The “emotional intelligence” argument

[Officerkrupke]

https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZT68SHWh1/

What age do people reach the “proper” or “minimum” emotional intelligence to have sex? How can this be measured? Seems a pretty flimsy and subjective test. There’s plenty of adults who don’t have a lot of emotional intelligence but have sex and relationships.

[Fragment]

It’s a question I never see answered.

“Minors can’t consent” is the line thrown around. But capacity to consent isn’t a binary that suddenly switches on one night. It’s a capacity that develops over time. So we’re not just talking about “consent” we’re talking about “sufficient consent”.

I’ve never heard an anti or anti-c explain their argument in terms of when someone if sufficiently capable of consenting. Nor how big of a power gap is acceptable (because ALL relationships have power gaps).

Emotional intelligence, too… all verbal kids have it to some degree. It does develop over time. But what’s the appropriate amount? The differences based on individuality are bigger than those based on age. I’ve known 12 year olds more mature than me in that regard…

[Bookshelf]

It's subjective and flimsy so that the standards for it can keep changing. 'Emotional intelligence' is just one of many shits thrown to the wall that they're hoping sticks; alongside the likes of brain development and such. When you actually get down to it and ask what it means, or better yet— why it's relevant to the ability to receive oral; it's either not answered and treated as something that should be obvious (although still not explained), or they move on to the next argument on the list.

"Uh kids just have low emotional intelligence?? That's obvious??? Anyway their brains don't develop until 25.... uh what do you mean how is that relevant to consent??? It's obvious! Anyway their bodies aren't physically ready... [repeat until they go through everything without ever really explaining any one argument in detail]".

[TheDude]

The idea of "emotional intelligence" is a bit of a farce.
Ill defined New Age gobbly gook.
Emotions inform, they do not exercise discernment.
Emotions are not capable of independent critical thought.
Emotions are the substance that helps cultivate intelligence.
Intelligence is a mental faculty.
Emotions inform that mental faculty.
However, it could be said that one is intelligent in the way they process their emotions.
But the emergence of emotion in and of itself does not make one intelligent.

Thus the argument of emotional intelligence is like the argument over what color the Easter Bunny's pants are.
Faulty premise from the get-go.

[Curson]

Isn't it kind of strange how emotionally involved people get in the lives of others? You're not the one living that life, so why are you judging so hard?