What is your reasoning? And what about children working in dangerous factories?
@QuisCostodiet
in the same sense that a tuna and a shark are unlikely to become friends.
That’s not a real argument. This is a question about philosophy.
Its a real argument because humans only enjoy intercourse when their bodies are tricked into thinking its a good time to reproduce.
What age are you talking about? As far as I can tell, you have no actual experience with sex, and that may be the problem with your ability to understand my points. Let me put it to you like this: Are you telling me that you think a 3 year old boy or even a 5 year old boy is going to enjoy anal sex with an adult male? Is this even a possibility in your mind?
You might also benefit from reading about puberty.
Hmm, maybe you have some ideas about what the age of consent ought to be?
Why does there need to be an age of consent?
I would prefer if we don’t speculate as to what specific laws ought to be. Do you know what the price of oranges ought to be in NYC? Historically, the age of consent has been biological adulthood. It’s only been since the late 1800’s that there has been a distinction between biological and legal adulthood. What you do not seem understand is that children do not have sex with adults unless they have been coerced or need to resort to prostitution to survive. I do not know why you ignore this fact.
Did you read the links I had sent you in the other thread about law? They are entirely relevant. What you need to understand is that law is about resolving conflicts (where the threat of violence is implied if you do not participate). In a private law society, there is no prosecutor “acting on behalf of society”. There is no dispute if there is no victim. Nevermind that there aren’t biological children consenting to sex with biological adults, you have to understand what legal consent is.
Quite simply, legal consent in a private law society is when an individual is capable of speaking up for himself in a court of law. This doesn’t mean they cannot hire a lawyer, it just means that they have the capability of speaking up for themselves. If they cannot do it, then someone else must do it on their behalf. If someone else must do it on their behalf, then their ability to legally consent may be severely limited to nonexistent. The reason for this is that the guardian is the one who has the dispute instead of the victim.
Suppose person A takes candy from baby B. Obviously B is the individual who was wronged, but B has no way of taking A to a court of law. It just isn’t possible. So guardian C is the individual who speaks up on B’s behalf and files suit against A. The thing is, children eventually grow up and most become legal adults without the need for a guardian to represent them. As children grow up, the guardian allows them to make more decisions for themselves, such as being able to buy candy from the school store or whatever. But there are many decisions that still require the guardian’s permission. In a private law system, that permission ceases to be required when the child is able to speak for himself in a court of law.
But in the case of child sex, you just need to understand that biological children do not have consensual sex with biological adults unless they need to prostitute themselves to survive. And as I said, any society where that is occuring is so degenerate that it has so many more pressing issues, such as famine, rampant murder, etc.
Came back here for a browse and had to post when I read this:
Once again, you don’t distinguish between sexual penetration and any other form of sexual activity. Penetration is painful; but receiving sexual favors is pleasurable.
That’s like asking; what person is going to spend 40+ hours a week doing an activity they dislike or even hate… for nothing less than survival? It’s called “work”. Work sets you free.
Can a child consent to sexual activity with an adult? I’ve elaborated on this in that other thread.
It’s interesting that you came back to the forums for the topic of to promote child sex.
Excuse me for not weighing in here with some deep arguments, but all I wanted to say is that Spain’s age of consent is 13. The only legal thing that can ever get in the way is deceit with charges upon parental complaint.
Anyway, there are more teen pregnancies in the USA than there are in Spain, so…yeah.
The adult males penis is probably just as long as his forearm, the 5 year old probably doesnt even know what sex is.
Might as well stab the child with a knife.
Child sex is disgusting and i cant even believe the discussion delved into this stupid ass topic.
Quite interesting indeed. Furthermore I think that while “creepy” might be a value judgment, I think we can say that anytime the idea of prepubescent genitals finding their way into someone’s mouth, thats factually creepy. And if not, well then label me a moralizer because that is creepy. Gtfoh, wow. What a terrible direction for this discussion.
You don’t distinguish between sexual penetration and any other form of sexual activity. Penetration is painful; but receiving sexual favors is pleasurable. You also don’t distinguish between the capacity to consent to reproduction and the capacity to consent to physical stimulation in areas of the body with high concentrations of nerve endings.
Likewise, the idea of an animal’s genitals finding their way into a human’s mouth is über creepy. That’s why I respect the privacy of other people’s barnyards.
Technically, it’s impossible for a discussion about “age of consent laws…” to be independent from the topic of “child sex”.
I’ll just note that there’s no such thing as factual creepiness, because creepiness (per its common definition) is a value judgement.
There are two kinds of people, people who find prepubescent oral sex creepy, and people whose value judgments are irrelevant.
I’ll just note that no one else is obligated to follow that categorization.
I think that’s what Malachi meant by irrelevant.
I think you made a serious point here:
Do you know of any articles I could read that expand on that (the requirement of prior understanding)? Not necessarily “the right to know,” but the ability to understand what there is to be known about an exhange.