My views on consent and ages as an aoc abolitionist

[G@yWad43]

A lot of people hear aoc abolitionist and jump to the most extreme examples.

“Oh you don't want an age of consent, so you think newborn babies should be brought to sex dungeons?1!!?!?”

Obviously fucking not. In my ideal world, there would be no blanket aoc, but legally things would still be done in stages.

For ages 0-7, small children, the only things that would be allowed sexually are things akin to heavy petting, nothing that could seriously injure a child and only soft core kinks(think tickling or plushophillia) would be allowed, nothing else (BDSM/CNC/Somnophlia would be 100% illegal). Mainly just mutual masturbation, handjobs, blowjobs, nothing more serious in sexual intensity than that. The “pretend” versions of kinks would be allowed, instead of tying up a small child with rope you could do a “pretend” version with fake police cuffs. No real BDSM though. Other non harmful kinks would be allowed, but if any harm would come to the child the judges would still rule in the childs favor, not the adults. Penetration of any sort would be illegal, since it could cause bleeding or even internal damage at those ages and a child most likely wouldn't have the knowledge or expiernce to agree to that risk. Any adult who breaks these laws would go to jail, since the laws would actually be done out of a desire for children's safety and not out of disgust. The laws would still apply but be far laxer between children and other children, since they would be less knowledgeable on what causes harm and less likely to cause severe physical harm. No incarceration for them, but still penalties for small children if they broke the law, like if a 7 year old forced themselves on a baby or another child, but no laws would apply to babies or toddlers themselves if they broke the law, since persecuting a baby or a toddler is fucking stupid. Small children wouldn't be prosecuted for harming adults.

For ages 8-12, more things would be allowed. Kinks would be allowed but extreme kinks, or the extreme versions of kinks would still be illegal(No hardcore BDSM, it would still be fully illegal to tie up an whip an 8 year old, especially at the hands of an adult, but kids would be allowed to participate in soft core “beginner” BDSM)A preteen is expiernced enough to know what their body is capable of handling or would find pleasurable, so they would be allowed to make more of their own sexual decisions. Penetration would be allowed using this logic, even though it might not be 100% risk free, but a preteen should have the self assessment and mental capacity to decide if they want to take that risk or not, and if it is forced on them by an adult, or if an adult causes severe harm to the child despite the child's agreement( children 12 and under would be able to persecute based on lack of knowledge alone) the adult would still go to jail. The rules between children and other children is stricter, since you have more knowledge and expiernce and are physically strong enough to cause more damage. Children can be prosecuted for harming adults, but the punishment would more often be less severe and would more so apply to extreme cases(like a 12 year old drugging a woman to rape her or something, unlike a toddler, a 12 year old is more than capable of knowing that is wrong, with more lax rules for preteens comes greater responsibilities).

For 13+, same rules as adults. Teenagers are fully capable of making their own descions, especially sexually/physically since they are either fully mature or almost fully matured. Exceptions will apply, if a 13 year old girl accuses a 40 year old man of rape, the judge will rule in favor of the girl. But it isnt black and white, if a buff muscular 17 year old boy accuses a petite 21 year old adult woman of rape, the judge would lean on the woman's side. A teenager wont be able to prosecute rape based on “lack of knowledge” like a preteen or child would. I could expect a preteen or child not to know the risks of certain sexual situations, but a teenager is more than capable of taking three seconds out of their day to google search “what is BDSM and is it dangerous”, and fully comprehending the information. They would still be able to prosecute based on force(but the prosecution would lean on who's physically stronger, not age, since teenage boys tend to be as strong or stronger than adult woman, while the same doesn't apply for teenage girls and adult men) or drugging/coercion. A lack of knowledge/expiernce could still add to the case, despite it not being used to persecute alone, but it wouldn't be based on age, since a 17 year old could be more knowledgeable/expiernced on certain sex acts than an adult. And once again, these rules wouldn't be black and white. In the case of a 15 year old boy and a little old lady with dementia, even though one is a “child” and the other is a grown woman, the judges should lean on the side of the elderly lady with dementia. Or a fit and healthy rich 16 year old girl and a homeless war veteran with missing limbs and sickle cell anemia, the judge should lean on the side of the man who literally doesn't have legs or a house and is dying. Or a developmentally normal 14 year old boy and a severely autistic 30 year old man who cant speak and needs help even leaving the house. These rules should never have been based on age alone, as there are so many cases that dont fit the traditional narrative of “big scary middle aged man forcing tiny petite innocent little teenage girl”. After reaching sexual/physical maturity, persecution should be based on the individual circumstances and have little to nothing to do with age, since other factors such as physical stature, use of drugs/weapons, age related mental diseases or developmental disabilities, economic or social status, and drug use, would paint a more accurate picture of who is the offender and who is the victim, affording nuances our current laws do not afford.

Even with children and preteens, an elderly adult with alzeheimers or a severely intellectually disabled adult shouldn't be incarcerated if they are accused of sexual violence, I don't think it is right to incarcerate someone who isn't even mentally or physically capable of using the bathroom by themselves or tying their own shoes, which applies to both children and the diseased/intellectually disabled. Which isn't a nuance that our current laws afford, as children as young as 5 can be incarcerated and put on the sex offender registry and very little exemptions, if any are given at all, are made for disabled adults.

1.There would be no more sex offender registry. Sexual assault would be regarded the same as physical assault, no more sexseptionalism.

2.PIM would be fully legal but PIM made with trafficking or rape would still be illegal.

3.No age restriction for watching porn, but the average 5 year old probably wouldn't be interested anyways, and if 5 year olds are allowed to watch horror movies with parental consent/supervision, what so special about sexual movies that it should be any different?

4.AMSC would be legal but with the above rules, and forced or coerced sex would still be illegal and considered rape.

5.Incarceration would be less punitive and draconian and more focused on rehabilitation, and long sentences would only apply to those who are an immediate danger to others if they are released into the general population, not with people with low recidivism rates or with low level crimes.

6.Falsely accusing people of sexual violence would also be a punishable offense(though not for small children or intellectually disabled/mentally diseased people).

7.No getting arrested for crimes you didnt commit in the first place, so no getting arrested for “suspicion” to commit a crime, like the laws are now if you sext a nonexistent minor or watch anime kiddy porn. If you are threatening to harm someone(like threatening to rape or physically assualt or kill someone), you should get detained until you are cleared as not or no longer being a genuine threat, but just being “suspicious” shouldn't be illegal. Thought crime shouldnt be illegal.

8.Not knowing a minors age would be a genuine defense, with exceptions. If you thought a 7 year old was 9, or a 12 year old lied about being 13, and there is reasonable proof, thats a valid defense, you cant just say that you thought a baby was 18 or that a 3 year old lied about being 12 or something stupid like that.

9.And if you are a preteen or older, lying about your age is illegal, but age restrictions would be much more lax or wouldnt exist at all, so there would be little incentive to do so outside of malicous intent, further justifying my above law.

10.There would be no more getting incarcerated or being forced into mandatory “therapy” for being a gross little sex pervert. People would have the free reign to be gross little sex perverts as long as they dont cause severe harm to other parties. No more getting thrown in jail and being diagnosed with “gross little sex pervert” disorder, all the paraphillic disorders would be scrapped.

11. Sex ed would be mandatory in all schools at all the different levels, as it is another form of the human experience that needs to be educated to the youth, no more parents opting out of it because they are sex fearing conservative pussys, it would be the childrens choice if they want to learn, and a trust me, they will, as children's natural curiosity is hard thing to break.

[RoosterDance]

I agree with all your points.
This would be the ideal, but probably too great of a leap to be palatable to the average citizen.
I think BLueRibbon's 16/12 stance is a good first step before this ideal.

[gingedu]

There's a few things I disagree with.

No incarceration for them, but still penalties for small children if they broke the law, like if a 7 year old forced themselves on a baby or another child,

If sexual crimes are to be treated proportional to physical assault crimes, then a child of that age shouldn't be procecuted for such a crime involving someone of their own age. Forcing themself on another child their age would be considered akin to bullying. We don't lock children up for bullying or even view it on the same level if an adult did it.

The child should be a lot older before people start taking it seriously.

For ages 0-7, small children, the only things that would be allowed sexually are things akin to heavy petting, nothing that could seriously injure a child and only soft core kinks(think tickling or plushophillia) would be allowed, nothing else (BDSM/CNC/Somnophlia would be 100% illegal). Mainly just mutual masturbation, handjobs, blowjobs, nothing more serious in sexual intensity than that. The “pretend” versions of kinks would be allowed, instead of tying up a small child with rope you could do a “pretend” version with fake police cuffs. No real BDSM though. .... Penetration of any sort would be illegal, since it could cause bleeding or even internal damage at those ages and a child most likely wouldn't have the knowledge or expiernce to agree to that risk.

I agree with most of this. The only concern I have is about the soft core kink part. I'm not 100% certain, but I fear there's a possibility that a kink could turn into a fetish when it involves young children. I've heard stories where people develop fixations that match one-off sexual experiences they had in their childhood. I see that as problematic as we shouldn't influence a child's sexuality. Just speculation though.

I also don't see how you would legislate against certain kinds of kinks in the first place.

if a buff muscular 17 year old boy accuses a petite 21 year old adult woman of rape, the judge would lean on the woman's side.

Well, yes, the judge should lean on the woman's side, but not because she's petite and the man is muscular, but because she's innocent until proven guilty. Petite women are capable of rape.

They would still be able to prosecute based on force(but the prosecution would lean on who's physically stronger, not age, since teenage boys tend to be as strong or stronger than adult woman, while the same doesn't apply for teenage girls and adult men) or drugging/coercion.

It should be based on the evidence presented for the crime, not based on stereotypes.

Or a fit and healthy rich 16 year old girl and a homeless war veteran with missing limbs and sickle cell anemia, the judge should lean on the side of the man who literally doesn't have legs or a house and is dying.

lol why? Just because you think it's unlikely that that kind of person could commit rape? Again, the judge should lean toward the side with evidence in the cases involving adults.

2.PIM would be fully legal but PIM made with trafficking or rape would still be illegal.

This is very optimistic but I think it would be a logistical and legal nightmare trying to figure out who is trafficked and who isn't just by viewing the pictures. Minors are under the control of their parents. A parent could secretly take money from the neighor across the street who is a pornographer, and then tell her kid to go to his house and do as he says. And the kid obeys simply because his mom or dad told him. That kind of thing doesn't happen between adults. A lot of this stuff would just go underground and undetected.

This is one of the reasons why I believe it should be illegal to produce PIM with minors below a certain age.

3.No age restriction for watching porn, but the average 5 year old probably wouldn't be interested anyways, and if 5 year olds are allowed to watch horror movies with parental consent/supervision, what so special about sexual movies that it should be any different?

Porn (especially the hyerstimulating rough violent porn we have today) is bad for adults. It would be more so for children. It's not the same as a horror movie because you're mixing sexual arousal with violent and graphic content; it hijacks your brain and makes you become numb and search for more violent, extreme and taboo content. We hear about this all the time.

There should be different ratings for porn. Where the lowest rating is the most vanilla and child-friendly kind of porn (clean, respectful, gentle, no fetishes or kinks), and the highest is the debauchery that we're used to today, along with all the adult fetishes.

If you are threatening to harm someone(like threatening to rape or physically assualt or kill someone), you should get detained until you are cleared as not or no longer being a genuine threat

How would they determine you're not a genuine threat?

[Xuxa Nuit]

I liked this from the Man's too praeternatural-
No, it's not a fight for AOC reform...
https://secure.boychat.org/messages/1636487.htm

and this is really cool. kids understand consent & coercion-
http://web.archive.org/web/20121010030444/http://www.salon.com/2002/04/19/levine_talks/

[Harlan]

My post on BC :

AOC 12 is currently sufficient to fit the historical and physiological context without appearing radical. This age was in many countries not long ago. This shows that society is able to accept and realize this. This is the right direction and society must come to this and experience it. Only then will we be able to find a new and better concept that will replace the age of consent.

The acceptance of homosexuals occurred gradually until it reached a critical mass. I consider that thinking about completely abolishing the AoC is now premature and counterproductive. Society is not mature enough for radical changes. You have to build a bridge over the river before you can build a railway.

[InfinityChild]

All that sounds good to me :3

[RoosterDance]

A couple things I would debate here:

if a buff muscular 17 year old boy accuses a petite 21 year old adult woman of rape, the judge would lean on the woman's side.

Well, yes, the judge should lean on the woman's side, but not because she's petite and the man is muscular, but because she's innocent until proven guilty. Petite women are capable of rape.

[...]

It should be based on the evidence presented for the crime, not based on stereotypes.

I agree that the evidence should be the deciding factor, but who the people are physically should be taken as part of that evidence. And I believe this is what G@yWad was trying to say as well. Like in this case, a petite woman can certainly rape a buff man if she drugged him, blackmailed him, or threatened him with a weapon. But if the man were arguing that she simply physically overpowered him and nothing else, that would be suspect.

What is all comes down to is that cases should be judged by their individual factors, rather than broad arbitrations like age or gender. I believe we can all agree on this. The complicating factor here is that most of these cases don't have much evidence. It usually just ends up as a he-said-she-said thing.

Porn (especially the hyerstimulating rough violent porn we have today) is bad for adults. It would be more so for children. It's not the same as a horror movie because you're mixing sexual arousal with violent and graphic content; it hijacks your brain and makes you become numb and search for more violent, extreme and taboo content. We hear about this all the time.

There should be different ratings for porn. Where the lowest rating is the most vanilla and child-friendly kind of porn (clean, respectful, gentle, no fetishes or kinks), and the highest is the debauchery that we're used to today, along with all the adult fetishes.

I think this is far too much of a generalization. The effect porn has on people, even the more extreme stuff, is just too wildly different for everyone. 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.

[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?

[Harlan]

"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.

[Fragment]

And you trust police, prosecutors and judges to fairly enforce this complex as fuck system?