What would society be like if there was no age of consent?
What would society be like if there was no age of consent?
What would society be like if there was no age of consent at all? Would it be the same as now?
Re: What would society be like if there was no age of consent?
I can't really imagine how different it would be.
I believe that much of the way our society is built is reliant on hierarchical age structures. Age determines the sort of responsibility you have; it can determine the opportunities you get access to; it can determine your status and authority, etc. The age of consent ties heavily into youth rights and liberation, and its continued existence is either a symptom of or cause of society's general desire to deprive younger people of various rights to the benefit of older people. Assuming the age of consent never existed, society would likely have developed in an incredibly different fashion, as it would not be able to so easily coast age hierarchy as a platform to develop outwards from.
This is why, I think, that people feel so strongly about the age of consent. Everything they think of when it comes to age — such as deploying restrictions and control on youth — is centered around there being an age where they can finally do "adult" things. If people had to stop thinking about the age of consent, there's so many aspects of society ingrained that would need to be recontextualized.
I believe that much of the way our society is built is reliant on hierarchical age structures. Age determines the sort of responsibility you have; it can determine the opportunities you get access to; it can determine your status and authority, etc. The age of consent ties heavily into youth rights and liberation, and its continued existence is either a symptom of or cause of society's general desire to deprive younger people of various rights to the benefit of older people. Assuming the age of consent never existed, society would likely have developed in an incredibly different fashion, as it would not be able to so easily coast age hierarchy as a platform to develop outwards from.
This is why, I think, that people feel so strongly about the age of consent. Everything they think of when it comes to age — such as deploying restrictions and control on youth — is centered around there being an age where they can finally do "adult" things. If people had to stop thinking about the age of consent, there's so many aspects of society ingrained that would need to be recontextualized.
Liberate youth
Re: What would society be like if there was no age of consent?
If the stigma remains despite the abolition of aoc laws I don't think there will be much practical difference. It's extremely taboo for 40-year-olds to date or sleep with 16-year-olds even though that's legal in most places (provided that the legal adult isn't in a position of authority over the teen). I think someone else once mentioned this on here but there seems to be this misconception that it's illegal for much older adults to sleep with people under 18. It is in some places but not in Canada or possibly most U.S states. I think it's illegal to record sexual material involving 16-17-year-olds though (that's considered 'child porn'). When it comes to children, the legal guardianship of parents might effectively substitute statutory rape laws in some places (i.e. if a parent doesn't want their child dealing with an adult they're interested in, maybe they could have a restraining order placed on them, I don't know. They can forbid the relationship and physically separate them and if the adult tries to continue the relationship it would be interfering with their parenting and maybe that would have some legal consequences).
If the cultural stigma is also abolished that could lead to some notable and refreshing changes but I doubt that most teenage girls will be checking for middle-aged men. Like I basically said in another thread, my identity doesn't revolve around who I'm attracted to or even my opposition to the anti-age gap relationship taboo without tying it to a broader 'only suffering is inherently bad, everyone deserves happiness' principle. I don't share the same value system, ideals or ethical ideas as other people who also oppose the prejudice toward both true pedophiles/open MAPs and their attraction for various reasons. The world would be better without the taboo but not a utopia and pretty much nothing about my life changes (I shouldn't imply that it would make no difference at all, it would be nice to not be shamed for my attraction; not that anyone does that to me personally but I'm logically included in the group of 'creepy predatory men who are attracted to/interested in girls and women who are half their age or young enough to be their daughters').
I don't agree with Bookshelf. This is somewhat what I had in mind when I said that people seem to attach so much to what goes into the taboo as if dismantling it would change society as its core. I don't believe it will but it's possible that I'm misinterpreting your post, as well as just wrong in some of my position. We can debate over where to draw lines but it seems to me that a concern for the welfare of children, if not 'young people,' requires some unique restrictions on their autonomy and political hierarchy (it shouldn't be age-based ultimately, we can circumstantially justify the same for some adults and maybe some children should be exempt from this, but even though there is an age-based social hierarchy in most societies i think that paternalism toward children and teens in modern Western culture is matter-of-factly not intended to benefit adults at the expense of younger people, even if it's actually unnecessarily harmful. It's possible that I hold some inconsistencies in terms of what I accept for children and young minors that I take for granted as not applying to legal adults, I have to work through that, but as unideal as paternalism is I don't think it's inherently unjust and you can justify some paternalism toward adults in their 20s,30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, and beyond as well depending on circumstance).
If the cultural stigma is also abolished that could lead to some notable and refreshing changes but I doubt that most teenage girls will be checking for middle-aged men. Like I basically said in another thread, my identity doesn't revolve around who I'm attracted to or even my opposition to the anti-age gap relationship taboo without tying it to a broader 'only suffering is inherently bad, everyone deserves happiness' principle. I don't share the same value system, ideals or ethical ideas as other people who also oppose the prejudice toward both true pedophiles/open MAPs and their attraction for various reasons. The world would be better without the taboo but not a utopia and pretty much nothing about my life changes (I shouldn't imply that it would make no difference at all, it would be nice to not be shamed for my attraction; not that anyone does that to me personally but I'm logically included in the group of 'creepy predatory men who are attracted to/interested in girls and women who are half their age or young enough to be their daughters').
I don't agree with Bookshelf. This is somewhat what I had in mind when I said that people seem to attach so much to what goes into the taboo as if dismantling it would change society as its core. I don't believe it will but it's possible that I'm misinterpreting your post, as well as just wrong in some of my position. We can debate over where to draw lines but it seems to me that a concern for the welfare of children, if not 'young people,' requires some unique restrictions on their autonomy and political hierarchy (it shouldn't be age-based ultimately, we can circumstantially justify the same for some adults and maybe some children should be exempt from this, but even though there is an age-based social hierarchy in most societies i think that paternalism toward children and teens in modern Western culture is matter-of-factly not intended to benefit adults at the expense of younger people, even if it's actually unnecessarily harmful. It's possible that I hold some inconsistencies in terms of what I accept for children and young minors that I take for granted as not applying to legal adults, I have to work through that, but as unideal as paternalism is I don't think it's inherently unjust and you can justify some paternalism toward adults in their 20s,30s, 40s, 50s, 60s, and beyond as well depending on circumstance).
-
GL_in_Lyrics
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2026 4:44 pm
Re: What would society be like if there was no age of consent?
It's already legal to sexually assault little boys with knives, therefore I don't think it could be any different for simply allowing children to consent to sexual activity...
I am an oppressed male, a pedo incel.
Anti-pedophilia; a crime against humanity.
Circumcision; worse than rape. Proof that more males are sexually abused than females, and somewhat proof feminism is a lie. Also proof that pedophilia should be legal.
Anti-pedophilia; a crime against humanity.
Circumcision; worse than rape. Proof that more males are sexually abused than females, and somewhat proof feminism is a lie. Also proof that pedophilia should be legal.
Re: What would society be like if there was no age of consent?
what? What do you mean? Or am I js too stupidGL_in_Lyrics wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2026 12:12 am It's already legal to sexually assault little boys with knives, therefore I don't think it could be any different for simply allowing children to consent to sexual activity...
17m hebephile AoA boys: 10+ peak: 11-14
AoA girls: 10-16 peak: 11-13
"Before a revolution happens, it is perceived as impossible; after it happens, it is seen as having been inevitable."
-Rosa Luxemburg
AoA girls: 10-16 peak: 11-13
"Before a revolution happens, it is perceived as impossible; after it happens, it is seen as having been inevitable."
-Rosa Luxemburg
Re: What would society be like if there was no age of consent?
I don't think it would be much different.
Young people depend on their parents and their parents love and raise their kids. Any parent is protective of their kids when they start dating other kids, they don't want bad influences in their kids lives, they don't want anyone unworthy of their kids love and affection. But if a parent gets to know and trust their childs affectionate other then they will often allow a young romance, with some rules. Rules often include no sex because sex can be too much of a fun distraction and can risk pregnancy if a bit older. Sex in general is pretty taboo still. If someones 7 year old daughter was playing sexual games with the 7 year old boy next door the parents would be unlikely to support it. Without AoC laws, most kids would be the same, their parents would say no and that would be the end of it. But they might permit a romance and in some situations they might even allow a sexual relationship if they believed it was something their child wanted and her partner is good and trust worthy and it would be safe and something they both really wanted.
In total, I think most kids would still not have sex because their parents wouldn't allow it and those that did would be with better parental monitoring and protection. I think rape and abuse would be lower because parents would be on the ball more with their kids able to talk to them more about this stuff. So not much more sex overall and any sex that happens would likely be safer with much better protection.
Young people depend on their parents and their parents love and raise their kids. Any parent is protective of their kids when they start dating other kids, they don't want bad influences in their kids lives, they don't want anyone unworthy of their kids love and affection. But if a parent gets to know and trust their childs affectionate other then they will often allow a young romance, with some rules. Rules often include no sex because sex can be too much of a fun distraction and can risk pregnancy if a bit older. Sex in general is pretty taboo still. If someones 7 year old daughter was playing sexual games with the 7 year old boy next door the parents would be unlikely to support it. Without AoC laws, most kids would be the same, their parents would say no and that would be the end of it. But they might permit a romance and in some situations they might even allow a sexual relationship if they believed it was something their child wanted and her partner is good and trust worthy and it would be safe and something they both really wanted.
In total, I think most kids would still not have sex because their parents wouldn't allow it and those that did would be with better parental monitoring and protection. I think rape and abuse would be lower because parents would be on the ball more with their kids able to talk to them more about this stuff. So not much more sex overall and any sex that happens would likely be safer with much better protection.
Re: What would society be like if there was no age of consent?
JGHeaven wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2026 5:36 pm I don't think it would be much different.
Young people depend on their parents and their parents love and raise their kids. Any parent is protective of their kids when they start dating other kids, they don't want bad influences in their kids lives, they don't want anyone unworthy of their kids love and affection. But if a parent gets to know and trust their childs affectionate other then they will often allow a young romance, with some rules. Rules often include no sex because sex can be too much of a fun distraction and can risk pregnancy if a bit older. Sex in general is pretty taboo still. If someones 7 year old daughter was playing sexual games with the 7 year old boy next door the parents would be unlikely to support it. Without AoC laws, most kids would be the same, their parents would say no and that would be the end of it. But they might permit a romance and in some situations they might even allow a sexual relationship if they believed it was something their child wanted and her partner is good and trust worthy and it would be safe and something they both really wanted.
In total, I think most kids would still not have sex because their parents wouldn't allow it and those that did would be with better parental monitoring and protection. I think rape and abuse would be lower because parents would be on the ball more with their kids able to talk to them more about this stuff. So not much more sex overall and any sex that happens would likely be safer with much better protection.
What about the production of child pornography? Im sure it would exist since child pornography was legal a few decades ago. Do you think it would be popular or would it be niche?
-
GL_in_Lyrics
- Posts: 78
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2026 4:44 pm
Re: What would society be like if there was no age of consent?
ReArm! wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2026 12:15 amwhat? What do you mean? Or am I js too stupidGL_in_Lyrics wrote: Thu Aug 20, 2026 12:12 am It's already legal to sexually assault little boys with knives, therefore I don't think it could be any different for simply allowing children to consent to sexual activity...
Don't worry. I was talking about circumcision, which is the worst form of child sexual abuse known to humanity. If a society can function, at least somewhat with that going on, then it can function with children being allowed to consent to sexual activity.
I am an oppressed male, a pedo incel.
Anti-pedophilia; a crime against humanity.
Circumcision; worse than rape. Proof that more males are sexually abused than females, and somewhat proof feminism is a lie. Also proof that pedophilia should be legal.
Anti-pedophilia; a crime against humanity.
Circumcision; worse than rape. Proof that more males are sexually abused than females, and somewhat proof feminism is a lie. Also proof that pedophilia should be legal.