What does/should Age of Consent really mean?

From what I’ve read, the original Age of Consent Laws existed with the basic goal of protecting children from sex abuse by dictating an age at which minors could legally consent to sex with adults by becoming adults themselves. Of course, maturity does not always equal age and the definition of adulthood keeps changing but I think this is a noble goal regardless.

Likewise, I believe that virtually all modern implementations of Age of Consent Laws have egregiously overstepped their bounds to a degree that has severely damaging to human society as a whole.

Age of Consent laws were made to dictate an age at which minors could have sex with adults but now, age of consent laws dictate an age at which minors can see, hear, learn about or engage in sex at all under the idea that sex is some sort of Lovecraftian ritual that minors are inherently incapable of understanding.

I fully support keeping the Age of Consent laws but they need to revised so that they are restored back to their original definition and people as a whole need to be re-educated that sex isn’t an eldritch superweapon that children are inherently harmed by.


1 Like

Age of consent would be the age at which the person has the body (including the brain) developed enough to be able to make the not-so-simple decision to have sex, since that decision can have several types of negative consequences. Anyway, the person has to be mature enough to have the body prepared for it, and be able to take all possible problems into account.
And what is the right age? Hard to say, I think I can only say that 8 years is too little and 21 is too much. A value between these two I would say that can be discussed at least.
And to give a more specific number I’ll be a good patriot and say that the best age of consent is the one used in my country (Brazil), which is 14 years old, with the exception that for prostitution you must be at least 18. Which in general also means that teenagers can have supervised sex with whomever they want, but children cannot.

1 Like

That’s simply false. While a small number of people abuse it in this way that’s not the general opinion of society.

Age of consent laws were made to prevent the exploitation of those more vulnerable to it, filling in the gaps left by other anti-abuse measures.

1 Like

Except it’s not false. That is the popular opinion of society, or at least American society.

Average Americans and much of the 1st world is completely disgusted by the idea of minors doing anything sexual. This isn’t unique to some minority.

1 Like

Personally I think the age of consent in which children can consent to sex with adults should be 20 but minors should have lightly restricted sexual freedom among other minors, sex ed should also be introduced earlier and they should be allowed to look at porn if they so desire.

Correct me if im wrong.

As far as i know, the age of consent existed before 1700-1800-1900, but it was just law to determine at what age you can work, for example, and it had nothing to do with sex. Relationships at age of 12-13 were accepted.

But around 1700-1800-1900, the puritans decided to increase the age of consent, so they can control women, because they thought that women are sexless, devine creatures that don’t need sex - because sex is bad, evil, dirty thing.

This is what happened, as far as i know. This is why the age of consent law and the stereotypes affect mostly women, and rarely boys. As evidence, i can say that LGBT people were treated dfferently by the age of consent law.

Here are the stereotypes regarding the age of consent.

Boys - can.
Girls - can’t.

If a 15 years old boy has sex with a 20 years old female, the boy will be viewed as hero or super-gangster-dude, the femelate WON’T be hated, and the chances for her to be registered as sex offender are near to non-existent.

REVERSED: If a 20 years old male has sex with a 15 years old girl (OR JUST SEND NUDES), the girl will be viewed as victim, the boy will be viewed as monster, rapist, “pedo”, “disgusting pedo”, “child fucker”, that deserves death penalty. If the girl says she liked it, she will be viewed as “whoer”, "trash"

Im against these horrible, harmful double standards.

The age of consent law, the sex offender registry, the sex-negativity, all these trings, are based on stereotypes, and baseless speculations, and rage caused by emotions that are caused by baseless speculations.


THE FOLLOWING TEXT: If you think that people under certain age, are not abe to do certain thngs, then explain me how did people survived when the average human life span was less than 25 years, in most cases less than 20 years, in some places just 17. This is why in Ancient Egypt, for example 14 years olds (or even younger) had the right to become kings. Because they know no one is going to live for 50-60 years - so they were allowed to took control as early as the king dies. And they ruled perfectly. PERFECTLY!!! There were no accidens because “they are still not mature enough”.


It’s irrelevant what was the origin of the concept. Because the current idea of the age of consent is a new concept, that simply shares the same name, assuming that wherever you live, the age of consent was used in the way you described. If the Age of Consent were to be called the “Age of Sexual Consent” instead, and introduced in law with the same definition Age of Consent currently has, what difference would it make? None. So the historical past of the name itself has nothing to do with the age of consent we have now.

Your entire argument assumes the historical events hold dominion over modern peoples minds, despite the simple fact that most people don’t know anything about the past. Sure, some ripples of time can affect new generations, simply through attitudes of their parents affecting their children, but every generation does evaluate the ways of their parents to determine whenever adopt them or change them, and this drastically weakens such ripples with each new generation, and can even completely eliminate them with just one, if they are evaluated as truly disruptive and unjust. This is why movements like LGBT gained so much support with the generation of Millenials, despite the older generation being predominantly against any nonheteronormative sexualities.

Law doesn’t make the distinction that you describe. Regardless of stereotypes, age of consent applies equally to boys and girls, and while some Judges can be biased, ignore such laws, and forgive the instances where an older female sexually exploits a younger boy, such situations do generate backlash from society, and still constitute a rare minority of all such cases.

But this bias has nothing to do with the ages, it is caused by gender bias. Women and children are considered by people as protected classes, and there is as much biological aspect for that perception as social ones. What you describe applies the same for adult males raped by women. And it’s this bias that partakes in situations with minors as well.

Of course, but not because there was some hidden intent to discriminate against LGBT individuals. When you actually read about how these laws were declared, it’s clear that this discrimination stems only from a simple fact, that LGBT relationships weren’t considered while those laws were created. LGBT as a group and a movement wasn’t even a thing back then, and heterosexual relationships were prohibited by law regardless of the ages. They were written with heterosexual relationships in mind because only such relationships were considered. And they were also planned with child marriage in mind since, in the US, a lot of states allowed for such practice for a long time.

You are clearly exaggerating the situations of this sort. Your emotional bias is glowing in every sentence that you wrote. A 20-year-old male isn’t a “boy”, it’s an adult person who has autonomy and should be a responsible human being. Of course, such a person will gain backlash after sending nudes to a 15-year-old girl. Because the oblivious question everyone has while reading such stories is “Why the hell was he sending his nudes to a teenager?”. Most people do sexting in anticipation of actual sexual intercourse with whom they communicate. So naturally, the common assumption is, that such 20-year-old male has some predatory intentions towards this 15-year-old, and that is concerning. He will be described with terms that are used to describe a person who had sexually exploited a minor, because with such act he clearly displayed such intention and willingness, and it was only a matter of time before it would happen. But what you are completely misrepresenting, is the idea that this 15-year-old girl would be called as trash or a whole because of saying that she would like it. Where the hell have you seen such a situation happening? Because every time such story happens, all I see is that people consider her a victim of grooming, and say that she, of course, sees no problem with the situation because she was emotionally manipulated by this adult into believing that he cares for her and only wants her to be happy.

Here is a concept that you are most likely incapable to understand: You can actually, don’t have sex for an extended period of time. Sex is only a part of human life and human relationships, not it’s core. If such a 20-year-old was really interested in having a stable relationship with such 15 years old and cared about her wellbeing, he could simply wait 3 years without doing anything sexual with her and let the 18-year-old decide for herself. If that is not in the area of such 20-year-old male possibilities, if such person cannot restrain themselves for 3 years, then I seriously doubt he ever had the wellbeing of that teenager in his mind, and that he didn’t prioritize his own egoistic satisfaction instead.

In the natural world, there is no law against murder, there is no law against genocide, there is no law against slavery, there is no law against rape, there is no law against cheating, there is no law against thievery. Should we bring back these things as well? Your lack of knowledge about problems people have been dealing with in the past makes you idealize the past as “the better world”. You seem to completely lack the ability to understand, that the reason why we have many of the laws that we have today, stems from the fact, that people at large in the past have been dealing with some kind of a problem, and hoped to solve it with the help of such laws and the justice system. You can argue about whenever these laws were truly correct, or whenever there has been some manipulation of the public. But the fact is the fact, all of them were introduced because of some problem that the public had, and when it comes to laws like age of consent, they were introduced because sexual relationships between adults and minors have created a lot of abuse of the minors in the society.

And the strawman that you create is extremely dishonest. People don’t believe that minors are incapable of making decisions for themselves or do certain things. This has never been the motivation behind the opposition to such relationships. What is concerning to people, is that minors are in a more vulnerable state, that can be abused by more powerful adults who have malicious intentions. And this concern is based on the fact that these situations were happening at large in the past before the introduction of such laws.

You avoid this simple conclusion because it’s more convenient for your criticism of the age of consent to simply pretend, that people are just stupid and irrational “because they think people under the age of 18 can’t make decisions”. This is not true, and this manipulative effort seriously hurts the credibility of any of your opinions.

The short answer is: they didn’t. But the longer answer is: the reason why peoples lifespan was so low has to do with the simple fact that the environment in which people were living was extremely dangerous. Kids had no chances of fully developing in a correct way, as they can today, and had to quickly take the responsibilities simply to survive. It wasn’t a state in which society could function in an optimal way, they were in relationships out of necessity, and not for pleasure and their own will. But once again, the main issue that causes us today prohibit the relationships between adults and minors, is the power dynamic disparity between the minor and the adult that can be easily abused. And with all people dying at the age of 20, everyone is pretty much at the same Plainfield when it comes to the power dynamic. And even then there was a lot of abuse, but there was simply no way to report it.

They weren’t ruling perfectly. Seriously, where do you get your crazy informations about history? Do you seriously believe that forcing millions of slaves to built gigantic pyramides as personal thumbs, making most of the slaves die as a result is a good ruling? Do you seriously believe that years of inbreeding that caused the entire dynasty to have a lot of birth defects was a perfect idea? Does killing your own brothers to gain the power and rule the people in your opinion a good, reasonable way of behaving?

And you seem to ignore the fact, that kings of all sorts throughout our entire history has often been puppet rulers, controlled by their more experienced advisors. No king has ever ruled his nation alone, it’s an impossible task to achieve.

Yeah, the only problem is that no one is prohibited to have a car through his entire life, only towards a certain age. There are some restrictions, but once you are old enough, they never go back. And we put these restrictions for a reason. Unless you want to argue, that giving a car to a 7-year-old is a good idea that should be made mandatory all over the world.

In conclusion:

Your entire reasoning is based on cherrypicking of instances where the gender bias is applied to stories of sexual misconduct involving minors that are male, to assume this gender bias is actually something else, and use it to speculate about some conspiracy against minors having sex with adults, made by unknown people (unless you refer to actual, historical Puritans, in case of which, your speculation makes no sense) for unknown reasons with unknown motivations, just because. To conclude that the age of consent is a completely irrational and baseless idea, caused by “rage caused by emotions” (???), which you can only do, by creating a framework based on an idealized alternative history timeline of human species and justify all of your theories on the merit of “in my fantasy history timeline, things were better”, despite the simple fact that your entire perception of the past is simply false. Your usage of history is akin to the naturalistic fallacy, where you sandwich some simple historical information with your own speculations about how things went by for average people during that time, that are far from what we actually know about the history and societies of people from such eras. And it doesn’t surprise me, in a different thread, you were quick to dismiss the example of Sporus that I brought. You cherry-pick what is convenient for you and dismiss what isn’t.

The number of cognitive distortions, manipulations and rationalizations that you display is enormous. Your attitude towards your own beliefs is to deplatform anyone who disagrees with you, as you proposed, and seeks echo chambers reinforcing your own biases, as illustrated by you illustrating your shock due to a presence of one person who has negatively responded to your comments on this forum.

And the only line of response that you have to me is to either use ad hominem attacks or simply ignoring any responses to me like a little immature kid. You believe yourself to be a person who is driven by logic, reason and evidence, but the reality is that you are incapable of taking criticism and you do everything to reinforce your beliefs, that are in opposition to logic, reason and evidence, because reality simply hurts your feelings, and you prioritize convenient lies instead.


Seriously, you wouldn’t ever have a need to slap those slogans in each and every post, if it wasn’t for the fact, that you are clearly aware that what you write is considered as support of child abuse by every other human being, even considering you believe there are likeminded individuals in here.

People with your convictions are the reason why non-offending pedophiles have it hard in this world, and why crazy pseudo “anti-pedophile” fanatics have so much ammo to attack.


Your argument is full of assumptions, generalisations and falsehoods. Your need to constantly state, in BOLD ALL CAPS, that you “don’t support abuse” shows you know how what you’re saying and how people will interpret it, and just confirms this for everyone.

There is validity to some of the points you’re trying to make, but your argument is so poorly constructed that I find it impossible to agree with you. Take the time to fully explain your position, rather than simply trying to justify it without ever explaining it, and something more meaningful may come out of it. Rather than trying to justify yourself by saying what you don’t support, establish a base of what you do support.

1 Like

Not true. There are different laws for the different people. Males will be treated differently than females by judge. The same things happens in the society.

If a female attacks you, try to defend yourself, and you will be monster.
If a male attack female, and the female hit him too, the situation will be different.

Such stereotypes are everywhere. For example, 2 months ago, NYT tweeted that a 32 years old female had sex with 14 years old boy. If you see the comment section, you will see that no one tweeted any insults and death threats, and dehumanizing texts. Now, whould the comment section be the same, if we had 32 yeats old male and 14 yeats old girl?

Stop trying to convince me that males and females are equal in the eyes of the law and judge. Just see the laws regarding separation.


A 20 years old male having sex with a 15 years old girl is bad.
A 20 years of female having sex with a 15 years old boy is ok.

Is this why you are trying to say? :rofl:

No. You didn’t understand me. Morality is not about hate against sex.
Morality means people to not harm each other.

See this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_morality

This thing here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puberty

Also this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_maturity#:~:text=Sexual%20maturity%20is%20the%20capability,is%20based%20on%20cultural%20definitions.

Now i will comment your comments on what i said. I said this: then explain me how did people survived when the average human life span was less than 25 years, in most cases less than 20 years, in some places just 17.

Here is what you said:

Then how do we exist?

True. And natural selection took place, so people evolved in a way to allow them to survive.

The idividuals who can’t develop and survive, will die. The idividuals who CAN develop and survive, will survive and pass their genetics. The genetics that were passed will help the next generation to carry the traits that helped the previous generation to survive. This is called natural selection, the process and kills the weak, and boosts the strong, so the strong can evolve.

So, these who werent able to develop, died. And these who were able to develop, survived. If you can’t develop in nature fast enough, you can’t survive. So, yes, there were individuals who werent developed fast enough, but they died. Their population disappeared. These who survived were these who were able to develop fast enough.

From National Geographic.

We aren’t talking about slavery, but about the ability of decision-making.

This is because they believed their king-blood is special, and they must remain with the same blood, so they can be powerful. This has nothing to do with maturity. Back then, no matter how mature you are, if you don’t have modern scientific instruments, you can’t know about the existence of genes and alleles.

This is politics. It can happen at any ages. Today we still have poisoned politics. Riots funded by shady billionaire guilds for political destabilization to take down the current system, and replace it with new, more comfortable, for example, murders, beatings, blackmailng etc, usage of compromising information… all of this is happening for money and power. But these things are done by grown people, not by kids, rights? Killing to gain power has nothing to do with age. It happens when you want more power. You can be 50 years old and to do it. For you it’s not good, bor the people who do it, it’s very good. If you are one of them you will thing like them. Bad things are happening, yes. But these bad things have nothing to do with age.

Today is no different.

I don’t redefine it. Here are the definitions i found on google:

  1. use (something) to bad effect or for a bad purpose; misuse.
  2. treat with cruelty or violence, especially regularly or repeatedly.
  3. cruel and violent treatment of a person or animal.

I dont support any of these 3 points.\

By the way, i didnt read your “conclusion”. It’s too long.


No. I know some people might take something out of context. This is why use "ÏMPORTANT NOTE: I DON’T SUPPORT CHILD ABUSE!"

My arguents don’t sound as strong as they should because i don’t speak english very well.


No, sorry, this is not true. No one has taken out of context the fact that you criticized the concept of the age of consent. And sure, there is some criticism that can be made about it. Like for example how it’s applied between people of the same or very close age, who are under that age. But it wasn’t your criticism, your criticism affected the age of consent as a whole. Your case was, that in the past it didn’t exist and that back then, things were completely fine. Implying that the age of consent is unnecessary because minors can have sexual relationships with adults.

You know that this was the case that you were making, there is nothing “out of context” in here. You know that people believe, that an underage person having sex with an adult, is considered a situation that is classified by people as child abuse. Personally, I prefer to call it child exploitation. But in reality, it’s just a figure of speech, since exploitation is an abuse.

I also don’t speak English very well. I rarely ever use this language. But neither of us two is publicly speaking. We are writing the text. I use google translator to verify many of my sentences. There is time to convey what you want to convey in a way that doesn’t introduce any miscommunications. So I don’t find your explanation as reasonable.

Laws regarding age of consent don’t make any distinction based on the biological sex of the person. It’s a matter of fact, you can look up documents defining age of consent in the country you are living in, and I seriously doubt it will be any different than the laws from the US.

Social biases, and the law, are two different things. Justice system follows the laws and tries their best to avoid personal biases. It doesn’t always happen, so there are exceptions, but you try to cherry-pick them and claim, that all laws are gender-based, because of the rare instances of the justice system not working correctly, which is simply fallicious.

No, you stop trying to convince people, that the law regarding age of consent treats females differently than males, because it’s simply a lie. Conflating the written law with what people on Twitter say isn’t in any way debunking what I was saying.

Also, I have a hard time believing, that not even a single person has actually criticized the situation that you are describing. And I have an even harder time believing, you actually read all the responses and can be trusted in such claim.

Another strawman fallacy coming from you isn’t surprising. My example had nothing to do with differentiation between sexes, it’s the part that you added, and it’s especially dishonest coming from the fact, that the example that I created, was actually an example created by you. I used it to better convey my point, but you abused it to create a strawman of me as a response. Which once again, is hypocritical coming from a person who argues, that it’s the religious people, who are evil, for using logical fallacies.

I explained to you why other people have such a reaction to the example of the situation that you used. And you intentionally twist it, to make a case, that I make a statement of any kind. Once again, you loose credibility with such dishonest and manipulative practices, which only confirms further, that you actually don’t have any reasonable position to defend, and act on your emotional biases instead.

I haven’t said anything about morality. So your entire response is not related to the topic.

This was the quote I was responding to, you used naturalistic fallacy to make a case that age of consent is wrong, so I enumerated a list of examples that prove then fallacy you used to be illogical. There was nothing in here about morality, so your response looks like you’ve tried to sound smart and “educate me” by answering to statements that has never been said.

Are you seriously taking a part of my response out of context to take it literally as a counterargument? Are you seriously so incapable to make any defence of your position, that you are forced to use such cheap tactics?

My point was, that in those times, these people were dying young, all of them, this is why the average lifespan was so low.

They procreated, but they didn’t survived. They had offspring and shorlty after, they died. This is why they were forced to have children earlier. Many of the women died during childbirth, due to many factors, but especially their young age. These are the times you try to idealize and use as an argument againt the age of consent. People dying young.

Quite the opposite. People had to develop alternative ways of survival, to improve their lifespan, instead of relying on purely biological aspects of their bodies. Sure, it’s the part of evolution, but it’s not related to natural selection, it’s the opposite of it.

You have a religious understanding of natural selection. Once people create offspring, the genes are passed. If they die the next day due to a genetic issue, this genetic issue has been passed down to their child. Natural selection isn’t a force, it’s a random process. And your entire argument is downright psychopathic. What is your point? I answer your question and all you do as responses is explaining the basic definitions of concepts not related to the discussion. Are you trying to say, that we should allow the age of consent to be abolished, to allow for the natural selection to kill children? I hope not, but this is the line of reasoning you display:

First, you idealize the past and use an argument that when people were dying in an unfriendly environment full of suffering at a young age, that no one was complaining about relationships with minors, as an argument against age of consent.

I explain to you, why it’s a bad argument, pointing out these flaws. I explained to you that back then, no one was able to have optimal lives due to the environmental pressures and dangers, and these relationships were happening out of necessity. The necessity that doesn’t exist today. We don’t have to suffer anymore, because of our development. Because we allow every person to have enough of time to learn and gain experience early in their lives, instead of forcing them into pregnancy at the age of 12 years old, which would most likely kill them in the process, to populate the village.

And your counterargument is: “Well, it’s called a natural selection, so it justifies such suffering” And stands by your initial criticism of age of consent. You seriously are willing to go as far as to bring back the state in which people were suffering and dying young “because of natural selection”, in order to abolish the age of consent?

Oh right, I forgot, You screamed that you don’t support child abuse, so I guess you are simply quoting random facts about evolution from the internet for no reason at all.

National Geographic? “A world leader in geography, cartography and exploration”? For history? I mean, sure, they give some historical context to their articles, but they are far from an institution that deals with the topic of historical discoveries. And even then, they are dedicated to being family-friendly. You will not hear about a young boy being castrated, dressed as a girl to become a wife for Nero from there that is for sure. It’s genuinely the worst source of information about history in regards to the topic we are discussing, so I’m not surprised, that you have such idealized view of the history, devoided of all the drastic harms, draconian rules, and all the atrocities that were happening throughout our entire history.

But seriously, you can throw all of your historical knowledge into the trash bin, since your view of the past is more like Disney adaptation of what in reality is a Grimm Brothers story.

Exactly, the decision of those rulers to use slaves for nonsense wasn’t perfect. Their ability of decision making was flawed. Sacrificing millions of slaves, to build a tomb, instead of using them for war or to build cities is one of the worst ideas ever, and the fact, that almost all of them have died, even furthers how bad they were at the ruling.

You don’t refute my point in any way. But you clearly have tried to dismiss it.

Yes, I know that. But that is the point. They believed in something not real. And they decided to base their decisions on that unconfirmed, unreasonable idea, that isn’t rooted in any evidence or reason, even though they were seeing the clear birth defects and deformations it has caused. They didn’t stop the inbreeding until the last one of them in the line has died. They continued to make that poor decision, for an unreasonable idea, despite seeing it has bad consequences until their entire line of blood was erased from this planet. This is not a “perfect” decision making in my opinion.

Just because something is political, doesn’t validate every decision as “perfect”. And even then, you do notice, that we no longer kill ourselves to steal the power. It’s a bad decision to do in the first place, since doing so doesn’t give you the support of the people, and even worse, makes you look bad.

Exactly, adults don’t kill each other, they find more effective ways of gaining what they do. Because they are developed enough to know, that murder in politics, is one of the worst ideas ever.

Of course killing to gain power has nothing to do with age. But the fact stays, those rulers weren’t good at making decisions, ruling their societies, dealing with personal problems or anything like that.

Your manipulative answers are getting tireing. You pretend to interpret my words differently as counteraguments to points that I made.

Seriously, your claim was that those kid rulers were perfect at ruling.
My argument is, that they had advisors, and were doing what the adults have told them to do, none of those rules has been handling the affairs alone.
And your response to it is, that “Today, politicians are also controlled”.

None of your counterarguments are coherent with the topic, they are misconstructing my points, and instead of having any substance, you fill them with informations about something from other areas of knowledge which looks like you treat this conversation as a game to prove “who is smarter”, instead of actually defending your position, or changing it when better arguments are shown to you. You aren’t discussing in good faith, instead, you try to find a gatch ya moment, by manipulating definitions and sentences that are spoken.

Your entire position is based on an emotional bias, is irrational, illogical, you use a ton of fallacies in responses, dismiss things that are inconvenient to you, cherry-pick things that are convenient to you, don’t read with understanding. What are you trying to achieve, other than proving, that antis are right about MAPs? Because so far, you did a better job convincing me that pedophilia doesn’t deserve to be destigmatized than they ever did.

And this is exactly what I have been talking about. Instead of using the definition of term as a whole, meaning “child abuse”, you simply googled the term “abuse”.

So you got the 3 most generalized definitions of all types of abuse, but none of them describes child abuse.

And the fact that you resort to using definitions from google, instead of explaining what you have been understanding as child abuse this whole time, it pretty telling.

The three definitions that you have used, for example, don’t say anything about emotional abuse, or about manipulation, or about verbal abuse. The first one doesn’t apply to children, and the second and third only talks about violent and cruel treatment.

And this is what pro contact MAPs understand as child abuse - violent and cruel rape. So if it’s not violent and cruel, and the 7-year-old said yes for the proposition of sex, that must in their opinion mean, that it wasn’t child abuse, that this 7-year-old will never regret this moment, that it was consensual because obviously, he agreed to it, he can make a decision, so obviously he gave his consent. Because of course, it’s not like if you were to propose to such a child to pilot a space rocket from NASA, that they wouldn’t say “yes” as well, not realizing, that they might die as a result.

Once again, I spend an entire month, arguing with “antis” on this forum, debunking their stupid claims, and seeing how reasonable most of the people in here are in regards to this topic. But you singlehandedly, in a manner of a couple of days, have done more than they ever could, to convince me that they are correct. So congratulation, you are a better anti than antis could ever be.

Not true. The odds for a female who had sex with someone under the age of consent, are much smaller to be registered as sex offender.

The odds for a female to be charged worse that a male, are greater. For example, see the death penalty methods. Who gets stoning, and who doesn’t gets stoning?

Im not going to debate you, because you clearhy don’t know how the so-called “justice” works. It doesnt matter what the crame is. It can be drugs trafficking, and a female trafficker WILL be treated softer. What about death penalty? For THE SAME crime, males are at greater risk of stoning that females, for example.

The problem is that these people are becoming judges too.

Don’t try to discredit me. Im telling you what im seeing on social media and the real world. Stop trying to convince my eyes are lying me.

I just explained at what age human are able to have sex and to reproduce. I also explained at what age people did this in the past.

They weren’t forced to do anything. There was no force to force them to do it. They simply analyzed the situation, and used their brains to create solution. The solution was to reproduce earlier. They were able to PERFECTLY understand the situation and they were perfectly able to create solution. This is why we exist.

You have to explain if they weren’t mature, how were they able to understand something so complex. You have to understand why doing sex WAS NOT traumatizing and depressing. You have to explain why they didn’t suicidal. You have to explain how did they know what to do it and how to do it.

Sexual maturity in humans is reached at the age of 11-12 (girls) (and menstruation at age of 12-13) and age of 11-12 (boys). Didn’t human evolved in a way when they reach sexual maturity at the same time to have brain developed for understanding sex? It is not possible to evolve in a way to not be emotionally mature when you are sexually mature. This is not consistent with what is observed in human biology and biology at all. If you know better than me, explain it.

I didn’t say that. By genes that help you to survive, i mean traits that give you advantage over these who dont have the traits you have. Genetic variations that give you such traits, are more likely to be passed.

In a world with short life-span, traits that allow sexual maturity to happen faster, and allow your brain to understand it, will be passed. And traits that require too long time, will disappear.

I never said suffering and causing harm is justified. I simply explained you why people understand the situation once they reach sexual maturity, which is biological truth.

It was back in the past. Today they no longer talk about such topics.

They are liberal media.

Don’t be rude. You are harming me. My view of the past is based on real facts about society and social constructs. I have watched enough scientific films, books. I know better. Im not having idealized image of the past. I know there were a lot of problems such as death penalty for different view, violence, wars, diseases, etc… I don’t mention these things in our discussion. I simply talk about the sexual fascism in modern times.

This happened because they didn’t know about the existence of genes, alleles. Yes, the decision wasn’t perfect, not because they weren’t able to make perfect decision, but because it wasn’t possible to make perfect decisions IN THIS SPECIFIC about genes, because they DIDN’T know genes exist.

Murders and repressions are still happening. Extreme corruption causes poverty => poverty kills. So, yes, murders are still happening for power. Don’t forget sometimes what is used is compromising information, such as videos of things that are “fakew news” and “conspiracy theories”. What else? Rape tapes, sex tapes, blackmailing, propaganda, social engineering, lies, etc… Don’t try to convince me people are more moral today than in the past. Exactly the opposite happened, and will continue to happen.

No. All political murders are done by grown people, paid by other grown people.

I want full acceptance of MAPS. I want them to be included in the anti-discrimination law. I want when when someone harm pedophiles, thes someone to be prosecuted not for crime, but for HATE crime, and be charged harder. I also want full abolition of the sex offender registry. There are human rights NGOs that are trying to abolish the sex offender registry, but it’s not enough.

Your opinion means nothing to me. Im interested in protecting of human rights of marginalized people. Your opinion is harmful, because it supports stigma.

Child abuse is the same like all other kinds of abuse, but this time it involves children. For example, sex that is against the will (sexual abuse), physical abuse, psychological abuse. I perfectly know what it is. Stop trying to make mo to look like clown.

I used google to show them to you. When i searched them on google, i already knew the meaning.

Not true.

At the age of 7, you still HAVE NOT reached biological sexual maturity. No, i didn’t say what you are trying to convince people im saying.

Also, you make too long texts. Try to make shorter texts.


You are talking about statistics, I was talking about what is written in law. Don’t pretend you don’t understand it, because I already mentioned it explicitly multiple times.

The death penalty isn’t performed by stoning, I don’t know where you live, but I would evacuate from that area if that is the case.

And once again, I was talking about the distinction between social biases and the law, you don’t say anything to address that. You simply claim a trivia fact about probability and think it somehow answered anything.

“I’m not going to debate you, because the strawman I crated was talking about how the justice system works, and it was incorrect, even though the real person wasn’t speaking about the mechanism of the justice system, and instead was stating a fact, about the contents of the law”.

You won’t change my opinion by attacking the strawmen of me. You keep insisting to answer arguments that were never made by me and hope it will do something. I’m telling you, that it’s not working, so start actually addressing my points.

I already explained to you, that what you describe is a gender bias. And in response, you try to convince me, that gender bias exists. While I never denied it’s existence, this is why I said, it’s gender bias you are describing.

I never tried to convince you that what you see is not true. I never said anything about your observations of what is happening on social media. I state the fact, that your responses to my arguments are manipulative. That your ideas are motivated not by empirical evidence, but by how you feel about the topic. You try to justify your feelings instead of trying to discover the truth because the truth is inconvenient for you. There is no reasonable case that can be made that would justify sexual intercourse with people underage. Seriously. Not even a single one. Want to criticize the age of consent? Criticize it, but use the actual flaws of these ideas, like how it’s used to handle the relationship of people of the same age, that are underage. And not like you did before, making a case that the entire concept is wrong because of your twisted and incorrect perception of history.

I don’t discredit you, your dishonest behaviour does it.

No, I’m sorry, you didn’t just state the raw data, especially considering, you didn’t set any concrete infromations, only approximations based on your speculations about how things were happening in the past. You made a criticism of the age of consent, with the narration that heavily implies it’s a bad and completely uneccessary law.

They were forced by the circumstances that they were in to procreate. They didn’t do it out of romantic love, nor for pure sexual reason. They made it out of necessity. This is why we exist today because they sacrificed their own wellbeing and lives for the purpose of continuing the species. Once again, back in those times, pregnancy was like a death sentence for women. You can find all sorts of statistics about maternal mortality in impoverished areas, and about maternal mortality of adolescent and preadolescent mothers. The statistics tend to be inconsistent, vary from paper to paper, but all of them show the same thing, childbirth is the leading cause of death for women, and the risk of a mother dying is significantly higher the younger the mother is. Combine it with the fact, that in those times, people didn’t really understand the importance of hygiene, and how revolutionary it was to clean hands during child delivery and you can easily see, that majority of women must have died during or shortly after birth in those times.

Do you seriously think that for women, the vision of death, and for males, the vision of having their partner die and become the only parent the child has was a really good state of affairs? It wasn’t. This is why we worked hard to change that, this is why we have developed, and this is why today, we prohibit minors from having sexual interactions until they are mature enough.

You try to idealize the past by pretending people were simply used to that suffering, and that it was of no concern to them, “because they adapted”, “because it’s natural selection”. But the truth is, that the fact that we don’t consider it good now, is because we never considered it good in the first place and that we never will consider it good in the future.

You have to explain, how you know that they understood the complexity of their situation, they most likely didn’t, they simply did what they parents did, because they knew, it’s necessary for the village, to create new generations. It’s a simple concept to want people you know and your children to survive. There is nothing more required for the decision to reproduce to be made, even at the risk it had back in those days.

You have to explain, how you know that doing sex back then wasn’t traumatizing and depressing to the people doing it. And that avoiding the fact that I already explained to you, that the problem with pedophilic relationships has nothing to do with the sex itself, but with everything else related to the sex.

You have to explain, why you think they were suicidal. If they weren’t, it was most likely, because they had a mission of continuing their village survival, and knew they will die one way or another.

You have to explain, how you can be sure, that they had a need for any knowledge about what to do and how to do it. People learn, test things, discover them, and give that knowledge to their children. Sex itself comes quite natural for us. Child delivery was for ages performed incorrectly. The desire to have children, the sense of duty, and the lack of any alternatives is enough for them to decide to go for such mission.

You seem to be evaluating the things from the past in the context of the current era. Which is simply incorrect. People of the past have been in a completely different position than people are today. There was no comfort or time for a break. They rarely had any fun, and the times in which they had fun, are known by us today as holidays. So you can see how rarely they could ever enjoy themselves, even in times as late as the 15th century.

You keep treating evolution from religious perspective. Evolution isn’t a force of any kind, there isn’t a power that creates humans in a certain way, that is perfect. Evolution is an effect of random genetical mutations and natural selection that prioretizes whatever improves survival, even if it’s not necessarly good. This is why we still have psychopaths in our society. And this is why your naturalistic fallacy is wrong.

You have plenty of incorrect elements in your body due to how random evolution is, like the tail bone.

And sexual maturity in humans isn’t reached at the age of 11-12. For each person, this period is different and can be even as late as 15 years old. The hormonal system is very much responsible for that. Also, just because a person is capable of having an offspring, doesn’t mean they are suited for it. The mortality rate of preadolescent mothers is significantly higher than in the case of adult women above the age of 20 years old.

And there is no such thing as “brain evolving to understand sex”. It’s not difficult for a person to understand what sex is, and what is all about. It’s everything else about sex that takes time and practice.

From an evolutionary perspective, if a woman was able to give birth to an offspring, and the offspring has survived, she can die. The genes have been passed after all. So the reason why we can have children at such a young age was in no way affected by the death the childbirth can cause. If the risk of a mother dying after delivery is enormously high for a mother who was able to get pregnant at the age of 12 years old, the genes allowing such sexual function to be active at the age of 12 has been passed down to a new generation. But that doesn’t mean such pregnancies aren’t dangerous.

And yes, you can be emotionally immature while being sexually mature. Many adults are capable of having sex but are emotionally immature. I have no idea what sources of information you had for such a conclusion.

You didn’t said that, but you have such attitude.

More likely doesn’t mean will always be passed. And improper genes (as well as inactive genes) can still be pushed down to new generations, causing problems in the future.

There are no genes that would determine whenever a person understands any concepts. No genes are capable of creating throughs. They can affect the ways of thinking and feeling emotions, but not concepts, ideas, beliefs and so on.

Understanding of sexuality is something you learn, and gain over time. Not something you are born with.

It’s a biological lie told by you, not any “truth”. Your response to my argument was an explanation of natural selection. Something you learn about in primary school. So what another conclusion you expected me to have, than to assume you used it to formulate a response to my argument?

You didn’t explain why people understand their situation once they reach sexual maturity, you simply said basic information about natural selection. And why the hell would you want to explain to me why people understand the situation they are in? This was never a question that has been made, but you created it instead of coutnerargumenting my arguments against your idea.

It’s still not a reliable source of informations about history, especially regarding the drastic factor of the informations required for the topic of pedophilia and sexual relationships in the past.

I’m not rude, I’m mentioning the fact that National Geographic will have a “purified” version of the real history. You can’t rely on the knowledge you gained from it. Your views about how the daily life of people in times where the average life span was as low as 20 to 30 year old is extremely shifted from the actual situations that has been happening in those times.

You could spend years reading those books, watching the movies and so on, but in all honesty, your knowledge about it will only be as good as the reliability of those sources, regardless of how time you spend watching them.

Even without the concept of genes, they could see drastic deformations of their newborn children (which we can see in statues and paintings of them nowadays) see that they look different from other children, and realize, that the difference between them, and other people, is that they are inbreeding, while others had relationships between various families, breaking this practice to prevent further harm of their lineage. But they didn’t. It’s a simple logic that they failed at, not the lack of knowledge about genetics that has caused the problem.

But not to gain power. And it’s extremely rare because it’s not effective. Seriously, In the past 20 years how many rulers have been killed by someone tho take the rule after them?

I don’t have to convince you that this is the case, you have statistics of rapes that have been happening in the past hundred years. We have two world wars behind us. People were murdering each other for the pettiest of reasons, racism was a common thing, slavery was a common thing, discrimination of women was a common thing, LGBT was not even allowed to exist. Are you saying that these times were more moral than what we have today? Because if that is the case, then either your moral compass is completely turned upside down, or you idealize history due to lack of actual context of how an average person life was looking like in the past, or you are a psychopath that is incapable of distinguishing right from wrong.

Just because times today aren’t perfect, doesn’t automatically make the bast better.

Mention at least 3 instances of people murdering someone to steal their position of power in the past 50 years. Especially own brothers and sisters doing that to their own families.

Because political murders in the past was a common thing, especially in kingdoms. And in modern days, it’s extremely rare. But you try to make a case that it was reversed, to protect the claim, that children as rulers were better at ruling than adults.

Well, you are doing your best to achieve the opposite of those goals, that is for sure.

If my opinion is harmful, then how harmful is your actual behaviour that actually does create the stigma?

And if you don’t care about my opinion, then is there anyone opinion that you care about, other than that of your own? Exactly, this is the case, there isn’t. You only care about yourself, and no one else. You are interested in serving your own self-interest and pretend to make a case for marginalized people while displaying attitudes and opinion that hurt the reputation of people you claim to represent, despite them, never actually asking you to do it.

It’s a cheap facade for egoism, that you use to create an emotional appeal. Your constant saying “You are bad because it supports stigma” is an empty slogan that has no meaning. You don’t even understand what you want to convey by this sentence, you simply use it because it feels good to use it, especially when it allows you to gain the moral high ground while avoiding addressing the criticism you are receiving.

Ah, so here we are, you do believe that sex with children if they give agreement isn’t child abuse. This is why you are allowed to make that lie, that you don’t support child abuse. This is a proof of you being a pro contact MAP and pretending to be just a pro MAP.

You have no idea what child abuse is. You had to copy definitions of abuse from google. Not child abuse, but simply abuse. Because actually googling child abuse, includes sex with children of any kind as a part of its definition. This is the manipulation and twisting of words that I was referring to this entire time.

I don’t have to do it, you are doing it for yourself quite well, even without my help.

That is a pathetic lie.

What is not true? That they exclude violent and cruel rape as also not constituting child abuse? I’m sorry, but the only person who keeps lying in here is you.

Yes, you avoid explicitly stating what I’m exposing about you, but in every sentence that you create, you imply that things I say are correct.

Even in this quote, your problem isn’t that sex of any kind with an underage person is wrong. Your problem is whenever a child is sexually mature. So okay, if a child is sexually mature and agrees to have sex with you, and you do have sex with them, is that in your opinion child exploitation, and by that extension, child abuse?

Oh, let me guess, your response will be similar to “Children reach the sexual maturity between the age of 13 and 15 years old, this is why I stop debating with you because you clearly don’t know anything about what you are talking about”, right?

Im not telling you what the law says, im telling you what is happening in the reality.

In the places where death penalty is by stoning, the odds for a female are near to zero. Also, even when it’s performed by injections, still, the odds for a female are smaller than the odds for a male.

Abuse is if you manipulate someone, or use force. Manipulation can happen if the person has no knowledge, so he/she can be easily manipulated. Force is causing pain

Yes, im not going to debate with you. You simply ingore what im saying, and you prefer to repeat the same things about the law. Im exhaused from repeating the same thing.

But the future belongs to us, not to you. You will lose. Trust me.

If you want to talk with me, i recommend short texts, i can’t spend the whole day in responding to long texts. Thanks.

But our entire discussion was about the written laws. Not about what society does, because we are on the same page when it comes to the fact that there is a gender bias when it comes to prosecutions, so your constant shifting of the discussion from this topic, to talk about something in the very beginning we had an agreement on is pointless. You are doing it to avoid addressing the main discussion and pretend that you already have answered to my response, while you had added nothing of substance.

Give me the list of countries where stoning is used as a death penalty then. Because it’s my first time hearing about such a practice still taking place. And I have a hard time believing there are any statistics on how many males are stoned to death in comparison to women.

You are using a mirror argument. You have been the one that ignores what I’m saying, and instead, you keep bringing up unrelated topics as a responce. Just to fill the text under the quotes of my posts.

This is exactly what I have been talking about, you do support child rape, you simply changed what you consider as rape. This is unbelievable.

If you try to shift the topic of the discussion, because you are unable to admit that I was correct about debunking your statements, that I was correct that there is no discrimination on a basis of gender written in the law regarding the age of consent, then yes, I will bring back the same topic, until you give a coherent response to it by actually addressing it, instead of bringing off-topic. You are exhausted only because of your incapability to admit the mistake, so you can only blame yourself for that.

What “us” are you talking about? You are the only person with such beliefs in here. You must be extremely delusional if you really believe, that less than a 5% of people, most of which wouldn’t be willing to sexually exploit any minor, is going to change the law to legalize rape of children. And seeing your ability to convince people, I can sleep well knowing, that there is no case you can make to actually change peoples perception on this topic. You aren’t going to win anything, because you lost way long before your battle has even started.

No, sorry. I know you have an enormous problem reading more than 10 words on the screen, but sadly, if you actually have arguments to support your case, it results in a huge amount of text to present it. You would know that, if you were to have such arguments ever in your entire life.

1 Like

The age of majority consent exists as a legal barrier to protect minors from sexual abuse and exploitation by adults.
Minors can consent to sex with other minors within their age group, but not adults.

There are vast mental and physical differences between minors and adults. You can argue about “close cases” exist with 17-year-olds, but a line HAS to be drawn somewhere in regard to this.

There is no debate. The age of consent is prefectly justified.

1 Like

Even today I have a hard time understanding why people think that.

I never said the Age of Consent wasn’t justified, I said it has been horribly misinterpreted as a result of vague wording and lack of interest from the government in correcting misinformation surrounding it.

Legally, yes, minors can consent to sex with other minors but the vast majority of the public is disturbed by that concept and sees the age of consent as a barrier that should prohibit minors from doing or seeing anything sexual or potentially sexual in the first place. If this was not the case, no one would have an issue with minors looking at porn or being exposed to nudity but a massive majority of people do have a problem with this and I think it’s incredibly ignorant to suggest that there isn’t a nearly universal level of hostility against this idea.

I believe Age of Consent laws need to be rewritten to be explicit in their genuinely noble goal while also acknowledging that minors are often sexually active and protecting them from legal or social punishment for behaving as such.

1 Like

The age of consent is not about only sex. There are more thing (that have nothing to do with sex) that you are not allowed to do if you are under the so-called age of consent.

I heard that in all US states, the age of consent for beer and driving, is 21. In my country, the age of consent for such things, is 18. Does it mean that the european brains develop (faster) at the age of 18, but the U.S. brains develop (slower) at the age of 21?

No, it doesn’t.

The fact that different places have different Age-Of-Consent laws (for the same things/actions) proves that it’s not about biology, but about social attitudes, or even beliefs.

This is my opinion. Correct me if im wrong.

You might want to check your sources on that.

There is no single perfect AOC, there never can be as no two people will develop at the same rate, in the same way. Societies decide where to set AOC in the way that they feel minimises both risk and harm. That decision is made based on a combination of both evidence and social attitudes (which often have a large influence on harm). It will vary between country because there is no perfect age, it’s a matter of finding the age that is good enough.

1 Like