That’s just denying the hypothetical. I specified 'consensual"
I agree that 3yos will never be able to give meaningful consent.
But what about 10yos?
There can be plenty of hurt in consensual relationships. Two adults can choose to live together and sleep together. The female of this relationship may be a castigating bitch who likes to hit and demean her boyfriend in the bedroom and out.
Maybe this arrangement suits them both fine. Maybe he likes it or maybe he thinks he likes it but it really is affecting his psyche in ways he won’t appreciate until later. Physical hurt is happening. Psychological hurt that may (or may not) manifest until much later can be happening, too.
Of course, these are two adults who have chosen this way of life. You cannot deny that physical hurt is happening even though it might be enjoyed. Psychological hurt from an unhealthy sexual relationship can crop up years later. These are things that as consenting adults we can weigh out and choose and yet can still suffer for years from this damage.
How many men and women have had poor relationships because of things that were done and said to them in the past? Almost all of us. Come on, look around this place. Look how many people have emotional issues that have shown up in their current relationship due to psychological fuckery from a previous one.
Those hurts are real and we’re talking about adults and you’ve got nitwits here who want to make a child legally capable of saying yes to a sexual relationship with an adult and pretend that no damage would be done? That is so beyond the realm of reasonable thought it makes me question how some of you get around in the world unassisted.
But the hypothetical is trivial. It essentially amounts to, “Is genuinely consensual sex with X harmful?” and in the abstract, the answer is “no”. Hardly intellectual stuff.
Once we substitute “children” for X, however, we’re in trouble, because it’s far too easy to mistake coercion for consent when it comes to children. That’s why we need absolutes in law here instead of any case-by-case deliberation.
This idea that there’s even one child able to give informed consent to sex just gives paedophiles psychological wiggle-room by telling themselves that little Madison is that rare child who is ready for sex with an adult.
What about them?
I was a pretty smart 10 year old. I had some vague ideas about sex at that point. I was also, undeniably, a child, and certainly not the peer of anyone 16 or older.
Let’s say we make 10 the age of consent. What about that one oppressed nine year old who is also ready for sex? Should we make the age of consent nine, then? But what about that lone eight year old? How far back do we go, given that three is a clear cut-off for you?
Why is it so hard to say, then?
That’s fine as long as you’re OK with then overriding the wishes of those who are able to consent and are on the wrong side of the line.
I, personally, am willing to live with that even if it’s not my first choice, but I can see how it is not the end of the world for someone to make the counter-argument that the harm done by denying precocious people their emancipation is greater than the benefit of making things easier for everyone by cutting down on the work of making a testing system that works.
We’re not talking about peers - ability to give meaningful consent is all that matters. Bythe time I was 10 I knew more than I wanted to about sex, believe me.
We implement a testing scheme, clearly, and abandon the fixed AoC. I’m confident no 3yo would ever pass. I’m not as sure about 10yos, but I’d say the odds are astronomically high. I’m also sure a lot of 18yos wouldn’t pass. And something in me says that’s only fair - that current AoC laws are a very one-way oppression which completely dis-empowers a part of society without any reciprocity.
I’m referencing hurt that is strictly caused by* the fact of the relationship itself*, not because person A is a jerk to person B. So the rest of your post isn’t relevant.
FTR, I’m personally against any fixed AoC laws, but, like third-trimester abortion bans, I’m willing to compromise and allow ones that aren’t too silly or unfair (like different ones for males & females, or ones that are too high (I favour 14 myself). I think a system of testing would be a good alternative, personally, which is why I’ve mostly taken Cesario’s side in that regard.
Because it’s never in the abstract in real life. And like I said, I don’t want to give someone the idea that it’s even a debatable proposition when it comes to children. It’s not.
It’s not like they’ll never be on the right side of the line.
All this “youth suffrage” bullshit misses the point that (in general) blacks don’t become white and women don’t become men.
Also, anyone who thinks these discussions with paedophiles about children’s rights, blah blah blah, are really about what they’re ostensibly about is kidding themselves. They’re really about enabling a potential kiddie-fucker and bolstering the idea that this delusion is merely an equally valid POV that is sadly in the minority. By engaging in “reasonable debate” with a paedophile on this topic, even if you disagree, implies a certain level of respect for the position.
It does not deserve respect. It deserves disdain.
Yeah, spelling, something I’m not so good at…
I find this suggestion so laughably awesome that I have to laugh at its sheer awesomeness.
Is there actually a test out there that objectively tests whether someone is mentally and emotionally ready for sex? If so, I’d lay odds on a significant portion of our adult population not being able to pass it.
But regardless, in order to have an objective test administered objectively, one would have to go to a neutral third party trained to administer it. A licensed psychiatrist or doctor, for instance.
I can just imagine some pedophile picking up a nine year old girl from the park, convincing her to drive to the doctor’s office to answer a 36 part questionnaire on her sexual proclivities and emotional well being, and THEN convince the doctor to administer the test to the precocious prepubescent for the sake of science.
And then what? The kid gets some sort of Certificate Of Sexual OKedness to hang on her wall next to her Brownie sash and poster of Beyoncee?
It’s not so much the drinking semen itself so much as the whole anal intercourse and fellatio – to me, that’s kind of fucked up. (At the very least, fucking a kid up the ass would be PAINFUL)
But that’s neither here nor there. I don’t think that should be used as an argument, nor is it a very GOOD argument for “children are only traumatized because of how society treats sex between adult and children!!!” Not a good one at all.
Have you actually read this thread, and the ones that inspire it?
You mean the ones where some creepy fuck has let everyone know how he jerks off thinking of fucking little kids? Those threads? Have you read them? Or is this all some internal academic circle-jerk in your brain where children never suffer from shit that’s inflicted on them?
I’ve read way more than the average Pedobear when it comes to these threads. But I guess I must have missed it. Enlighten me. Because I would LOVE to read the test capable of determining if I could stick it into a nine year old who’s mentally ready to receive me.
Yeah, my interest in this is purely academic, sure. It’s not like I was forcibly sodomised by two different guys before I was 10, or anything.:rolleyes:
If you’ve read the threads, then you know Cesario’s already outlined a proposed test. It’s not the one I’d use, but you posted as if the idea of a test was some sudden inspiration I had, not something that had already been discussed.
Well, then you and I are coming at this from similar spots and arriving at much different places.
I refuse to let something this serious exist only academically. There’s a real world getting in the way.
Consensual relationships have nothing to do with this thread. We’re talking about people who want to rape toddlers and literal babies.
No.
No, we’re not.
**Cesario **has repeatedly emphasisied that he is against rape. That if an underage person is incapable of giving meaningful consent, he’s not interested (And have you actually *looked *at his proposed test? *No *10yo I’ve ever encountered would pass that, never mind a 1yo.)
You defining hypothetical meaningful consensual sex as rape is just argument by assertion.
I get it: you’re angry at the paedophile.
No, wait - you’re angrier at the paedophile than anyone else. “Angrier than thou” is this season’s holy, apparently. Whatever hardens your e-peen, I guess.
Never, ever, ever…I get it.
What about 14 y.os?
I’m with you on this one. I agree with everything you’re saying.
No, I haven’t read that entirely different thread from three weeks ago so I apologize profusely for not being 100% up to date on everything that spews out of Cesario’s mouth and that we discuss on these boards as relates to pedophilia.
But I’ve now read that OP and, yup. That seems to be exactly in line with what I outlined above and I find it as laughably ridiculous as my own hypothetical. Many fully functioning adults couldn’t pass that test he’s proposing and, while that’s its own problem right there, I think the implementation of a system where you force consenting adults to get licensed before having a sexual encounter to be…unworkable to say the least.
I had a teacher that once told the class that if you got an 89.99999999% in the class you got a B+ and not an A-. Why? Because that’s just where it fell. You simply have to have a cut off somewhere and the line got drawn at 90.
You complain about that “arbitrary” line and you got a “tough shit” in response.
Are there 9 year olds who could possibly pass the test above? Um…sure. Maybe there’s one out there for every 10,000,000. I don’t know. But you know what? Society has said that it’s easier to and will save time, money, and hassle to not employ a panel of people to implement a test, a cadre of social workers to go interview the child at home, and create a system where we make sure that every child who wants to have sex gets that opportunity. You know what? It’s easier to just have the bright line rule of “NO FUCKING THE NINE YEAR OLDS.”
And if that’s abhorrent to that one kid in 10,000,000 who could pass the proposed test my response would be “tough shit. If you’re that emotionally mature you can suck it up and wait another 7 years.”
:rolleyes: You know, before I jump into a pitting of someone, I try and find out if what they’ve actually done is worth pitting or not.
It’s about as unworkable as AoC laws. 'cos lord know, no teenagers arre having sex, ever.
Your teacher was a schmuck for rounding down. In my class, that’d be a 90%.
I’ve bolded the bits that are basically my point. Nowhere there have you said anything about more moral, or any other ethically defensible argument. Just the almighty dollar and his best friend, the clock.
Yeah, you’re a real humanitarian.
Cry me a river: pedophiles claiming victim status. I think I’ve seen it all now.
Clue phone: not everything in life is about sexual release. The child’s welfare far and away trumps anyone’s need to get off. I’ll go even further and say anyone’s (man, woman, child or beast) welfare trumps your(man, woman, child or beast) need to get off.
When did having an orgasm become an entitlement? I realize that is a bizarre question, but I can’t phrase it any better. The pedophile’s “right” to pleasure ends in his sick fantasies. He (she?) has no right to indulge him/herself, period. A sexual relationship between an adult and a child is always unequal. As has been said, there is no consensual sex. There is no fair playing field (which we assume in the case of adults, but even that is fraught with difficulties). This is not hard to understand.
I asked this before and I ask again: why is the pedophile’s pleasure paramount to the welfare of the child?*
*I just had the odd notion that folks like Mr Dibble(not a pedophile, but apparently an apologist for this horribly misunderstood and oppressed minority) and Cesario(self-proclaimed pedophile and proud of it! Loud and Proud!) actually may think that the kids may thank them later for introducing them to all the wonders of sex. Heck, they’re doing the kiddies a favor and should be looked on as heroes! How weary they must be of our stubborn unenlightened state, these prophets of pleasure for all.