The Age of Consent

READ ORIGINAL POST FIRST! What should the age of consent be?


  • Total voters
    16
As I said, I didn't revive the topic, and I'm rather sick of a topic where I'll simply be disingenuously quoted out of context by fools who can't win through honesty. I just regard this as another age restriction parallel to the others I oppose, as I established in my youth liberation thread.
 
Werbung:
Whelp you are pretty freaking wrong. I have spent way too much time in therapy with other girls who were molested and raped as children, and I am here to tell you that you can tear a girl's insides up when a grown man has sex with a child. Some of them can not conceive children, some have a hard time conceiving, most can not really enjoy sex or they are so over sexual. But none of us were “normal” because if sick warped twisted men who cared more about their twisted disease than they did the life of another human being.

If I knew you in person I would be in jail because there is no way I could hear you talk about little children this way and do nothing. You should find a group of women who were raped, molested as kids and see what they are going through every single day of their lives because of it.

I pray to god you are just a sick MF who is only thinking about this sort of stuff and not someone who is or has acted on it.


You have satisfied my curiosity, you are one seriously mentally sick person
And I have no desire to talk any further with you about any topic.

K well he opposes physical harm and rape is physical harm, so.......

I'd give him the benefit of the doubt regarding consent as well since that's what wage-slavery is predicated upon.
 
There is one problem with the wage-slavery argument though.

Wage-slavery is based on a relativist approach dealing with welfare with an arbitrary benchmark set for what a decent standard of living is. This arbitrariness lends itself towards a vague and very porous linguistic barrier since action can/might be deemed morally obligatory or at least permissible without explicit consent. For example, a commune redistributing wealth for the good of those who don't know better.

Ergo, morally speaking, what's to keep some from claiming the same alibi for having sex with the naive?
 
There is one problem with the wage-slavery argument though.

Wage-slavery is based on a relativist approach dealing with welfare with an arbitrary benchmark set for what a decent standard of living is. This arbitrariness lends itself towards a vague and very porous linguistic barrier since action can/might be deemed morally obligatory or at least permissible without explicit consent. For example, a commune redistributing wealth for the good of those who don't know better.

Ergo, morally speaking, what's to keep some from claiming the same alibi for having sex with the naive?


sex with a 7 year old is not acceptable for any reason. I think the naive are tricked into sex often, hopefully they have family members to help protect them.

The conversation about the 7 year old is in a few posts, I cut and pasted them so you could see them in context.


Below are all the post in context between me and Agnapostate...

Post 5 Originally Posted by Pandora
So tell me
A 60 year old man and a 7 year old girl, He tells her he will buy her a new bike if she plays along with him and she wants the bike bad enough that she agrees to be sexual with him. Do you think this should be legal?


Post 6 Originally Posted by Agnapostate
I think this is a sign of the exploitative hierarchical authority relationships caused by capitalism and wage slavery, but I would not view it as inherently worse than other forms of wage slavery, no.


Post 11 Originally Posted by Pandora
do you think it is morally acceptable for a man to have a sexual relationship with a 6 month old


Post 24 Originally Posted by Agnapostate
If a man attempted to have sex with a six month old child, that would physically harm them, and physically harming six month old children is morally unacceptable.


Post 25 Originally Posted by Pandora
you did not have a problem when it was a 7 year old, do you not realize that it will harm a 7 year old also.
at what point do you think it is ok for a grown man to have sex with a child, at what age ?
and since your issue is that it would physically hurt the child, what about other types of molestation to the child that is not physical penetration. are you ok with doing this to a 6 month old?


Post 27 Originally Posted by Agnapostate
Neither penetration nor most other types of sexual behavior would typically induce physical harm upon a 7 year old.
My objection to a man attempting to have sexual intercourse with an infant is that such an act could cause severe physical trauma to an infant. The other instances of sexual interaction that you are presumably referring to are wrong inasmuch as they cause the infant to suffer. Suffering is a core issue in the consideration of every single being, be it human or otherwise.


Post 27 is the last post he made to me about the topic, its all I have to understand his point of view.

If you notice, he is saying penetration nor most other types of sexual behavior would not hurt a 7 year old, but he objects to grown men having sex with infants because it could cause severe physical trauma. He is the one who started the thread and advocated abolishing age of consent, then said sex wont hurt a 7 year old, but objects to sex with infants becaus it could hurt them. Actually it would hurt and infant not could hurt an infant and it would hurt a 7 year old too!

Unless he explains to me post 27, I dont see how I can change what I think this says.
 
Well it's a matter of anatomical dimensions, and there's so much variation therein that's there's probably a feasible amount of wiggle room for his argument to fit in between....

...but for all practical purposes, I agree with what you're saying.

What's more important though is the matter of understanding and appreciation of sexual activities (which is why naivete is such an important characteristic). Sexual development doesn't occur until puberty, so while there might be oddball situations of youngsters growing sexually, the law is meant to preserve general cultural attitudes, attitudes which would reflect how the overwhelming majority of children do not develop as such.

I mean if a kid doesn't have a taste for sex, why could he give consent unless intimidated; if he performs sexual activities as a matter of commercial exchange, how doesn't that fly in the face of the wage-slavery argument (nevermind concerns over sexual trafficking and prostitution)?

Age might be an arbitrary number in itself, but it is considered a reliable indicator of maturity (both mental and physical) so to dismiss it without a comprehensive alternative seems extraordinarily reckless.
 
Well it's a matter of anatomical dimensions, and there's so much variation therein that's there's probably a feasible amount of wiggle room for his argument to fit in between....

...but for all practical purposes, I agree with what you're saying.

What's more important though is the matter of understanding and appreciation of sexual activities (which is why naivete is such an important characteristic). Sexual development doesn't occur until puberty, so while there might be oddball situations of youngsters growing sexually, the law is meant to preserve general cultural attitudes, attitudes which would reflect how the overwhelming majority of children do not develop as such.

I mean if a kid doesn't have a taste for sex, why could he give consent unless intimidated; if he performs sexual activities as a matter of commercial exchange, how doesn't that fly in the face of the wage-slavery argument (nevermind concerns over sexual trafficking and prostitution)?

Age might be an arbitrary number in itself, but it is considered a reliable indicator of maturity (both mental and physical) so to dismiss it without a comprehensive alternative seems extraordinarily reckless.

From everything I have learned, children who act out sexually or show interest in sex early have more than likely been molested. So molested kids would be more apt to want to have sex with an adult, but it would be for the wrong reasons.

Either way, if a kid who was molested wanted sex, or if a kid wanted a bike, or were afraid to say no so went ahead and did it, its all wrong. Even if a kid had a sexual desire, its still wrong to let them do it.

Its also wrong to let them smoke and drink even if they desire to do it.

Its the adults job to protect and care for children.

It is never ok for an adult person to have sex with chidren.
 
From everything I have learned, children who act out sexually or show interest in sex early have more than likely been molested. So molested kids would be more apt to want to have sex with an adult, but it would be for the wrong reasons.

Either way, if a kid who was molested wanted sex, or if a kid wanted a bike, or were afraid to say no so went ahead and did it, its all wrong. Even if a kid had a sexual desire, its still wrong to let them do it.

Its also wrong to let them smoke and drink even if they desire to do it.

Its the adults job to protect and care for children.

It is never ok for an adult person to have sex with chidren.

You are correct, anatomical dimensions are irrelevant to the emotional maturity. Adult sex with children is vastly damaging to the children. NO CHILD SEX ABUSE!
 
Does "Abolition" mean to outlaw sex altogether? That might not be such a bad idea...
 
Does "Abolition" mean to outlaw sex altogether? That might not be such a bad idea...

The poll is asking at what age do you think children should be able to have sex with adults or other children. He chose to abolish the age of consent so there is no punishment and it is not a crime when adults have sex with kids.

The way it is now, with an age of consent, the children are never punished or in trouble for having sex with an adult, it is the adult who is punished.

abolishing the age of consent is a way to make children fair game to adults without the adult getting a child abuse charge on them.
 
Werbung:
I think that 18 is a reasonable minimum age for present day society.

HOWEVER:

God clearly wanted humans to be fruitful and multiply, and the best way to do that is for one man to impregnate as many women as possible. To support the resulting huge families, it is also logical that the male in question be quite wealthy. Solomon and David had YUGE harems.
The main reason why this became restricted was that the priesthood was very rarely the wealthiest occupation available and hence Mohammad said that four wives were sufficient. But of course, there were provisions for easy divorces of women, especially those that were less fertile.
 
Back
Top