My views on consent and ages as an aoc abolitionist

[Valerian]

My critical view on child sexual consent is in the following

CHILDREN INCAPABLE OF “INFORMED” CONCENT
The criminalization of pedophilia today entirely stands completely on the assertion that; ‘children are incapable of making or giving their “informed” sexual consent.” Now, it is most important to make a critical analytic study of this “informed consent” claim on scientific basis. It is most important to determine this today because it can save or destroy hundreds of thousands of human life in deciding if they are sexually deviant criminal or normal innocent people. The main question to ask now is are the children capable of giving informed consent on thousand of things that comes in their life? Mainly on the question of food they eat, cloths they wear, education they undergo sports they participate, the religion they follow.
GROOMING OF CHILDREN: VEG AND NONVEGITARIANISM, NUDE FAMILIES, TRANS AND DRAG QUEEN SHOWS
Grooming of Children happens everywhere in every aspect of their young life and considered very important if not necessary. Let me come to a specific aspect of food, the vegetarian and non-vegetarianism. The latter is considered killing and eating the animal flesh as a repulsive cultural practice by the vegetarian parents therefore they groom their children according to their own vegetarian eating beliefs, which perhaps some non-vegetarian parents vehemently disagree on the scientific basis. Another more specific question in regard to children food is that; are the children capable of making informed consent on the food that is pushed into them by the giant food advertise industry, okayed by their parents that can cause major diseases like obesity, diabetics and many more that can destroy their entire future life? Another different question is; what about making children to follow a particular religion or certain ideologies? Some believe it could mentally damage the child’s entire future life.
Let me go further and take a highly sensitive subject having sexual element in it. The Nudist Families. It is prevalent today in many progressive European and Western countries. In the nude families the parents or the guardians raise their children without being ashamed of their naked body, not to feel shameful or guilty about any part of their body especially genitals but to appreciate it. Another very sensitive child grooming happens when the parents or people having authority over the child, their teachers, even the States encouraging the children to decide themselves have their own gender preference male, female or binary etc. The most notable among them is the US drag queens shows, participated and specially meant for children. I don’t want to go any further into this important subject the reasons you obviously know.

[jeffychubchaser29]

My critical view on child sexual consent is in the following

CHILDREN INCAPABLE OF “INFORMED” CONCENT
The criminalization of pedophilia today entirely stands completely on the assertion that; ‘children are incapable of making or giving their “informed” sexual consent.” Now, it is most important to make a critical analytic study of this “informed consent” claim on scientific basis. It is most important to determine this today because it can save or destroy hundreds of thousands of human life in deciding if they are sexually deviant criminal or normal innocent people. The main question to ask now is are the children capable of giving informed consent on thousand of things that comes in their life? Mainly on the question of food they eat, cloths they wear, education they undergo sports they participate, the religion they follow.
GROOMING OF CHILDREN: VEG AND NONVEGITARIANISM, NUDE FAMILIES, TRANS AND DRAG QUEEN SHOWS
Grooming of Children happens everywhere in every aspect of their young life and considered very important if not necessary. Let me come to a specific aspect of food, the vegetarian and non-vegetarianism. The latter is considered killing and eating the animal flesh as a repulsive cultural practice by the vegetarian parents therefore they groom their children according to their own vegetarian eating beliefs, which perhaps some non-vegetarian parents vehemently disagree on the scientific basis. Another more specific question in regard to children food is that; are the children capable of making informed consent on the food that is pushed into them by the giant food advertise industry, okayed by their parents that can cause major diseases like obesity, diabetics and many more that can destroy their entire future life? Another different question is; what about making children to follow a particular religion or certain ideologies? Some believe it could mentally damage the child’s entire future life.
Let me go further and take a highly sensitive subject having sexual element in it. The Nudist Families. It is prevalent today in many progressive European and Western countries. In the nude families the parents or the guardians raise their children without being ashamed of their naked body, not to feel shameful or guilty about any part of their body especially genitals but to appreciate it. Another very sensitive child grooming happens when the parents or people having authority over the child, their teachers, even the States encouraging the children to decide themselves have their own gender preference male, female or binary etc. The most notable among them is the US drag queens shows, participated and specially meant for children. I don’t want to go any further into this important subject the reasons you obviously know.

Here's a question for you. If children are incapable of consenting then how are they capable of fully knowing what gender they identify as? Isn't it the same brain?

[Lennon72]

"I do like the idea of having different ratings for porn. Or at least clear and visible tags, warning of the sort of content it has."

We already have "hard porn" and "soft porn". Do you feel as if that is not good enough?

Possible categories:
For people under 7, only soft erotica.
For people 7 to 12, soft porn.
After 12, any porn.

So then what would you say is the difference between soft erotica and soft porn?

[aeterna91]

Very interesting post! A bit radical even for me lol I wouldn't go that far. And yet, I think what you are suggesting would be a considerably better model than the current one and would be better for everyone, both MAPs and minors.

[Harlan]

Possible categories:
For people under 7, only soft erotica.
For people 7 to 12, soft porn.
After 12, any porn.

So then what would you say is the difference between soft erotica and soft porn?

I mean that soft erotica is nudity, hugs and kisses without details. Soft porn has an emphasis on genitals, erection, solo and mutual masturbation.

[Lennon72]

Okay Got it.

[Jim Burton]

I don't quite see how proposing an ethical solution for ages below puberty (bar questioning the blanket nature of offender processing) would be helpful right now, let alone deliberations on how you could get off with an infant. This sounds like 1970s thinking.

Threads like this and trying to establish a nation, convince me that our alliance is not yet at the stage where we can form the small communities and grassroots organizations typical of burgeoning civil rights movements.

[Valerian]

In my view, the entire concept of "Age of Consent" or "Age of Majority" basically a fraud and full of self contradictions. (Excuse me, my English is poor but it is the one language in which I can explained my thoughts better than in any other language I know). It will take more than hundred pages to explain it in detail, for which I neither have time, energy, and the Patience. I have explained some of it in my previous post in this forum titled “My critical view on child sexual consent subtitled CHILDREN INCAPABLE OF “INFORMED” CONSENT” and more of it in my <antcorruptionfight.blogpost.com> paper “ "PEDOPHILIA AND INCEST SEXUAL TABOOS BUILT ON CORRUPT FRAUDULENT SOCIAL SCIENCE RESEARCH GROUNDS.

Let me present only a glaring contradiction at the center of this Age of Consent or Age of Majority as it is commonly referred to. Visit: <https://wiki.yesmap.net/wiki/Age_of_majority> it defines and I quote; “The age of majority is the legal threshold of which a person is legally declared as an adult.[1] ………thus terminating the control and legal responsibilities of their parents or guardian over them, …………Most countries set the age of majority at 18 …….”– the underlying point is, children before becoming adults, not responsible for their actions, their parents or guardians owns their responsibility, It stands on the basic moral principle that whatever the parents believes good for the children, must be good for the children, the food, clothing, education, ideologies (religion) politics, everything. SO; IF THE PARENTS BELIEVE PEDOPHILIA AND INCEST GOOD FOR THEIR KIDS, IT MUST BE GOOD FOR THEIR KIDS. However, we know from the facts that most of Pedophilia, incest occurs inside the family by the parent on their own children. Therefore, how can be one is right and the other is wrong following the same rules. Suppose some parents decide pedophilia is good to their children others think it is bad to their children. One believes in vegetarianism and others in non-veg, one parent become nudist otherers don’t, one take to their children to drag shows others don’t. How can one parent impose their morality values on the other parents fearing those values will spread like wildfire into the entire society, if it is not criminalized? What a hypocrisy!
Not so long ago, they thought the same thing about adultery and Homosexuality.

[Fragment]

I don't quite see how proposing an ethical solution for ages below puberty (bar questioning the blanket nature of offender processing) would be helpful right now, let alone deliberations on how you could get off with an infant. This sounds like 1970s thinking.

Threads like this and trying to establish a nation, convince me that our alliance is not yet at the stage where we can form the small communities and grassroots organizations typical of burgeoning civil rights movements.

Every moment has its radicals. But those radicals have to be willing to work with the reformists.

We can’t afford to let the “perfect” be the enemy of the “good”.