Debate Guide: The hypocritical establishment
- Claims that age of consent and anti child - porn laws' function is to 'protect children' are rendered doubtful by the fact that the very same governments will allow foreign children to be abused in waged slavery for their own economies' benefit, and will punish children in much the same way as an adult, when they see fit (compare the treatment of a teenage boy caught in possession of a) a knife and b) a penis). In many countries a child is potentially responsible for his decision to commit crime from the age of ten or even earlier; if capable of choosing to commit burglary or murder crime at 10, why not sexual relationships?
- Established thought hypocritically suggests that we should "instinctively" protect and care for the "innocence" of "our own" children, but not that of others. Is such a double standard (based on irrational self-interest) to be trusted as an adequate structure upon which policy can be based?
- If governments were genuinely concerned about "protecting children", they would be concerned with ensuring that minors grew up with better knowledge of sexuality, and the valid, age-indiscriminate pleasures that can be derived from it. Instead they repress minors, not only denying their sexuality but keeping them in ignorance regarding sexual matters. The best way to 'protect' minors is not to deny them education and the freedom to choose, but to empower them with control over their own bodies; the power to say 'yes' as well as the often encouraged power to say 'no'.