MAP Forum

It is an undeniable truth that a society must shield its innocent young from the ravenous clutches of those who would seek to exploit them. Our laws regarding the age of consent play a noble role in safeguarding our precious generations from those who lack the decency to exercise restraint. And yet, upon reflecting with sober honesty, it strikes me that our society has become inexcusably misguided in our definitions of "adulthood" and what we falsely label as "consent."

Are we truly to believe that one ceases to be a child, all at once, the very moment that they turn 18 years of age? Does anyone truly think that these individuals suddenly, overnight, become mature enough to be capable of making decisions for themselves? Obviously that is absurd.

Why, even at the tender age of 29 years old a person is nothing but a wobbly, aimless creature, stumbling through the haze of youthful delusion, without even the slightest iota of judgement. They are undeveloped - immature in both body and mind. The life of the average nubile 29-year-old child is still a time rife with poor choices, questionable partners, and youthful impulses that render one incapable of meaningful agency. One shudders to think of the harm wrought by our collective failure to prevent such hapless individuals from entering romantic engagements at such a shockingly young age.

A 29-year-old today is scarcely more than a toddler, in both the moral and intellectual sense. Would you entrust a 10-year-old with the keys to a motorcar? Would you toss an infant a lit match and leave them to their whims? Then how, pray tell, can we justify letting a mere 29-year-old venture into romantic territory?

And what can we say about the type of adult who would willingly court a partner in their 20s? People with this sort of digusting inclination are nothing less than the most vile of predators, taking advantage of the youthful naivete of their victims. These wretched perverts hide behind society’s permissiveness, slipping into the lives of these pitiable youngsters, and luring them with offers of companionship, emotional intimacy, and other insidious traps. These repulsive degenerates are known to groom their innocent victims through kind words, gifts, and shared bank accounts. No decent society would tolerate this predation under any guise, and no sensible government should sit idle as our precious 29-year-old children continue to fall prey to it.

It is for this reason that I propose that the age of consent should be raised to 30 years old. Let this be the standard for a truly enlightened society—one where love, at long last, is not left to the whims of idiotic youths and the deviants who would ensnare them

Let us protect our youth, our near-youth, and even our would-be adults from themselves and from those repugnant monsters who would exploit their state of near-infancy for their own lecherous gain. Only in such a reformed society can we lay claim to the mantle of moral guardianship and look with pride upon a generation that has finally, properly matured.

You know there are people crazy enough to agree to that, even to raising the age of consent eventually above the age of reproduction, ending the species.

But I do believe Age of Consent rules are fundamentially flawed, as evidenced by the fact that they are different in different countries and rarely effective in stopping people from having underage sex. They have all the enforcability of the "do not tumble dry" label on clothes.

I think they should be replaced with laws that simply protect people. A person of 10 no more wants to be abused than a person of 30 or 60. Laws should therefore be about protecting people, not about which groups deserve protection.

I think an unwanted side-effect for the age of consent in society has been how it's altered the notion of raising a child from 'getting them ready for adulthood before X age' and turning it into 'letting them start getting ready for adulthood by X age'.

Too many parents view the age of consent, or age of majority, as the starting line for preparing to develop while the intention was for it to be the finish line. You were supposed to be able to handle adulthood by this age, and your parents were supposed to teach you the skills you needed before you reached it. Today though, you're "still my little boy/girl" at 17 years and 11 months - and there's a growing idea that childhood somehow needs preserved for as long as possible, to a point where parents often refuse to teach their children basic skills such as tying their shoelaces until they're much older, because they want to preserve the moments of getting to do it themselves.

CloverAntics wrote: ↑Tue Nov 12, 2024 6:19 pm It is an undeniable truth that a society must shield its innocent young from the ravenous clutches of those who would seek to exploit them. Our laws regarding the age of consent play a noble role in safeguarding our precious generations from those who lack the decency to exercise restraint. And yet, upon reflecting with sober honesty, it strikes me that our society has become inexcusably misguided in our definitions of "adulthood" and what we falsely label as "consent."

Are we truly to believe that one ceases to be a child, all at once, the very moment that they turn 18 years of age? Does anyone truly think that these individuals suddenly, overnight, become mature enough to be capable of making decisions for themselves? Obviously that is absurd.

Why, even at the tender age of 29 years old a person is nothing but a wobbly, aimless creature, stumbling through the haze of youthful delusion, without even the slightest iota of judgement. They are undeveloped - immature in both body and mind. The life of the average nubile 29-year-old child is still a time rife with poor choices, questionable partners, and youthful impulses that render one incapable of meaningful agency. One shudders to think of the harm wrought by our collective failure to prevent such hapless individuals from entering romantic engagements at such a shockingly young age.

A 29-year-old today is scarcely more than a toddler, in both the moral and intellectual sense. Would you entrust a 10-year-old with the keys to a motorcar? Would you toss an infant a lit match and leave them to their whims? Then how, pray tell, can we justify letting a mere 29-year-old venture into romantic territory?

And what can we say about the type of adult who would willingly court a partner in their 20s? People with this sort of digusting inclination are nothing less than the most vile of predators, taking advantage of the youthful naivete of their victims. These wretched perverts hide behind society’s permissiveness, slipping into the lives of these pitiable youngsters, and luring them with offers of companionship, emotional intimacy, and other insidious traps. These repulsive degenerates are known to groom their innocent victims through kind words, gifts, and shared bank accounts. No decent society would tolerate this predation under any guise, and no sensible government should sit idle as our precious 29-year-old children continue to fall prey to it.

It is for this reason that I propose that the age of consent should be raised to 30 years old. Let this be the standard for a truly enlightened society—one where love, at long last, is not left to the whims of idiotic youths and the deviants who would ensnare them

Let us protect our youth, our near-youth, and even our would-be adults from themselves and from those repugnant monsters who would exploit their state of near-infancy for their own lecherous gain. Only in such a reformed society can we lay claim to the mantle of moral guardianship and look with pride upon a generation that has finally, properly matured.

Looks like you're promoting limits in age difference between intimate partners. That's what the establishment regime is trying to impose. I absolutely reject your proposal and I call on my followers to act to stop your proposal going into effect. There should be no upper age limit on the older person in a sexual relationship with a youth or child.

Outis wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 11:21 am
But I do believe Age of Consent rules are fundamentially flawed, as evidenced by the fact that they are different in different countries and rarely effective in stopping people from having underage sex. They have all the enforcability of the "do not tumble dry" label on clothes.

I think they should be replaced with laws that simply protect people. A person of 10 no more wants to be abused than a person of 30 or 60. Laws should therefore be about protecting people, not about which groups deserve protection.

Wise words, Outis.

galileo2333 wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 7:32 pm
Looks like you're promoting limits in age difference between intimate partners. That's what the establishment regime is trying to impose. I absolutely reject your proposal and I call on my followers to act to stop your proposal going into effect. There should be no upper age limit on the older person in a sexual relationship with a youth or child.

No, they were being sarcastic to elucidate how ridiculous the mainstream beliefs are.

Outis wrote: ↑Wed Nov 13, 2024 11:21 am But I do believe Age of Consent rules are fundamentially flawed, as evidenced by the fact that they are different in different countries and rarely effective in stopping people from having underage sex. They have all the enforcability of the "do not tumble dry" label on clothes.

This is a common strawman I see used by you guys. Let's get this out of the way: the age of consent is not meant to stop underage sex. It's meant to make it easy to prosecute the sexual abuse of minors by adults and older adolescents. In addition, there are more nuanced considerations when it comes to minors than with legal adults which make it extremely difficult if not impossible to legislate child sexual abuse laws properly without undermining legal consent. Hence, age of consent.

The age where they are deemed capable of protecting themselves against sexual abuse and exploitation is still a point of debate.

I think they should be replaced with laws that simply protect people. A person of 10 no more wants to be abused than a person of 30 or 60. Laws should therefore be about protecting people, not about which groups deserve protection.

That's as naive as saying "a person with a disability no more wants to be discriminated against than an abled-bodied person." I mean, obviously, but it still happens to them - at a disproportionate rate no less. That was why the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed. It's why we now have mandatory accessibility for the hearing-impaired and those in wheelchairs. The anti-discrimination laws we had at the time weren't enough for them to be treated fairly in society.

It's so easy to say everyone should be treated the same. It's so easy to ignore the cases where the laws do absolutely nothing to protect certain types of people. But that is what we must focus on if we really care about helping people facing injustice.

stropa wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2024 5:21 pm This is a common strawman I see used by you guys. Let's get this out of the way: the age of consent is not meant to stop underage sex. It's meant to make it easy to prosecute the sexual abuse of minors by adults and older adolescents. In addition, there are more nuanced considerations when it comes to minors than with legal adults which make it extremely difficult if not impossible to legislate child sexual abuse laws properly without undermining legal consent. Hence, age of consent.

The age where they are deemed capable of protecting themselves against sexual abuse and exploitation is still a point of debate.

Then why make zero distinctions between voluntary sexual contact and non-voluntary sexual contact? And besides, what nuance are you speaking of that can't be applied to adults? Is there any biologically intrinsic differences between the mental capacities of a 13-year-old and a 20-year-old that warrants differential treatment in cases where they have sex with an adult over the age of 30?

To me it clearly seems that it's about stopping underage sex after all, especially in countries with no close-in age gap exemptions, which are in themselves arbitrary but still recognises the capacity to consent in minors at a certain age. Saying that it's about "protection" is more of a retcon and ignores the original intent behind instituting arbitrary age of consent laws, namely controlling the sexual choices of pubescent women.

That's as naive as saying "a person with a disability no more wants to be discriminated against than an abled-bodied person." I mean, obviously, but it still happens to them - at a disproportionate rate no less. That was why the Americans with Disabilities Act was passed. It's why we now have mandatory accessibility for the hearing-impaired and those in wheelchairs. The anti-discrimination laws we had at the time weren't enough for them to be treated fairly in society.

It's so easy to say everyone should be treated the same. It's so easy to ignore the cases where the laws do absolutely nothing to protect certain types of people. But that is what we must focus on if we really care about helping people facing injustice.

You're confusing a law meant to provide assistance in employment and public services for the disabled ( Americans with Disabilities Act) with legal restrictions on the bodily autonomy of minors based on discriminatory notions pertaining to age (age of consent laws). If society really wants to protect children, then imposing absolutist age of consent laws isn't the way. Extreme protection based on the woke victim mentality only serves at chipping away at civil liberties and fairness for the defendants, such as the removal of statute of limitations for CSA: https://www.desmoinesregister.com/story ... 062099001/

Artaxerxes II wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2024 5:44 pm Then why make zero distinctions between voluntary sexual contact and non-voluntary sexual contact?

Because that would contradict what age of consent is. If you can't consent there is no distinction to be made.

And besides, what nuance are you speaking of that can't be applied to adults?

The state is allowed to enforce laws meant to protect minors even if the reasons for those laws might overlap with adults. The reason is because they are minors. So your moving the goalpost means nothing here. If you disagree with the concept of minorhood, take it up with the government, not me.

Is there any biologically intrinsic differences between the mental capacities of a 13-year-old and a 20-year-old that warrants differential treatment in cases where they have sex with an adult over the age of 30?

I never brought up specific ages. The issue has nothing to do with the specific ages of the child and the ages of the adult per se. But since you are bringing up age, I'll oblige. Since minor spans birth through 18, our focus should remain on the most vulnerable of the range, not the grey area that you lot enjoy focusing on. Is there a biologically intrinsic difference between the mental capacities of a 10 month old and a 20 year old? Yes. Does it warrant differential treatment in cases where they have sex with an adult over the age of 30? Well the age of the adult doesn't matter, but it does indeed warrant differential treatment.

To me it clearly seems that it's about stopping underage sex after all, especially in countries with no close-in age gap exemptions, which are in themselves arbitrary but still recognises the capacity to consent in minors at a certain age.

The vast majority of minors are not charged when underage sex is discovered, neither when the other party is a minor nor when the other party is an adult. There are only exceptional cases where that occurs. So from the state's perspective there is no need for close-in-age exemptions, because it isn't point of an AoC to prevent those relationships in the first place.

Saying that it's about "protection" is more of a retcon and ignores the original intent behind instituting arbitrary age of consent laws, namely controlling the sexual choices of pubescent women.

Whether you want to call it controlling or protection is a difference of opinion. Both can be simultaneously true.

You're confusing a law meant to provide assistance in employment and public services for the disabled ( Americans with Disabilities Act) with legal restrictions on the bodily autonomy of minors based on discriminatory notions pertaining to age (age of consent laws).

It provides assistance and public services while also strengthening the then current anti-discrimination laws.

You see age of consent as a restriction on bodily autonomy, I see it as a protective measure. Again, difference of opinion.

stropa wrote: ↑Sun Nov 17, 2024 7:46 pm Because that would contradict what age of consent is. If you can't consent there is no distinction to be made.

This argument assumes consent is binary (either fully present or absent) based on age alone. However, capacity for consent is not a fixed threshold but exists along a spectrum influenced by factors like maturity, context, and the nature of the relationship.
If no distinction is made between voluntary and non-voluntary contact, the law risks conflating consensual, non-coercive relationships with abusive or exploitative ones. This creates unjust outcomes, especially in cases where there is mutual agreement between individuals near the same age.
The inability to consent should not be assumed purely based on age. Instead, a more nuanced system could assess consent on a case-by-case basis, considering cognitive and emotional maturity rather than arbitrary age limits.

The state is allowed to enforce laws meant to protect minors even if the reasons for those laws might overlap with adults. The reason is because they are minors. So your moving the goalpost means nothing here. If you disagree with the concept of minorhood, take it up with the government, not me.

This statement hinges on the premise that "minorhood" is inherently justified as a separate legal category. While society recognizes that minors may require special protections in certain contexts (e.g., education, labor), these protections should not automatically extend to curtail bodily autonomy without clear justification.
If laws "meant to protect minors" overlap with protections for adults, why rely on an arbitrary distinction of age rather than focusing on the behavior itself (e.g., coercion, exploitation)? For example, sexual exploitation and coercion are harmful irrespective of age and could be legislated against universally.
By saying “the reason is because they are minors,” the argument becomes circular. It does not substantiate why minorhood justifies a blanket restriction on agency, nor why a nuanced approach (e.g., close-in-age exemptions) cannot coexist with protective laws.

I never brought up specific ages. The issue has nothing to do with the specific ages of the child and the ages of the adult per se. But since you are bringing up age, I'll oblige. Since minor spans birth through 18, our focus should remain on the most vulnerable of the range, not the grey area that you lot enjoy focusing on. Is there a biologically intrinsic difference between the mental capacities of a 10 month old and a 20 year old? Yes. Does it warrant differential treatment in cases where they have sex with an adult over the age of 30? Well the age of the adult doesn't matter, but it does indeed warrant differential treatment.

Comparing a 10-month-old to a 20-year-old is a strawman argument, as it exaggerates the disparity in mental capacities to sidestep the core question about adolescents closer to adulthood (e.g., 13 vs. 20).
While there are biological and cognitive differences between children, adolescents, and adults, these differences are not uniform across individuals. For example, some 16-year-olds may demonstrate greater emotional maturity than some 20-year-olds.
Blanket rules fail to account for these variations and often overreach. For instance, should a cognitively mature 17-year-old in a consensual relationship with a slightly older adult be treated the same way as a 10-month-old in an exploitative scenario? Differential treatment based on context would be more just.

The vast majority of minors are not charged when underage sex is discovered, neither when the other party is a minor nor when the other party is an adult. There are only exceptional cases where that occurs. So from the state's perspective there is no need for close-in-age exemptions, because it isn't point of an AoC to prevent those relationships in the first place.

If the vast majority of minors are not prosecuted for underage sex, this suggests that enforcement already includes implicit discretion. Codifying close-in-age exemptions would ensure consistent application of this discretion and reduce the risk of outlier cases leading to unfair prosecution.
The lack of close-in-age exemptions in some jurisdictions contradicts the claim that age of consent laws are not about preventing underage sex. The very existence of these laws creates a chilling effect, as they often stigmatize consensual relationships among peers.
The fact that enforcement often differs from the written law highlights the need to reform the law itself to align with its stated purpose of protecting minors, rather than perpetuating inconsistencies.

Whether you want to call it controlling or protection is a difference of opinion. Both can be simultaneously true.

While protection and control may overlap in intent, their implications are fundamentally different. Protection seeks to empower individuals by reducing harm, whereas control imposes restrictions that can undermine autonomy.
The historical origins of age of consent laws that existed since Europe of medieval times often reflect societal norms aimed at controlling the behavior of specific groups, particularly women. These roots cannot be dismissed as mere "differences of opinion," as they inform the continued use and enforcement of these laws. A legacy of that would be the extension of statutes of such laws being extended to boys who had sex with women only centuries after the first age of consent laws were first introduced.
A protective framework should focus on identifying and mitigating harm (e.g., through laws against coercion and grooming) rather than restricting consensual behavior under the guise of protection.

It provides assistance and public services while also strengthening the then current anti-discrimination laws.

You see age of consent as a restriction on bodily autonomy, I see it as a protective measure. Again, difference of opinion.

Framing this as a "difference of opinion" overlooks the tangible consequences of these laws. Restricting autonomy for individuals capable of informed consent undercuts their agency. Protection and autonomy aren’t mutually exclusive—a nuanced legal framework could safeguard vulnerable individuals while respecting the autonomy of those capable of consenting. Protection and autonomy are not mutually exclusive. A well-crafted legal system can protect vulnerable individuals while respecting the autonomy of those who are capable of consenting.
The assertion that it’s just a "difference of opinion" does not address whether the current age of consent framework achieves its stated goals effectively or whether alternative approaches could better balance protection and autonomy.

In conclusion, the issue isn’t about rejecting protection for minors but questioning whether the current framework effectively balances protection and fairness. Rigid, one-size-fits-all laws often fail to account for context and can result in unintended harm. I’d argue for a system that emphasizes context-sensitive laws targeting coercion and exploitation rather than relying on arbitrary age thresholds. Wouldn’t such an approach better achieve the goals you’ve outlined?