3 ms·
>So almost the whole world agrees adults having sex with children is wrong. Even though they don't agree when adolescents are mature enough. You won't get any
by nobody9999 6y ago
>So almost the whole world agrees adults having sex with children is wrong. Even though they don't agree when adolescents are mature enough.
You won't get any argument about that from me. Consent is never optional and if an individual isn't able to consent (for whatever reason), then sexual activity with that individual is both inappropriate and, as you pointed out, a crime in most places.
The discussion as to when a person should be legally able to consent to sexual activity is one that's hotly debated and the laws concerning that varies greatly around the world.
Such variation causes a great deal of confusion. I can legally have (consensual) sex with a 12 year-old in Brazil, but in the Virgin Islands, I could go to jail.
But reality is rarely as cut and dried as that. Teenage boys in the US have been branded sex offenders for life because they engaged in consensual sexual activity (and not just sexual acts either. There have been cases where sexting between teenagers has landed children in jail) with teenage girls.
It's wholly inappropriate, and IMHO, should be a crime for adults to manipulate children into sexual activity. Sadly, that happens all too often.
On the larger issue, I expect that we are in violent agreement. However, I choose not to demonize someone for having a conversation about the setting of arbitrary age limits WRT the ability to consent, especially given the wide variation in those arbitrary limits.
It seems clear to me that age limits need to be set to deter the manipulation and abuse of vulnerable individuals (in this case, young people) and it seems unworkable to address those on a case-by-case basis. As such we're back to setting arbitrary limits.
Simply discussing what those limits should be isn't harmful to anyone, and no one should be demonized for just having that conversation.
There's a big difference between contemplating what range of ages should be considered appropriate for consent to sexual activity and actively abusing those without the ability to consent.
To quote the eminent philosopher[0], those two things:
"...ain't the same fucking ballpark. It ain't the same league. It ain't even the same fucking sport."
[0] https://youtu.be/TD1CNqghN7Q?t=170 https://youtu.be/TD1CNqghN7Q?t=170
- pseudalopex 6y agoNaming what someone did isn't demonizing them. And you're portraying what he said as something different than it was. He didn't engage in conversation. He declared opposing ideas prejudiced and narrow minded. He invented a story about who disagreed with him and mocked them. When adolescents can consent legally is arbitrary and varies greatly. The idea children too young for puberty lack the understanding and independence to give consent varies not much at all. Even Stallman seems to understand that now. Prosecuting teenagers for sexting is draconian but a different issue completely.