MAP Forum

so minors cant consent because "their brains arent fully developed!"

however, people with intellectual disabilities (Mild and Moderate only) can as long as they understand and how to say yes and no.

According to The Cleveland Clinic site, people with mild intellectual disabilities' have an average mental age of 9-12, and those w/ moderate have an average mental age of 6-9

the hypocrisy of antis reaches genuinely insane levels

I think most antis would maintain that people with severe intellectual disabilities cannot consent either, at least not to sex with the non-intellectually disabled.

It would be funny if someone countered this by calling them ableist and accusing them of supporting eugenics or something though. "What, you think peoples with downs syndrome don't deserve the same rights as everyone else? People's rights should be restricted based on their IQ score? You fucking fascist."

I could see a response like that really setting off a shitstorm of confused discourse on a site like twitter or tiktok.

TheHamilplexOfficial wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2026 11:59 pm so minors cant consent because "their brains arent fully developed!"

however, people with intellectual disabilities (Mild and Moderate only) can as long as they understand and how to say yes and no.

According to The Cleveland Clinic site, people with mild intellectual disabilities' have an average mental age of 9-12, and those w/ moderate have an average mental age of 6-9

the hypocrisy of antis reaches genuinely insane levels

Yes! And the fact the brain doesn't fully develop until 25 yet there so stuck on 18.

Kierkegaard wrote: Mon Aug 17, 2026 12:23 am I think most antis would maintain that people with severe intellectual disabilities cannot consent either, at least not to sex with the non-intellectually disabled.

It would be funny if someone countered this by calling them ableist and accusing them of supporting eugenics or something though. "What, you think peoples with downs syndrome don't deserve the same rights as everyone else? People's rights should be restricted based on their IQ score? You fucking fascist."

I could see a response like that really setting off a shitstorm of confused discourse on a site like twitter or tiktok.

yes if its severe or profound then they cant consent but if its only mild or moderate they can
idfk rules r weird

You see, it is actually rather remarkably simple. You can't consent until you're 18, because the brain doesn't fully develop until 25.

You can however consent with someone else's brain who hasn't fully developed, but only if they're below 18, because their brain doesn't fully developed until 25.

If both parties are under 18, there's usually a randomly selected age gap that's acceptable. Whenever that age gap is breached, such as in the case of a 15 year old having sex with a 10 year old, whomever's brain is closest to being fully developed goes from being incapable of understanding sex and they transform into a vile predatory monster, just like us!

Now you may be asking, what about people aged 19-24? Who can they consent with? Well, anyone, so long as they're above 18 (because the <18 year old's brain hasn't developed yet).

Since cognitive prowess is the core of our argument, this applies very cleanly to other situations. For example, you can't have sex with a cow, because they just simply don't have the brain capacity to understand what's going on. Don't mind me as I'm explaining this to you with a cow's asscheeks in between some pieces of bread. That's not sexual so that's alright. The cow's brain is evolved enough to understand being turned into a burger.

TheHamilplexOfficial wrote: Sun Aug 16, 2026 11:59 pm so minors cant consent because "their brains arent fully developed!"

however, people with intellectual disabilities (Mild and Moderate only) can as long as they understand and how to say yes and no.

According to The Cleveland Clinic site, people with mild intellectual disabilities' have an average mental age of 9-12, and those w/ moderate have an average mental age of 6-9

the hypocrisy of antis reaches genuinely insane levels

Because Antis hate isn't based on reason, it's pure evil and emotions, just like the German people feelings towards Jews during the Nazi regime, it wasn't because jews were a real threat but because they thought they were monsters (and for others it was because it was a easy way to be a sadist abuser without being blamed for it)

Bookshelf wrote: Mon Aug 17, 2026 11:38 pm You see, it is actually rather remarkably simple. You can't consent until you're 18, because the brain doesn't fully develop until 25.

You can however consent with someone else's brain who hasn't fully developed, but only if they're below 18, because their brain doesn't fully developed until 25.

If both parties are under 18, there's usually a randomly selected age gap that's acceptable. Whenever that age gap is breached, such as in the case of a 15 year old having sex with a 10 year old, whomever's brain is closest to being fully developed goes from being incapable of understanding sex and they transform into a vile predatory monster, just like us!

Now you may be asking, what about people aged 19-24? Who can they consent with? Well, anyone, so long as they're above 18 (because the <18 year old's brain hasn't developed yet).

Since cognitive prowess is the core of our argument, this applies very cleanly to other situations. For example, you can't have sex with a cow, because they just simply don't have the brain capacity to understand what's going on. Don't mind me as I'm explaining this to you with a cow's asscheeks in between some pieces of bread. That's not sexual so that's alright. The cow's brain is evolved enough to understand being turned into a burger.

For the most part, I think this accurately describes things except that people have a huge problem with 18-24-year-olds being with older adults based on the immature prefrontal cortex myth as well. They may not want it to be illegal for 40-year-olds to date 20-year-olds but it is still extremely taboo. It seems to me that it started out with the idea that no one over whatever age (30,35,40,) should be in a relationship with someone under 25 but now it's that no one over 30, 35, etc. should be with anyone in their 20s. This might not be a new trend, it's even possible that I'm over-generalizing how many people oppose older men being with women in their late 20s, but it seems to me that the new forbidden fruit is women under 30 and I'm not sure why. To me it seems that they're just lumping women under 25 in with women in their late 20s because we have 10 fingers so 30 is more of an important milestone than 27. The prefrontal cortex argument shouldn't apply to women over 25 so I don't understand it. Even 30-something-year-olds might be off-limits depending on how old you are.

It starts out with cognitive prowess and the idea of a literal inability to consent but then it seems to morph into power imbalance for convenience, and it does seem to me that the stigma on older men with 20-something-year-olds ultimately comes from the same place as the taboo around adults being with actual children (I should say older adults in general, women are often demonized for being with younger men, but I don't know how many people in their heart of hearts are as opposed to women being with younger clearly adult males as they are to men being with younger women), although the former is considered less evil by degree which is probably why you rarely hear anyone advocate for making it illegal.

Kierkegaard,

I think most antis would maintain that people with severe intellectual disabilities cannot consent either, at least not to sex with the non-intellectually disabled.

I agree.

It would be funny if someone countered this by calling them ableist and accusing them of supporting eugenics or something though. "What, you think peoples with downs syndrome don't deserve the same rights as everyone else? People's rights should be restricted based on their IQ score? You fucking fascist."

I could see a response like that really setting off a shitstorm of confused discourse on a site like twitter or tiktok.

I think the actual happiness of the 'exploited' generally takes a backseat to protecting them from exploitation or selectively minimizing power imbalances (one thing that's strange to me is that you can have the imbalance that comes with their merely existing in the same space or having a platonic relationship but when it comes to sexual/romantic relationships it's treated in a fundamentally different light, and only some power imbalances are a problem. Others are expected, considered neutral or often desired by the less powerful party).