Miscellany:Emancipation of young men
|This was removed from the platform of Larson for Delegate.|
I think that families will be better off when teenage men are given freedom to work, sign binding contracts, come and go as they please, and fulfill the other responsibilities of adulthood; and when fathers are allowed to marry off their teenage daughters. With the responsibilities that are given to young men should also come rights, and therefore minimum ages for drinking, smoking, driving cars, etc. should also be abolished.
In the manosphere, we often hear people remark at what bondage a man is in when he is forced to take care of his offspring for 18 years. Men fight endlessly in the family courts for custody of their kids, since they don't want to lose the ability to see them until they reach the age of 18.
What if, instead, young men were emancipated at an earlier age, such as 7 or 14 or, as libertarians would advocate, whenever they choose to emancipate themselves? A man with a 6-year-old son might choose to not fight his wife for custody, since the kid is soon going to be set free to be with whomever he wants anyway, by the time the case is decided. Think of all the legal fees and the emotional toll that would save, for all parties involved.
Teenage men often get into trouble with the law because they have all the hormones and much of the intelligence of adults, yet few productive activities to channel their energy into. They are taught in school about their future careers, but their studies would probably be more meaningful and interesting to them if they were also doing work that was relevant to their studies.
By their teens, a lot of men already have some idea what their passions are, and what they want to do when they graduate. For example, by middle school, I was already signing up for business electives, and eventually became an accountant. I think now, how much better would it have been if, in my early or mid-teens, I'd been able to start working as an accounting clerk and begin advancing through the ranks while taking evening classes directly related to my profession, rather than spending so much time being forced to read the works of Shakespeare and calculate the cotangent of angles, and earning no income.
It's no secret that the sexual hierarchy favors alphas more than ever. Alphas in their teens and 20s use their social dominance to bang most of the high school and college girls while penniless betas in that same age group look on helplessly with dismayed jealousy and frustration. Betas need all the early start they can get in order to even the playing field. If they can start the process of making money and progressing in their career track in their early teens, taking on more and more advanced responsibilities, they have a chance of becoming a mature and financially stable provider sooner in life.
A man's 20s are in many ways the most important decade of his life. Those are the years when, in many respects, he is at the height of his physical and intellectual powers. Studies show information processing speed peaks earliest, around age 18 or 19, and short-term memory is strongest at about age 25. Yet in our society, which overeducates (and/or miseducates, teaching them a bunch of useless knowledge and politically correct propaganda) and underworks teenagers, a man in his 20s is often just getting started at an entry-level internship.
If a man starts his career earlier, he will have more years of productivity in his life, and can spend more time at the peak productivity that comes with experience, or reach a higher peak. He will produce more real wealth (i.e. more and better goods and services) over the course of his life. It will become more feasible for a single-income household to have the same quality of life as a dual-income family. Not only that, but if teenage men are able to work, they will be able to financially contribute to their families, further reducing the need for their mothers to work.
For men, the age of majority needs to be either drastically lowered, or eliminated altogether. For women, the the age of marriageability should be abolished. Keeping young people shackled to their parents and the public education system is causing untold misery and destroying families. It isn't keeping children safer; it's putting them at risk of birth defects; of having to live in broken homes; and of being tempted, out of boredom, into crime, drug use, out-of-wedlock sex, and many other vices. We're facing a demographic collapse that makes it impossible to maintain our population without bringing in immigrants, with all the effects (good or bad) that will have on our culture. We're losing some of our competitive edge against rapidly developing nations that have stronger families, partly because they have fewer restrictions on young people's putting their youthful energies where they will be most productive in the workforce (in the case of men) or the home (in the case of girls).
Some might argue, if young men are emancipated at a young age, then older men and women might have sex with them. This is not a problem. The age of consent was originally instituted as a way of preserving the marriageability of girls. It did not apply to young men, because it was recognized that young men's sexual market value is not affected by how many sex partners they have had. Even culturally, young men who have sex with attractive female teachers are often viewed as lucky rather than victimized or exploited, because every man can put himself in the shoes of the young man and realize that if he had been in that young man's place, he too would have had sex with the teacher, and enjoyed it.
As for sex between young men and older men, some of these younger partners have later said that the relationships were beneficial. There has long been a tradition of pederasty in the gay community, which both younger and older partners have described as serving a purpose of mentorship and friendship. Many of the sexual activities that gay men engage in with young partners, such as giving their young friends fellatio, carry little or no risk of HIV infection passing to the younger partner. This being the case, there is no reason to worry about the younger partner being too young, immature, or uninformed to be able to properly consent, since the act is fairly harmless.
Arguments with regard to informed consent
Someone was recently telling me, "And the child-adult sex statements -- there are few libertarians who would say that consent can be obtained from someone who is mentally unable to provide informed consent."
The thought that always comes to my mind when I hear such comments is, "That makes it sound like kids wouldn't be able to do anything at all, if we assume that they're too stupid to understand sex till they turn 18. If they can't understand sex, what CAN they understand? And if understanding is necessary before taking action, what action can they take?"
There seem to be three categories of activities:
- Those that kids can be allowed (or even forced) by a parent to do
- Those that kids can be allowed, but not forced, by a parent to do
- Those that kids can neither be allowed, nor forced, by a parent to do
In the first category, we have, for example, eating. Kids can pretty much eat whatever they want, as long as their parents say it's okay. Parents can also compel their kids to eat certain foods. But isn't it true that certain foods (e.g. trans fats) can be harmful to kids, especially if large quantities are consumed? And isn't it true that young kids might not understand these consequences? Of course.
In the second category is sex with other kids. As a parent, it's your call whether you want to tell your kid, "Go ahead and mess around with that other kid if you want" or "No, you need to keep your pants up or you're getting a spanking." Is it possible that harm might come from having sex with other kids; and is it possible that kids might not understand the potential for that harm? You tell me.
People say, "Kids trust and obey adults, and will feel betrayed if they find out the adult was seeking his own sexual gratification." Do kids ever naively believe what another kid says, and get suckered into some scam? All the time. When you were a kid, didn't you ever lend another kid a toy, or candy, or money, with the expectation that you'd get it back later, but it never happened? Isn't it conceivable that a kid might trick another kid into having sex? You tell me. So then, why isn't that criminalized? One can't argue, "Kids can't be held criminally accountable," because kids are held criminally accountable for many other offenses. What makes sex so different?
You can't tell your kid, "You WILL have sex with that other kid, or you're getting a spanking!" Sex is treated as different than eating, because while you could force your kid to ingest vegetables, you can't force him to accept another kid's penis into his body. Yet, non-sexual forms of affection do fall in the first category. You can force your kid to hug someone, for instance. You can also force your kid to provide non-sexual companionship; e.g. you can tell him, "You WILL go to this movie and dinner with me."
In the third category, we have, for example, sex with adults. As a parent, you can neither permit it nor order it. Of course, we know from David Finkelhor's literature that the harm from adult-child sex is said to come from traumatic sexualization; stigma; betrayal; and powerlessness. One of those four, powerlessness, also pertains to forcing kids to do other stuff (e.g. eat vegetables). Betrayal might also apply if the parent, for selfish reasons, forces his kid to do stuff with him, even if it's not sexual in nature. Stigma is mostly a matter of culture, and might not apply in another culture. Traumatic sexualization? You tell me if you felt traumatized.
Traumatic sexualization seems to be based on the idea that if kids have sex before they're ready for it, they will be sexualized in a traumatic way. Wouldn't that also apply if kids have sex WITH OTHER KIDS before they're ready for it? All the other arguments for why adults shouldn't have sex with kids, such as that kids might develop of habit of seeking attention and love through sex, could also apply to sex with other kids. It doesn't seem implausible that a kid might say, "If you want to be part of our club, you have to pull your pants down and get sexed in." (Okay, that's more of a gang initiation ritual, but you get the point.)
Is there anything else besides sex with other kids that falls in that second category? What criteria does society use in deciding which activities will fall in which categories? I assume there was a very logical, systematic, orderly, and evidence-based thought process for making these determinations, right?