MIM Notes 227                   February 1, 2001

Age of consent debated

Comrades,

I received my copy of MIM Notes 220, and as always I absorbed the 
articles. There is one article that caught my attention. My 
critique is of MIM Notes Oct. 15, 2000 pg. 4. The comrade who 
wrote the article was completely in error in saying "MIM is in 
favor of seeing sex education completed by the age of 12 and 
lowering the age of consent to 13."

This comrade is in error, although MIM is in favor of lowering the 
age of consent for sex, however there is no set age number as of 
yet, and I doubt 13 will be it. Further to state "If these other 
adults had taken the same stance as MIM, then no one would have 
wondered what the 12 year old boy knew when Horton came across his 
path."

Irregardless of what the boy "knew" let's talk about what Horton 
ITALknewEND, 1) he knew he was a grown man; 2) he knew the boy was 
12; 3) he knew that's a crime in amerikkkan society; 4) he knew he 
was not a woman; 5) he knew the boy was interested in a woman. Yet 
he was still going to have sexual intercourse with the boy. Hmmm, 
sounds like a very sick man, who wants to have sex with young 
boys! Then he dresses like a female to trick the boy into 
believing he is a she, thus even if the child was properly 
educated by the age of 13, he still may not have known the 
difference. Therefore his choice still would not have been an 
educated one and the after effects of such an act are a crime 
within themselves; under any government! Unless you're saying we 
should educate our children to look for men who dress like women? 
No, men who want to dress like women for intercourse with other 
men should choose mature, intelligent men to indulge in such acts, 
and not prey upon the ignorance of young children!

Comrade Marx said in the Communist Manifesto: "Do you charge us 
with wanting to stop the exploitation of children by their 
parents? To this crime we plead guilty. But you will say we 
destroy the most hallowed of relations when we replace home 
education by social. And your education! Is not that also social 
and determined by the social conditions under which you educate, 
by the intervention, direct or indirect, of society, by means of 
schools etc.? The communists have not invented the intervention of 
society in education; they only seek to alter the character of 
that intervention and to rescue education from the influence of 
the ruling class."

This does not mean in and of itself that we Maoists will 
unconditionally usurp home education or parental guidance, we will 
simply enhance that guidance and education under socialism then 
communism. Therefore, if a parent feels their child at 13 is not 
yet prepared to make such a choice as to sexual preference, then 
the parent is entitled to keep said child from having to make said 
decision, and or engaging in such sexual activity. And the parent 
need not worry about the communists interfering in such a 
judgment! Further the principle role of MIM as a socialist or 
communist government[sic], in dealing with education will be to 
raise social consciousness on all issues concerning our 
egalitarian society, so that the choices made therein will be 
truly educated ones, and not the product of desperation or 
destitution as they are under the present racist plutocracy under 
which we now live as captives. That is one of the principle ways 
we will alter the character of intervention!

As I remain a revolutionary soldier, a New York prisoner

MIM replies: This comrade has significant differences with MIM 
over the issue of the patriarchy and youth oppression. His 
statement that a parent can keep their child from having to make a 
decision is giving in to paternalism and is quite contrary to the 
quote from Marx given above. As MIM wrote in the 1996 Congress 
resolution on Youth, Sex, and Gender: "Parents who attempt to 
endanger their children's health through ignorance will be 
forcibly repressed if necessary. The health rights of children 
including health education are non-negotiable." No one has the 
right to withhold information from anyone else for backwards moral 
or religious reasons. 

In his letter, the comrade points out that sex with Horton could 
not have been a free choice for the boy because he didn't know 
Horton was a man. This is not an argument for keeping youth from 
making decisions, rather it underscores MIM's point about the need 
for frank sex education, especially under the system of patriarchy 
that exists. Sex education should be completed before age 13 and 
should discuss cross-dressing (as long as it is relevant): kids 
should be armed to tackle reality, not protected from it. This 
doesn't excuse Horton for taking advantage of his position of 
power, and in this situation the boy was 12 years old which means 
that MIM would agree that he could not have consented to sex 
regardless of whether Horton was a man or a womyn. 

MIM does believe that the age of consent should be lowered to 13. 
In doing this. MIM is taking a stand against the patriarchal 
paternalism that keeps youth subservient and dependent on their 
parents for 18 or more years in the u.s. MIM believes that youth 
are very capable of making informed decisions about their lives by 
the age of 13, provided the necessary education has been available 
to them.