On "informed consent"

[Artaxerxes II]

One of the most used anti talking points is that minors aren't capable of informed consent, making sex for them harmful. How one defines "informed consent" when it comes to sexual activities, or even non-sexual romantic relationships, varies widely from person to person. Nonetheless, the idea is still there and widely used to counter any pro-C argument, especially among liberal and leftist antis.

So how does one counter the informed consent talking point effectively?
As shown by the Rind report of 1998, simple consent is more predictive of outcomes than informed consent. And "informed consent" is a term more suitable for making medical decisions rather than for a simple activity for sex. Likewise, the fact that plenty of adults make uniformed decisions on sex as well, with no visible signs of trauma based on making an uninformed decision alone. It's also questionable the presumption that any let alone most minors are incapable of informed consent, given that most medical authorities typically hold 12 years old and those older as being capable of making informed medical decisions such as vaccinations or taking prescribed medication.

But then again, maybe antis will come up with something else as they always do. So, how would you effectively counter the "informed consent" talking point used by antis? Any ideas?

[BLueRibbon]

I think the only reason 12 year olds wouldn't be making 'informed' decisions is because they hadn't been educated properly.

Pro-Reform advocates comprehensive sex education along with an AoC of 12+

[Harlan]

But then again, maybe antis will come up with something else as they always do. So, how would you effectively counter the "informed consent" talking point used by antis?

my previous post from another thread.

The consent is simply a sequence of approvals as long as the actions bring satisfaction and do not cause pain or suffering. A person may express consent out of interest in trying to experience something unfamiliar or repeating an already familiar and enjoyable experience.

"Informed consent" is a hypocritical ploy because even providing information does not free the minor from the victim label. At first, the antis say that minors cannot know the consequences and therefore are not able to give so-called "informed consent", but they immediately refuse to provide this information, claiming that their brain/psyche is not ready yet. At the same time, Antis does not prohibit teaching toddlers to walk, and does not claim that their brain/psyche is not ready for a tricycle, even despite the risk that they might run away and get seriously hurt, but they deny information to young people who already experience erotic fantasies and masturbate. Although it is precisely openness and sexual education that would make the environment safer.

It should be added that in many countries the age of criminal responsibility starts at 11-12 years. In divorces, the court must take into account the opinion of children aged 10 years and over. On YouTube you can find skydiving videos featuring minors from 7 to 13 years old. Do you think anyone in the comments cares about their "informed consent" ? Everyone doesn't give a damn, despite the fact that their lives are in potential danger, unlike harmless earthly petting and masturbation.

In 2000, a national survey of 12,000 girls aged 12 to 16 was conducted in the UK, and they said that the age of consent was too high and sex education was too late. It would seem that this is what is missing for "informed consent", but conclusions were made ? No, no more such surveys were conducted and the sex-negative agenda began to grow. When in 2013 there was a proposal to lower the age of consent by just one year from 16 to 15, Prime Minister Cameron blocked it, calling it offensive.