurisdiction where sexual assaults on children do not occur with epidemic frequency. Show me the place where a century of continual tinkering, not only by politicians looking for a risk-free vote-getter, but also by many sincere people, has come anywhere close to eliminating sexual abuse of children.
Why do people refuse to acknowledge that age-of-consent laws just don’t work, that there is a problem that they don’t solve? I’d say they are a convenient diversion, a way of directing an enormous amount of energy into something at best useless, and away from the possibility of a real solution—because a real solution would require more that legal fiction; it would require real changes that many people wouldn’t like.
Show me again the jurisdiction where age-of-consent laws are not misused to attack adolescent relationships that adults disapprove of. It seems to me that this disapproval is actually a significant reason for the creation of these laws. A few years ago during a course I took, the students were asked what they thought the age of consent should be, and why. Nearly everyone proposed 18, and said that younger people were not capable of making decisions about sex. Interestingly, all interpreted the law as a prohibition directed at people under the age, rather than at older people who would have sex with them, and none even mentioned the supposed goal of protecting young children from sexual assault. It was supported strictly as a control on adolescent sexual activity.
This interpretation does make some sense. After all, here in Canada as well as presumably most other places, sexual assault is illegal anyway, regardless of the age of the victim. If the goal is really to protect children from sexual assault (if only on paper), then why should a separate law be needed? Rape is wrong (I am not now talking specifically about children), because it’s against the will of the victim. From the legal point of view, this idea is quite recent. Consider for example the Old Testament, in which the ‘penalty’ for rape, in some cases, was to marry the victim. Or consider that in many places, it has only in the last few years become illegal for a man to rape ‘his’ wife. Rape was essentially a property crime, sexually using a man’s property without his permission, until women obtained the legal status of persons and established a concept of rape as violation of the victim’s will. As minors do not yet have the legal (or social) status of full persons, the laws regarding sex and minors continue to treat them as property that must be forbidden to damage itself.
Look at the patterns of who rapes whom. Generally, it’s men who sexually assault women, and adults who sexually assault children, not the reverse. Women who are mentally or physically disabled are more likely to be assaulted. Men are rarely sexually assaulted except within the hierarchy in prison. Always the patterns of sexual assault reflect the patterns of social value and practical power.
Adults generally consider it entirely proper that their wishes are deemed more important than, and should supersede, those of children, particularly ‘their’ children. This applies to every sphere, from important things like friends and beliefs, to trivial things like clothing. It’s ridiculous to claim that we make one exception to this pattern, to say that an adult cannot force sexual activity on a child. In reality it is an exception only on paper, not in practice.
To stop sexual assaults on children, children must have social value and practical power equal to that of adults. Laws that say that young people have no right to control their own bodies stand opposed to this goal. They contribute to the pattern of subjugation and subordination of children that permits widespread sexual assault against them.
Matt also said: “Face it, young people are not ready for sex. All too often we make the wrong choices.” I make wrong choices all the time, in fact I’ll admit to repeatedly making appallingly stupid and self-damaging decisions when it comes to relationships, but I’m still allowed to have sex.
The majority of adolescents do have sex. How can Matt say they’re “not ready”? Does he want the law to forbid adolescents from having sex? He should at least be honest about it, and not have the law pretend they don’t want to, or say they’re ‘not capable’ of it.
If Matt thinks that adults sit down and make carefully analysed rational decisions about whom to be attracted to, then he has a really big surprise coming! As far as I can see, the only people who could make rational decisions about sex would be those who don’t feel lust, namely prepubescent children! The situation Matt favours, as I see it, is that certain powerful people have the right to force certain powerless people to avoid sex. The situation that the rapist favours, is that certain powerful people have the right to force certain powerless people to have sex. Remarkably similar. I’d say, let’s not have any powerless people; let’s have people decide for themselves whether to have or avoid sex.
Ian S. wrote: “I’d doubt there were any studies done involving pre-teen youngsters. The evidence, in terms of self-help groups for self-defined survivors, seems to speak volumes.” I’ve always wondered why ‘sexual abuse survivors’ (in the formal, organised, sense) don’t support children’s rights. Most adult supporters seem in my experience into several recognisable categories: those who got into it before they became adults; some radical feminists; many anarchists; and a few others. Now of course many if not most of these people do happen to be abuse survivors, but the ‘movement’ of sexual abuse survivors, with its media coverage, best-selling books, lawyers and lobbyists, and so on, just doesn’t seem interested. Why? Maybe all that money and power, all the connections with the legal and social services systems, have just made them conservative. Just guessing.
Ian also wrote: “However, if you’ve ever had to treat a victim, and I have, you may feel considerable anger at NAMBLA.” I agree. However, it does not follow that age-of-consent laws protect children as intended. At the age of 11 or 12 I was sexually assaulted, in a fairly minor way, by an adult male. He did it because he was an asshole who didn’t give a shit what kids felt and put his own desires first. So I hate assholes who don’t give a shit what kids feel and put their own desires first—and the age-of-consent laws that violate kids’ rights in the name of child protection while failing to protect kids like I was.
Even if the normal pattern in our culture is for adults to impose their wishes on children, even if it’s totally accepted in every other sphere except sex, and accepted when it comes to forcing kids not to have sex, it’s still wrong.
Notes
1. Parents, be sure to read this important warning.
2. To read about a thought experiment about how it could be possible in principle for children to have full legal rights without that giving paedophiles licence to engage sexually with children, see Children’s rights and the law.
See also:
- What do you mean by ‘fallible’?
- That something is legal does not make it right or best
- Questionable motives?
Kevin Schoedel, 1994, ‘Age-of-consent laws fail to protect kids’ (slightly edited by the author in 2025), Taking Children Seriously 13, ISSN 1351-5381, pp. 12-14, https://takingchildrenseriously.com/age-of-consent-laws-fail-to-protect-kids