Just wanting to get some ideas out of my head

These are things that I came up with because of trauma and stuff.


I am alena, but beyond that anything else about my identity is irrelevant, however for these purposes I will say that I am under 25 and young.

I guess it started a year ago when a catalyst of sorts happened. I was mistreated and almost considered suicide. I needed help so I turned to reason to do so. With time, however, I started to gain a higher level understanding of fear. I realized that all the pain I felt, I mostly caused myself.

Lots of stuff happened, mostly abandonment, but as more stuff happened, I understood things better.

I managed to cure myself. I generated one of my core beliefs, journey over destination.
As long as the ending of something doesn’t hinder things in the future, the end never matters.

I soon came to no longer fear abandonment as I did before. I’d rather do something enjoyable, knowing it will fail miserably, then never do it at all.

People put hundreds of hours into enjoyable things, and when it ends because of something bad that happened, essentially forget it all. Hundreds of hours of enjoyment, disregarded because of 5 minutes of negative effects. It’s silly, really.

Soon, I cured myself of other phobias. I won’t dwell more on this, as I need to focus on the main topic.

I developed extremely refined beliefs, and proof for them, and I wanted to help others.

So, here we are now, my views.

Firstly, fearing sexual stuff is a problem caused by pressure. It’s essentially a feedback loop.

People shouldn’t be hurt by it at all, but if you make it out to be bad, it suddenly is bad.

And before I continue, I must define some neologisms (neologisms are new terminology or definitions).

Pressure: Condition(s) deemed standard by a portrayal of the majority of people’s views(although not necessarily an accurate portrayal).

Hate: Umbrella term for anything relating to repulsive behavior(not wanting something)

Erotophobia: Irrational hate of erotic, “kinky”, intimate, or sexual concepts, including but not limited to, sexual PTSD, but not usually including asexual identity and biological hyposexuality.

Essentially, erotophobia is part of what makes sexual assault “hurt”.

The rational hate of sexual assault stems from our biology’s inept fear of entropy and chaos, leading into our fear of losing control.

However, the less rational, societal fears make up the majority of sexual assault. These fears are created by pressure. Its a feedback loop that says "Sexual stuff is bad, so if sexual stuff happens to you, something bad happens to you. You are now bad.

Sexual stuff should not be shamed, it should be normalized. By normalizing it, you remove the societal fears entirely.

And now we move on into the main topic: Consent in America.

It’s really bad.


Those under 18 do not have legal rights to their mind or body. Fair trial doesn’t exist in any way, as people will always take the word of those over 18 then those under 18. I have lots of disgusting examples of things that have happened, that would not have been a big problem if “minors” had rights.
Being under 18 basically makes you subhuman. At the same time, turning 18 gives you access to basically everything without any effort at all. Don’t know how to buy a house? Who cares. You are 18 now go wild. Don’t know what a condom is? Doesn’t matter if you don’t know, you are 18 now and that’s all you need to have sex. Can’t properly give consent due to reason here? Doesn’t matter, you are over 18 now so it’s not like anyone can help you.

Gaining such rights in America, and basically all countries to my knowledge, basically amounts to watching a number tick up. There is no testing or standards. They just assume you have the morals and reasoning to to not ruin your or someone else’s life.

Especially regarding sexual stuff, if one or more person is under the age of consent regarding sexual stuff, everyone loses their shit regardless of context. Its really gross to shame minors for participating in such things and its way more damaging in the long run.

So, what is the solution?

My idea is an entirely different system:

Once you turn 12 you gain the right to take something called the license test. If you take the license test and succeed, you are given access to both a physical and digital license, that includes an identification number, a verification token, and the rights you have.

The license test basically tests you on your logical and moral skills. Once you have a license, you must take the license test every 3 years to make sure you didn’t go crazy. If you get good scores, the time can be increased up to every 10 years. If you are reported you may have to take the test again.

The license alone gives you the right to your mind, fair trial, and you may legally right a will, but it also allows you to be tested for other things. You can gain automobile rights, body rights (divided into health rights and sexual rights), financial rights, and so on.

For example, to gain automobile rights, you’d be tested on more driving-related logic and morals, your vision and hearing, reaction time, etc.

To gain health rights and sexual rights, you’d be tested on your knowledge of sex, health, basic human biology (aka you are not being asked to name the parts of a hair follicle), self care, and the morals and logic regarding them.

You get the idea.

The license is a physical and digital thing. Your identification number can be looked up on a public database that just says what rights you have, so its basically impossible for people to lie. The verification token is a private number that only you can use, that basically is like a signature and a social security number combined. You would use it to agree to more legally binding things where “yes” isn’t gonna cut it.

This system would solve so many problems and the more you think about it the better it is. I can think of tons of things a system like this would solve

1 Like

That’s a great idea.

It sounds like a logistical nightmare and unwieldly to the extreme. Rights are also not conditional, they are god given rights.

So now, a group of out of touch bureaucrats in their late 70s in Washington can decide which arbitrary requirements of a test you have to answer before you can exercise your basic rights? It isn’t even a particularly good bar, as it encourages someone to be textbook smart (memorizing a specific set of answers), rather than understand what it is someone is asking.

“Morals” has no place in exercising your rights and amounts to fascism. Some may go as far as saying sex outside of marriage is “immoral”, as is polyamory, or any other number of things. It doesn’t help the situation of students being incarcerated for consensual sexual relationships with peers either.

You could teach any number of these things earlier and more comprehensively, but it is absurd to say you can’t gain basic rights, unless you’re first made to complete an arbitrary test, which no doubt wouldn’t be available to individuals in poorer socioeconomic conditions. Not everyone in America gets the same opportunities, access to banking, or even access to smartphones. This is privilege and will serve to widen existing disparities. Minority teenagers will be incarcerated at greater rates, and more educated white children with more opportunities will not.

For driving, I hope there can be more emphasis on autonomous driving (when the technology is mature in thirty years), and public transport. Driving is too important to the fabric of society, in any case, to lump in too many arbitrary requirements.

Sexual rights are hardly the only rights to consider. The education system of several countries is very apt at stuffing facts into your head, which you will almost never use, but less so at teaching important life skills. Managing your finances, managing your taxes, sex education, learning to access special needs resources, learning to manage your needs, critical thinking, a basic introduction to the legal system, and so on.

The license test basically tests you on your logical and moral skills. Once you have a license, you must take the license test every 3 years to make sure you didn’t go crazy. If you get good scores, the time can be increased up to every 10 years. If you are reported you may have to take the test again.

The license alone gives you the right to your mind, fair trial, and you may legally right a will, but it also allows you to be tested for other things.

Fascism. Human rights are god given rights, which cannot be deprived from someone udner any circumstances, except under due process of law. It is not a matter for you “prove” you are capable, but for someone to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that you are not, and only under the standard of significant probable cause.

Being “moral” is not a reason to deprive someone of their rights. There are many jerks in the world, are they somehow devoid of rights, and worthy of being deprived of due process? Who decides who is “moral”? Who decides the standard? Is it you know it when you know it when you see it? How much does “morality” change with changing social standards? Is it ever stable? This is thought crime of the highest order.

Taking a license test every three years? To retain my basic rights? Is this a society wide sex offenders registry? Logical skills? I can certainly pass a test in logic, as my intelligence quotient is above average (much to Dr. Cantor’s chagrin), however I don’t see how this is relevant to having basic rights to a fair trial, or otherwise. How is writing a will relevant to this? If someone accusses you of robbing a candy bar, and you haven’t taken the test, will you be imprisoned without due process of law?

In a democratic free country, we don’t believe in “granting autonomy of mind”, so long as you have all the right opinions and thoughts, that the establishment has decided you’re supposed to have. This is the sort of thing they would do in totalitarian countries, like China, Russia, North Korea, and Iran. It is impossible for free speech and free expression to even exist without autonomy of mind.

This idea seems to stem from the same roots as China’s social credit system, which has a number of problems of it’s own. This includes incrementally stripping people of their rights as their score gets lower and lower. At one level, you will unable to access public transport, this is to punish wrongdoers, and to incentivize “correct” behavior. In practice, it means having an army of bureaucrats to scribble down anything they consider to be “immoral” and to weight it against you. Bureaucrats who may be corrupt.

Romeo and Juliet Laws, buffers with judicial approval, and other alternatives could come into play. If you make the arguement the majority have sufficient sexual / societal knowledge to raise the minimum AoC, that is an argument to pitch to society and Congress, not here. If you want to make an argument that mental incapacitation can result in consent being invalidated, that is another factor which could be considered. If you want to make the argument certain neurological conditions should mean the AoC gets deferred (20?), due to some individuals being slower to learn norms than others, that is another factor which could be considered. This is quite complicated for this context, and I am not qualified to draw a line, or have the prerequisite knowledge to do so. I don’t believe in conditional rights.

I’m okay with lowering the age for the right to vote to grant more individuals representation in our democratic society. I also want felons, prisoners, and individuals held within mental health facilities to be able to do so. I am categorically against overly punitive sentences, which serve entirely as a pretext to push individuals onto short plea deals to deprive them of their right to due process.

1 Like

I wasn’t doing well when writing this and I forgot to mention 2 things.

This is a rough idea, and more importantly, this is a utopian, penultimate idea. This idea assumes all other problems are fixed before implementation.

Like, I definitely agree with pretty much everything you said even though its “disagreeing with what I said”, so I apologize for the misunderstanding. Yes I understand why this idea may seem fascist, as a libertarian myself. However I assure you that I am developing this to ensure maximum freedom.

I think everyone should have rights, but from personal experience, and from logical perspectives, I think how you get those rights should be changed.

For centuries everyone based the knowledge of “who gets rights” based on their views of “who is smartest”.
Things such as only land owning, white(or whatever was the race of majority), free men could have certain rights, then slowly it got less strict once people “realized” that intelligence doesn’t have any explicit relationship with race, gender, or social status, nor does it have an implicit relationship with race or gender.

My idea is trying to achieve the following:

Protection of those who could not pass the test.

Rights given regardless of social status.

Rights and knowledge are more accessible.

Pushing people to be more knowledgeable.

Rights actually are inline with ones knowledge.

People will always have rights, you can never take them away. The only thing that can be done from a legal perspective to “take away rights” isn’t really taking anything away, but rather punishing the usage of rights.

1 Like

Rights once given cannot be freely taken away.

If you’re applying a deterministic standard, there should always be a failsafe to grant rights no matter what at a certain threshold (age). This is still abusable.

This still invites technocracy and bureaucracy. No one likes being lorded over by unelected bureaucrats who apply subjective standards (this is part of the reason Britain left the European Union), or scientists who worship whatever the standard of the day is, and even begin to progress dangerous standards in controversial fields, or who have about the same level of nuance as a nuclear bomb.

1 Like