Controversial post here perhaps

[Theendoftheline]

BUT im ALL FOR teens 14 to 17 dating whoever the heck they want but reading some of these posts here im somewhat disgusted by the thought that some here think its okay to have sex with 6 to 12 year olds.....or any sexual interaction really. I may fail a purity test by saying that here and im not going to start drama over people stating what they believe etc but does anyone else here feel the same way? the reason I feel its okay for 14 to 17 yo's is because I figure by then you have enough of a "sense of self' or at least in theory should have enough of a sense of self to make an informed decision and the reason so many teens seem so ungodly immature and childish is a product of somewhat recent societal pressure to maintain innocence and youth and play the constant "victim card" in regards to what we consider "adult activates". Though even for my seemingly very mild views people on and off the internet would want me dead lol.

[Kierkegaard]

What is it about sexual interactions that makes them intrinsically dangerous for kids to participate in? Maybe there are some physical risks to penetrative intercourse, but I don't see any reason why witnessing others have sex, playing sexual games, being rubbed or massaged in a sexual way, etc are necessarily inappropriate for children of any age. You say you have no problem with teens having sex because they have a more developed sense of self and are capable of making informed decisions, but why are those things necessary for any and all kinds of sexual interactions?

We don't question whether children can consent to playing a board game or getting a massage. If somebody questioned whether or not children have a developed enough sense of self to make an informed decision regarding whether to get a back massage or to play a round of monopoly, nobody would even understand what they're talking about. Of course children can agree to do those things, they're harmless. So why is it that sexual games and sexual massages is so much more incredibly dangerous and requires greater cognitive faculties to consent to? A boy deriving pleasure from someone rubbing his back is normal but a boy deriving pleasure from somebody rubbing his penis is totally different? Why?

The other things we place an age restriction on are things which entail high degrees of risk and the potential for long term negative consequences if done impulsively and without full cognitive understanding. Drugs, alcohol, driving a 2,000 pound motor vehicle, legally binding contracts, joining the military, elective cosmetic surgery, etc. Maybe you can argue penetrative intercourse falls into this category because of STDs/pregnancy, but it's much harder to justify why any and all kinds of involvement in sexual interactions carries a similar amount of risk.

The problem with discourse on what the age of consent should be is that it presupposes sexual activities are all so universally dangerous that there needs to be a single age of consent in the first place. People act like abolishing the age of consent means it would then be legal to rape babies or whatever, but acts of violent abuse like that are already illegal under existing laws prohibiting non-sexual child abuse. It's not legal to punch a baby in the face or leave them outside overnight, it wouldn't be legal to hurt them sexually either, the age of consent isn't necessary for that.

[Theendoftheline]

What is it about sexual interactions that makes them intrinsically dangerous for kids to participate in? Maybe there are some physical risks to penetrative intercourse, but I don't see any reason why witnessing others have sex, playing sexual games, being rubbed or massaged in a sexual way, etc are necessarily inappropriate for children of any age. You say you have no problem with teens having sex because they have a more developed sense of self and are capable of making informed decisions, but why are those things necessary for any and all kinds of sexual interactions?

We don't question whether children can consent to playing a board game or getting a massage. If somebody questioned whether or not children have a developed enough sense of self to make an informed decision regarding whether to get a back massage or to play a round of monopoly, nobody would even understand what they're talking about. Of course children can agree to do those things, they're harmless. So why is it that sexual games and sexual massages is so much more incredibly dangerous and requires greater cognitive faculties to consent to? A boy deriving pleasure from someone rubbing his back is normal but a boy deriving pleasure from somebody rubbing his penis is totally different? Why?

The other things we place an age restriction on are things which entail high degrees of risk and the potential for long term negative consequences if done impulsively and without full cognitive understanding. Drugs, alcohol, driving a 2,000 pound motor vehicle, legally binding contracts, joining the military, elective cosmetic surgery, etc. Maybe you can argue penetrative intercourse falls into this category because of STDs/pregnancy, but it's much harder to justify why any and all kinds of involvement in sexual interactions carries a similar amount of risk.

The problem with discourse on what the age of consent should be is that it presupposes sexual activities are all so universally dangerous that there needs to be a single age of consent in the first place. People act like abolishing the age of consent means it would then be legal to rape babies or whatever, but acts of violent abuse like that are already illegal under existing laws prohibiting non-sexual child abuse. It's not legal to punch a baby in the face or leave them outside overnight, it wouldn't be legal to hurt them sexually either, the age of consent isn't necessary for that.

I kinda get what you are saying, genitals are JUST body parts that when stimulated feel good, so why put so much tabboo and social trauma on a body part that makes you feel GOOD, only humans tend to do that because of thousands of years of religious/social/sexual repressing correct?

[GL_in_Lyrics]

No.

Anti-pedophilia is a psyop, that includes all age of consent laws. I will not be brainwashed by this. The people who make these laws KNOW pedophilia and sex with children is beneficial for society, which is why they ban it, and why they practice it in secret. It's a man-hating, child-persecuting curse on humanity... dooming us to sure destruction.

Yes, truly, I say that unless pedophilia becomes accepted, humanity will wipe itself out sooner rather than later. There are other issues too that could cause self-destruction, but this is also one of them.

[Theendoftheline]

No.

Anti-pedophilia is a psyop, that includes all age of consent laws. I will not be brainwashed by this. The people who make these laws KNOW pedophilia and sex with children is beneficial for society, which is why they ban it, and why they practice it in secret. It's a man-hating, child-persecuting curse on humanity... dooming us to sure destruction.

Yes, truly, I say that unless pedophilia becomes accepted, humanity will wipe itself out sooner rather than later. There are other issues too that could cause self-destruction, but this is also one of them.

IDK its just REALLLY hard for me to wrap my head around that ya know? maybe its brainwashing or whatever but hmm.....

That said its been stated several times everywhere that peoples reaction to the sex is what causes so much trauma so then, that begs the question why do people react the way they do to it? I know a lot of people at the very least mean well but....