What would society be like if there was no age of consent?

[JGHeaven]

[...] I don't think it would be much different. [...]

[...] 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 agree. Just because something is 'legal,' does not mean most parents will allow it. And there would certainly still be laws against rape, sexual assault, and coercion. Further, there will likely be restrictions on relationships with power imbalance (e.g., parent, teacher), to deter abuse of power. But in such cases where the child was happy and willing, it would likely be a misdemeanor, rather than a life-ruining sentence.

[...] Legal porn means professional studios, healthcare, rules and when a studio acts bad then performers can go to the police and report them.

I fully agree. If it is decriminalised, it can be regulated to protect against actual exploitation/abuse.

And a lot of people mischaracterise what kind of media MAPs even want to watch. Society would probably be similar to the early 2000s, when family naturist DVDs could be sold on Amazon without controversy, because society was not so deep in paedo-hysteria that they spazzed out at the thought of happy naked kids playing at the beach. That is basically the kind of harmless media that most child-lovers want the freedom to view.

And like the 1970s, you would probably also see a fair few mainstream films depicting age-gap relationships, because that might also not be so 'taboo.'

Yes, that's what I would expect to. In the work place it's usually frowned upon for a boss to have a relationship with someone who reports to them because of the power imbalance. That would still be the case in schools. Parents would be more in the know if it wasn't taboo, kids talking to their parents and to other trusted adults getting advice and help. Abuse would I think almost certainly fall considerably. But this hysteria has nothing to do with protecting children. Like any hysteria it's pure emotion without reason.

[Theendoftheline]

Ya know....unlike a LOT of maps here, I do believe their should be an age of consent....however I believe it should be much much lower than it is now. Around 14 to 15 to be exact. Almost all normies disagree with me because "sex is evil and somehow any age gap mentally harms anyone under 18" but I find that fucking stupid. By 14 to 15 most girls and boys know generally what they want and most of the absolute horror and screaming grooming over everything is just a product of modern social media brainwashing all under 18s that they are a "minor" in society and do not know anything yet and need to be protected from evil perverse adults that harm them via "statutory rape".

Now for your question.....I still doubt most normies would be having sex with actual children ore puberty however 13 to 17 would be viewed as fair game and the whole "YOURE LITERALLY BEING RAPED/GROOMED" rhetoric would largely disappear. Cause one thing I never understood.....why how sticking a penis in a vagina any vagina except for cases of actual rape just because a girls under an arbitrary age and their is an age gap is "harmful". Imho it's really not it's mostly a learned behaviour pushed through religion and a device made to make otherwise honest, human intercourse be traumatizing in some way.

[ReArm!]

Cause one thing I never understood.....why how sticking a penis in a vagina any vagina except for cases of actual rape just because a girls under an arbitrary age and their is an age gap is "harmful". Imho it's really not it's mostly a learned behaviour pushed through religion and a device made to make otherwise honest, human intercourse be traumatizing in some way.

This is the point here. It's stupid sex puritanism that society needs to get rid of asap. Now however, why is that true for 14 onwards but not for 11 or 12 when they most of the time also have sexual desire? And even though I'm not sure about the age of consent being lower than puberty (I would definitely NOT oppose it either tho) why isn't that true for even younger children?

But yeah 14 still is tyranical for me, like anything above puberty (like 12-13 if we had to put it in numbers, tho medical puberty is definitely the best way) is not justifyiable at all. Even less if the punishments are so harsh as they are now.

[PurpleHouse]

It seems to be that AoC exists because society cant think of a better way to establish consent in rocky cases. And because of a maybe patronising idea of when consent is possible. And because there are genuine cases of abuse that are hard to prove as abuse if consent is manipulated. But same could be said of "over age" cases.


Been thinking about this a lot reading through a few threads.

The core question is "was there consent" and if someone is age X, is there any real reason to say they could genuinely not have enough understanding or on balance of probability the consent is more likely to be manipulated than genuine. This is where ages in 16-18 area seem arbitrary. But i accept we have to be careful about manipulation and forced "consent".

* They must be old enough to be reasonably capable of thinking through consequences (same as criminal responsibility age maybe).
* Old enough to have reasonable knowledge for informed consent - so after sex ed has covered the physical and emotional aspects.
* Some degree of sexual feeling likely - so "come of age". (Could identify puberty medically but that means more personal medical checks during investigation so a token age where it's likely makes sense.)

All of the above have element of of "age where on balance it is likely".

If you had asked me before reading this i might have said keep it at or close to where it is now in many countries, even if that excludes a lot of my AoA, but it just feels so arbitrary.... Even accepting it doesnt change if "underage" people would choose to get involved with MAPs!

And question mark.... what counts as "sexual"?

Could say having a massage is similar.... it is relaxing, stimulates positive physical feeling, and in a way quite intimate. Should that have an AoC? Could a degree of sexual stimulation with some boundaries, administered by a person without personal connection to the person and no authority/trust position, without penetration, be a legit form of therapy?