I found an example to support all our claims, both mine and the others in this thread.
Here is a case where 3 contributing factors exist
https://old.reddit.com/r/adultsurvivors ... ion_story/
1) prepubescent sex contact from cousin without understanding what is going on
2) abusive angry parents
3) religious and social shame
all interacting together to create a traumatizing experience
Now let me give more examples that support my case of "rational sexual desires" not being present in many prepubescents
Ancient China knew prepubescent girls have no rational sexual drive
The Great Ming Code, 25th section, Criminal Code on Rape came into effect from 1373, raised the age of consent to 12 by stating 'girls younger than 12 lack rational sexual desires, therefore any intercourse with them is considered the same as rape and therefore punishable by death with hanging'.
--
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEX97F8eCT8
and here is another case of a father raping his prepubescent daughter but she reports him right around the time she hits puberty, NOT a coincidence. Once the hormones kick in the moral repulsion starts, and of course the abusive behavior of his made it much worse. Still I hold an anti prepubescent incest stance. If incest must occur wait till after puberty so it can be a true informed decision.
This is why I disagree with having sex with prepubescents, despite being highly attracted to them. All I ever wanted to do is look at little Chinese girls on foreign swimwear catalog websites without triggering "child sexual abuse" laws. The goal is to figure out why some prepubescents have libidos and others don't because clearly reality is more complicated then I originally thought.
Contact Debate - ethics of the logical categories
Re: Contact Debate - ethics of the logical categories
I accidentally wrote that 6-7 will say no to everything, when I meant to say they could just say yes to everything. I Updated my post to fix it.
Even beyond that is a concern making my original post inaccurate. Adult's in a hypothetical reality where this is legal should never bribe children into sex that is for sure.
Even beyond that is a concern making my original post inaccurate. Adult's in a hypothetical reality where this is legal should never bribe children into sex that is for sure.
Re: Contact Debate - ethics of the logical categories
"Bribe", do you mean courting? Also, what is wrong with having sex with someone who has not reached puberty yet?
I support AAMs and MAPs. Personally I am a romantic GL but I support loving relationships between people from infants all the way up to the elderly.
-
luvslilgirlbumsntums
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2026 8:03 pm
Re: Contact Debate - ethics of the logical categories
I agree there is nothing wrong with that. If it is what she wants then it is her choice! People should stop pretending preteen girls cant choose themselves if they want something!!DANAT4T wrote: Sat Jun 06, 2026 9:53 am "Bribe", do you mean courting? Also, what is wrong with having sex with someone who has not reached puberty yet?
exclusive into pretty lil girls
prefer ages 7 to 13 but 8 to 11 are perfection
prefer ages 7 to 13 but 8 to 11 are perfection
Re: Contact Debate - ethics of the logical categories
Candy canes.luvslilgirlbumsntums wrote: Sun Jun 07, 2026 2:42 pmI agree there is nothing wrong with that. If it is what she wants then it is her choice! People should stop pretending preteen girls cant choose themselves if they want something!!DANAT4T wrote: Sat Jun 06, 2026 9:53 am "Bribe", do you mean courting? Also, what is wrong with having sex with someone who has not reached puberty yet?
I support AAMs and MAPs. Personally I am a romantic GL but I support loving relationships between people from infants all the way up to the elderly.
Re: Contact Debate - ethics of the logical categories
Personally, I think 14 would suffice as a better age of consent than 16-18.
Am I not simply a human being just like you? But out of your norm.
-
luvslilgirlbumsntums
- Posts: 21
- Joined: Sat Apr 04, 2026 8:03 pm
Re: Contact Debate - ethics of the logical categories
It is an ok start and where i do live it is lower than 16. 14 is still not low enough tbh..lots of lil girls are sexually active much younger than 14. People can pretend it is not true if they want to put heads in the sand!! 14 still excludes most hebes and pedos from having relations with their aoas legally? There are lots of very young lil girls who are aams..more than most normies will ever admit. i know preteen girls here who would not need to keep secrets if it was all legal they would be dating pedo girl lovers openly! lots more than even ones i knowCurson wrote: Tue Jun 09, 2026 6:34 pm Personally, I think 14 would suffice as a better age of consent than 16-18.
exclusive into pretty lil girls
prefer ages 7 to 13 but 8 to 11 are perfection
prefer ages 7 to 13 but 8 to 11 are perfection
-
johnnydoe12345
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2026 5:08 am
Re: Contact Debate - ethics of the logical categories
Penetration can happen at any age if the child is at least 1. Not necessarily with the penis but with fingers or small toys [removed - rule 3]. Why does everyone forget about the existence of lubrication.
[Please note that this comment is a statement of fact, and Mu does not endorse engaging in such behavior]
[Please note that this comment is a statement of fact, and Mu does not endorse engaging in such behavior]
-
Kierkegaard
- Posts: 55
- Joined: Fri Nov 21, 2025 4:15 am
Re: Contact Debate - ethics of the logical categories
This is like asking at what age can children consent to playing sports? Any age? Oh, so you think 4 year olds should be allowed to drive in nascar and go wingsuit diving without a parachute? You sick fuck.
First of all, capacity to "consent" isn't even really a good way of framing the problem, it's more about the risk of different kinds of activities for different levels of development. Whether or not a child can give informed consent to being a racecar driver or free solo rock climbing is a strange way of asking the question. We don't care if a child can give informed consent to being required to get vaccines, medical procedures, or going to school, taking baths, brushing their teeth, etc because we deem those things to be safe and in their best interest. When we say a child cannot consent to an activity what we really mean to say is that it would not be wise or safe for them to do it. It wouldn't be in their best interest, even if they think it is, because they're not smart enough to know what's good for them. So we should make them do things that are needed for them to be safe and healthy even when they explicitly dissent and express distress at bring forced to do those things(vaccines, school, hygiene, etc), require either only simple assent/willingness or not even that for things that are safe but not strictly necessary(depending on your parenting philosophy, you may or may not think it's acceptable to coerce a dissenting child into participating in a game or family tradition, hugging a relative, having their hair cut or photo taken, etc), and forbid them entirely from doing things that are unsafe and unnecessary(supposedly sex, extreme sports, and so on).
The only things where this notion of "informed consent" comes up as an ethical requirement as opposed to simple assent are things viewed as carrying a significant degree of risk or long term consequences. But it's not really whether they understand and consent to these things we care about, because we by and large don't give a shit about whether children understand and consent to anything we regularly coerce them into doing against their will. If you believe in some kind of youth liberation or anarchist philosophy maybe you think that's a problem, but clearly most adults do not think it is unethical to make children do things they don't really want to do, even things which are not strictly necessary for their health and safety like having their picture taken or having their hair cut a particular way. We generally don't say a parent who threatens to take their kids toys away if they refuse to obey the command to come pose for the family photo is guilty of serious child abuse because the kid didn't assent to the photo. If you have a progressive parenting outlook you might think that parent is kind of a dick but nobody equates it to the unfathomable horror and evil of CSA. So if we don't even require simple assent for some kinds of interactions to be ethical, why the hell do we go all the way to full on "informed consent" being required for others like sex? It's not actually about consent at all.
Aside from all the philosophical confusion and contradiction which exists regarding the ethics of dissent vs simple assent vs "informed consent" in adult interactions with children, the AoC question is based on another flawed premise, that sexual touching and sexual interactions of all kinds fall into a single risk category with a single age cutoff for developmental appropriateness. That's absurd. There are clearly major differences between genital massaging and being gangbanged with horse dildos in a leather dungeon, which is basically what antis imagine we all want to do to 2 year olds when we criticize AoC laws as flawed.
The absurdity is even more apparent when you consider that the AoC encompasses not only physical participation in an act deemed to be sexual in nature, but even observation of sexual acts. Most antis maintain that being open about sex and having sex in front of a child constitutes child sexual abuse and is wrong because the child cannot consent to witnessing sex acts between adults. Which makes no sense, because how is witnessing two adult humans fucking any more risky or harmful than seeing animals fuck on a farm? Are STDs transmittable through vision now? Are we supposed to accept that a child witnessing adult humans have sex is intrinsically psychologically traumatizing for them on some deep neural level and not merely a matter of arbitrary, constantly shifting privacy norms and socially constructed notions of childhood innocence and purity?
The more you deconstruct the idea of child-adult sex and consent, the more it becomes obvious the whole notion of "informed consent" being an ethical requirement distinct from at most simple assent is nonsensical from the ground up and is just a way of obfuscating the question of harmfulness and risk. Different kinds of interactions which currently fall into the category of illegal CSA, impossible-for-a-child-to-consent-to, have very different risk levels. There's no good reason to think that observing and being around adult sex acts in a sexually open household/culture is harmful, nor is there much reason to think that erotic fondling, genital massages, erotic dancing and games and non-penetrative sex play, etc are harmful. Which means there's also no reason why such interactions should require anything more than simple assent or willingness at most.
The question of whether there should be an age of consent for penetrative sex acts where STDs, pregnancy, or physical pain are possible requires slightly more nuance to answer, and I think having an AoC specifically for penetrative sex is at least somewhat more reasonable, though still not ideal and far too much of a one size fits all approach which lumps in different things together into a single risk category with a strict age cutoff.
Sorry if this is kind of disorganized, I've been thinking I might take my thoughts on the ethics of child-adult sex and write them up into a more formal essay at some point.
So, to answer the question, I think that what you could call softcore sex acts like massaging are appropriate at any age all the way down to infancy(assuming they're aren't physically painful or dangerous), while "hardcore" or penetrative sex acts entailing the potential for pregnancy, STDs, or physical tearing/injury simply require nuance to judge and in an ideal world would not have a simplified age cutoff but instead would be determined on a case by case basis with context taken into account, much like how we determine things like the appropriate age to leave a child home alone or to let them participate in contact sports on a case by case basis.
First of all, capacity to "consent" isn't even really a good way of framing the problem, it's more about the risk of different kinds of activities for different levels of development. Whether or not a child can give informed consent to being a racecar driver or free solo rock climbing is a strange way of asking the question. We don't care if a child can give informed consent to being required to get vaccines, medical procedures, or going to school, taking baths, brushing their teeth, etc because we deem those things to be safe and in their best interest. When we say a child cannot consent to an activity what we really mean to say is that it would not be wise or safe for them to do it. It wouldn't be in their best interest, even if they think it is, because they're not smart enough to know what's good for them. So we should make them do things that are needed for them to be safe and healthy even when they explicitly dissent and express distress at bring forced to do those things(vaccines, school, hygiene, etc), require either only simple assent/willingness or not even that for things that are safe but not strictly necessary(depending on your parenting philosophy, you may or may not think it's acceptable to coerce a dissenting child into participating in a game or family tradition, hugging a relative, having their hair cut or photo taken, etc), and forbid them entirely from doing things that are unsafe and unnecessary(supposedly sex, extreme sports, and so on).
The only things where this notion of "informed consent" comes up as an ethical requirement as opposed to simple assent are things viewed as carrying a significant degree of risk or long term consequences. But it's not really whether they understand and consent to these things we care about, because we by and large don't give a shit about whether children understand and consent to anything we regularly coerce them into doing against their will. If you believe in some kind of youth liberation or anarchist philosophy maybe you think that's a problem, but clearly most adults do not think it is unethical to make children do things they don't really want to do, even things which are not strictly necessary for their health and safety like having their picture taken or having their hair cut a particular way. We generally don't say a parent who threatens to take their kids toys away if they refuse to obey the command to come pose for the family photo is guilty of serious child abuse because the kid didn't assent to the photo. If you have a progressive parenting outlook you might think that parent is kind of a dick but nobody equates it to the unfathomable horror and evil of CSA. So if we don't even require simple assent for some kinds of interactions to be ethical, why the hell do we go all the way to full on "informed consent" being required for others like sex? It's not actually about consent at all.
Aside from all the philosophical confusion and contradiction which exists regarding the ethics of dissent vs simple assent vs "informed consent" in adult interactions with children, the AoC question is based on another flawed premise, that sexual touching and sexual interactions of all kinds fall into a single risk category with a single age cutoff for developmental appropriateness. That's absurd. There are clearly major differences between genital massaging and being gangbanged with horse dildos in a leather dungeon, which is basically what antis imagine we all want to do to 2 year olds when we criticize AoC laws as flawed.
The absurdity is even more apparent when you consider that the AoC encompasses not only physical participation in an act deemed to be sexual in nature, but even observation of sexual acts. Most antis maintain that being open about sex and having sex in front of a child constitutes child sexual abuse and is wrong because the child cannot consent to witnessing sex acts between adults. Which makes no sense, because how is witnessing two adult humans fucking any more risky or harmful than seeing animals fuck on a farm? Are STDs transmittable through vision now? Are we supposed to accept that a child witnessing adult humans have sex is intrinsically psychologically traumatizing for them on some deep neural level and not merely a matter of arbitrary, constantly shifting privacy norms and socially constructed notions of childhood innocence and purity?
The more you deconstruct the idea of child-adult sex and consent, the more it becomes obvious the whole notion of "informed consent" being an ethical requirement distinct from at most simple assent is nonsensical from the ground up and is just a way of obfuscating the question of harmfulness and risk. Different kinds of interactions which currently fall into the category of illegal CSA, impossible-for-a-child-to-consent-to, have very different risk levels. There's no good reason to think that observing and being around adult sex acts in a sexually open household/culture is harmful, nor is there much reason to think that erotic fondling, genital massages, erotic dancing and games and non-penetrative sex play, etc are harmful. Which means there's also no reason why such interactions should require anything more than simple assent or willingness at most.
The question of whether there should be an age of consent for penetrative sex acts where STDs, pregnancy, or physical pain are possible requires slightly more nuance to answer, and I think having an AoC specifically for penetrative sex is at least somewhat more reasonable, though still not ideal and far too much of a one size fits all approach which lumps in different things together into a single risk category with a strict age cutoff.
Sorry if this is kind of disorganized, I've been thinking I might take my thoughts on the ethics of child-adult sex and write them up into a more formal essay at some point.
So, to answer the question, I think that what you could call softcore sex acts like massaging are appropriate at any age all the way down to infancy(assuming they're aren't physically painful or dangerous), while "hardcore" or penetrative sex acts entailing the potential for pregnancy, STDs, or physical tearing/injury simply require nuance to judge and in an ideal world would not have a simplified age cutoff but instead would be determined on a case by case basis with context taken into account, much like how we determine things like the appropriate age to leave a child home alone or to let them participate in contact sports on a case by case basis.