Beyond "consenting adults"

[Meryuma]

No, I just acknowledge and accept the role of self-interest in shaping my beliefs.

Then what's wrong with saying, "Oh, it's a fourteen year old, no wonder?"

Because it's not because I'm a 14 year old, it's because I'm a 14 year old egoist who also sees all forms of discrimination as irrational.

2. How many of the papers about child sex abuse are relevant to fully consensual sex? How does one get from "teenagers aren't as mature" to "teenagers can't consent"? How does the one about "understanding brain development in young children" saying that most brain development in several areas is between birth and age twelve support TCT's conclusions?

This seems to be the only part that might be worthy of a response, but it looks like all the answers are self-evident.

If kids can't consent, sex abuse is entirely relevant.

If teenagers aren't mature, they can't consent.

The last sentence, I'm not sure what you're even trying to say... the parts of the brain that deal with the ability to apply repercussions to actions don't mature until the 20's, so 'kids' certainly can't give 'informed' consent, because they can';t fully understand the implications of their choices.

Why does one have to be entirely mature to consent? Why do the other things I said not deserve a response?

[Quelesh]

Before I reply to posts, I'll address the OP: Yes, I think it is an ageist term.

What Meryuma forgetsis, when he turns 18, he gets to be ageist, too. That's one of the few pleasures of getting older, the ability to look down on the young. And though I'm sure he will protest vehemently that he will do so, as sure as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, he will.

Many young people do become ageist as they get older, but there's a good chance that, as a youth rights advocate today, Meryuma will not head down that path as he gets older. I know many legal adults (myself being one of them) who are stalwart supporters of youth rights in all areas.

Meryuma, for what I can gather, and I am sorry to say this, you prove why is it that minors cannot do adult things in most cases. You do not really want the responsibility that adulthood entails. Otherwise you wouldn't be saying "that you don't want the state to intrude in your life". Well, guess what? That is part of being an adult.

Do you mean that expressing a desire to be free of age-based restrictions by the state is, in itself, a sign of immaturity? If so, that's quite a catch-22.

No. If you wanna fuck and you're under fucking age, fuck your peers. Adults shouldn't be fucking children because children can be manipulated too easily due to their standing in the social order. Same reason officers can't fuck enlisted members of the military.

Yes, it is the place of children in our social hierarchy that is largely responsible for the problem here. Members of an oppressed class are quite vulnerable to manipulation by the more privileged members of society. The solution is to elevate the status of children in the social hierarchy by stripping, to the greatest extent possible, the power that adults have over children.

Children are conditioned to obey adults and to see them as wiser and more capable.

Then let's put a stop to that conditioning.

Children are also financially and otherwise dependent on adults, mostly without a say in the matter.

To a large extent this state of dependence is maintained by our laws. Children are legally prohibited from being independent, financially or otherwise, and there are a great many societal roadblocks in their path that essentially force everyone to wait until their 18th birthdays before they become independent, regardless of when they are actually capable of being independent. The solution is to eliminate these legal and societal roadblocks.

By the time you're 20, you'll wish that you were 14 again more than anything in the world.

You may wish that you were 14 again, but a lot of people don't. I would hate to be 14 again. It was quite a hellish time in my life.

What if we allowed children to become more independent again but say easing labor laws? What would you say then if 'children' were able to support themselves?

*shrugs* it's not quite that simple. If you could prove that people of a younger age were able to work without being exploited then it would help, help I say. Unfortunately that's only a small part of it. In essence if you could ensure that a person of an age below the AoC wasn't being taken advantage of, in any way then I'd be okay with it. Unfortunately that would require massive changes societally and not ones that I would consider to be for the better.

I most certainly would consider those changes in our society to be for the better. Allowing greater participation in all areas of society by all members of society is a good thing.

How can you verify that the majority are too immature to consent? And on a side note, maybe if sex ed classes actually taught kids about sex and contraception, children would be emotionally prepared earlier on for sex.

they'd certainly be better informed earlier and I'm all for that. I'm not sure if they'd be emotionally prepared sooner and as stated before, there are other issues including conditioning to trust adults, financial and emotional dependency and etc.

Again I can envision a society with a lower AoC with good reason. Societies that aren't doing so well (historically and in modernity) tend to have lower AoCs (by law or practice) essentially because children become adults much sooner in those societies., They mature emotionally much sooner, they gain a semblance of financial independence sooner, they are less conditioned to trust adults and etc. Unfortunately Those are not the kinds of societies I, personally, would want to live in.

Children becoming a part of adult society much earlier in those cultures than in our own is not caused by short life expectancy, disease, unsanitary living conditions, etc. The early integration of children into adult society is a result of the negative aspects of these societies, not a cause. There is no reason why we could not have a society that fully integrated children into all areas of it and was not plagued by the negatives that you (I believe) outlined in a later post.

Not really. The fact that he's fourteen definitely indicates why he feels so strongly in favour of youth rights.

Again, I know many legal adults, including myself, who are strongly in favor of youth rights, and I know people younger than 18 who oppose youth rights.

[Quelesh]

If teenagers aren't mature, they can't consent.

I don't see how that follows.

[Grainne Ni Malley]

Grainne, sex isn't some kind of a sin to fear, and virginity isn't innocence. Also, just because you had a bad experience with underage sex doesn't mean people of a certain age should be coercively prohibited from sex.

I can't seem to find the original post of this, perhaps deleted? But I do want to address this. Don't get me wrong, I adore sex -perhaps too much- and I loved teenage sex all the more so. Which is probably why I got pregnant at 19. I wouldn't change a thing because I love my son and I'm not about to trade that in, but I can say with the perspective of a 36-year old that it altered my life in many great ways and many not-so-great ways. I dropped out of college and dedicated my life to raising my son. I feel blessed to have him, but at the same time I feel I missed out on some things that would have been nice to experience. Sure, not all teenagers who have sex get knocked up. Yet, so many do. Some even aim for it, and at ages that are awfully ill-equipped to raise a child. It's a bit scary, actually.

Also, I must note that I would never, ever support forcing people to refrain from sex until their thirties. It was a stretch of imagination so to speak. Perhaps a lofty ideal. I do think that sex can complicate relationships, even more so for younger people because it too easy to confuse lust with love. Not to mention, with all those hormones running so wild, gaining perspective at that age range is very, very difficult. While, I have to be realistic and acknowledge that teens are going to have sex regardless of what anyone says, I can frown upon adults who take advantage of kids who are just starting to learn about their sexuality.

BTW, I do not equate virginity with innocence. I equate youth with innocence, and people in a hurry to grow up quickly can lose that innocence just as quickly.

[Trotskylvania]

Yes, it is the place of children in our social hierarchy that is largely responsible for the problem here. Members of an oppressed class are quite vulnerable to manipulation by the more privileged members of society. The solution is to elevate the status of children in the social hierarchy by stripping, to the greatest extent possible, the power that adults have over children.

And how exactly do you plan on doing that? Children, as it has been pointed out time and time again, are not just mini-adults. They are not ready for autonomy. There's a reason why humans have always had the longest adolescence of any animal. You can't create an adult overnight. It takes two decades of teaching, tempered with experience and plenty of mistakes.

Then let's put a stop to that conditioning.

It's not a matter of social conditioning, it's a matter of biological imperative. Children by their very nature emulate and look up to adults.

To a large extent this state of dependence is maintained by our laws. Children are legally prohibited from being independent, financially or otherwise, and there are a great many societal roadblocks in their path that essentially force everyone to wait until their 18th birthdays before they become independent, regardless of when they are actually capable of being independent. The solution is to eliminate these legal and societal roadblocks.

No, that state of dependence is a fact of human nature. You can no more annul adolescence then you could convince the tides to turn back.

I most certainly would consider those changes in our society to be for the better. Allowing greater participation in all areas of society by all members of society is a good thing.

That's not more participation, that's slavery. Education and long adolescence is the only thing that gives people a fighting chance in this dog-eat-dog world.

[Quelesh]

I can't seem to find the original post of this, perhaps deleted? But I do want to address this. Don't get me wrong, I adore sex -perhaps too much- and I loved teenage sex all the more so. Which is probably why I got pregnant at 19. I wouldn't change a thing because I love my son and I'm not about to trade that in, but I can say with the perspective of a 36-year old that it altered my life in many great ways and many not-so-great ways. I dropped out of college and dedicated my life to raising my son. I feel blessed to have him, but at the same time I feel I missed out on some things that would have been nice to experience. Sure, not all teenagers who have sex get knocked up. Yet, so many do. Some even aim for it, and at ages that are awfully ill-equipped to raise a child. It's a bit scary, actually.

A woman for whom I have a great deal of respect got pregnant with her first child at 16. She is a wonderful, responsible, loving mother who provides and cares for her children. I didn't know her until her son was 1 and a half, but, knowing her, I would be willing to bet that, while I'm sure she made some mistakes as everyone does, she was a good mother to her newborn at 17 as well. This is anecdotal, of course, but I don't see anything bad at all about this woman's experience, nor do I think that she, or the man who impregnated her, should be condemned.

BTW, I do not equate virginity with innocence. I equate youth with innocence, and people in a hurry to grow up quickly can lose that innocence just as quickly.

I don't equate youth with innocence at all; young people are not nearly so innocent as many adults would like to believe, or would like to compel them to be. I view innocence, in the way that you used the term, as a very negative thing, merely being a synonym for ignorance.

"That which can be destroyed by the truth should be." - P. C. Hodgell

[Quelesh]

Yes, it is the place of children in our social hierarchy that is largely responsible for the problem here. Members of an oppressed class are quite vulnerable to manipulation by the more privileged members of society. The solution is to elevate the status of children in the social hierarchy by stripping, to the greatest extent possible, the power that adults have over children.

And how exactly do you plan on doing that? Children, as it has been pointed out time and time again, are not just mini-adults. They are not ready for autonomy. There's a reason why humans have always had the longest adolescence of any animal. You can't create an adult overnight. It takes two decades of teaching, tempered with experience and plenty of mistakes.

Then let's put a stop to that conditioning.

It's not a matter of social conditioning, it's a matter of biological imperative. Children by their very nature emulate and look up to adults.

To a large extent this state of dependence is maintained by our laws. Children are legally prohibited from being independent, financially or otherwise, and there are a great many societal roadblocks in their path that essentially force everyone to wait until their 18th birthdays before they become independent, regardless of when they are actually capable of being independent. The solution is to eliminate these legal and societal roadblocks.

No, that state of dependence is a fact of human nature. You can no more annul adolescence then you could convince the tides to turn back.

I most certainly would consider those changes in our society to be for the better. Allowing greater participation in all areas of society by all members of society is a good thing.

That's not more participation, that's slavery. Education and long adolescence is the only thing that gives people a fighting chance in this dog-eat-dog world.

Throughout most of human history, people have generally joined adult society in their early or mid teens. People certainly were generally economically independent by then up until a couple hundred years ago, and most human females started families by their mid teens. Adolescence, as we in Western society know the concept, is largely nonexistent even today in preindustrial societies. It can hardly be a biological imperative when it doesn't even exist in many cultures.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Before I reply to posts, I'll address the OP: Yes, I think it is an ageist term.

What Meryuma forgetsis, when he turns 18, he gets to be ageist, too. That's one of the few pleasures of getting older, the ability to look down on the young. And though I'm sure he will protest vehemently that he will do so, as sure as the sun rises in the east and sets in the west, he will.

Many young people do become ageist as they get older, but there's a good chance that, as a youth rights advocate today, Meryuma will not head down that path as he gets older. I know many legal adults (myself being one of them) who are stalwart supporters of youth rights in all areas.

Meryuma, for what I can gather, and I am sorry to say this, you prove why is it that minors cannot do adult things in most cases. You do not really want the responsibility that adulthood entails. Otherwise you wouldn't be saying "that you don't want the state to intrude in your life". Well, guess what? That is part of being an adult.

Do you mean that expressing a desire to be free of age-based restrictions by the state is, in itself, a sign of immaturity? If so, that's quite a catch-22.

It is a sign of immaturity when your best answer to it is: I don't want the state meddling. In fact, it feels, in some ways, like a temper tantrum. Hence, not exactly the best kind of display of maturity.

You see, one of the signs of adulthood is knowing that, no matter how you look at it, you live on a state, and you need to make compromises.

Aside from that, age restrictions are placed for a good reason. Even if your body is mature for something, doesn't mean that, psychologically, you can take it. Sex is one of those practices that entail both physical and mental maturity. I'm sorry but I'm afraid your average 14yo isn't exactly mentally mature.

I have no doubt the OP is intelligent. But, is he mature enough to understand what has been said to him over and over again, in this thread? Because you think you can do something, doesn't make it so that you can actually do something and carry the full consequences of it.

[DaWoad]

they'd certainly be better informed earlier and I'm all for that. I'm not sure if they'd be emotionally prepared sooner and as stated before, there are other issues including conditioning to trust adults, financial and emotional dependency and etc.

Again I can envision a society with a lower AoC with good reason. Societies that aren't doing so well (historically and in modernity) tend to have lower AoCs (by law or practice) essentially because children become adults much sooner in those societies., They mature emotionally much sooner, they gain a semblance of financial independence sooner, they are less conditioned to trust adults and etc. Unfortunately Those are not the kinds of societies I, personally, would want to live in.

Children becoming a part of adult society much earlier in those cultures than in our own is not caused by short life expectancy, disease, unsanitary living conditions, etc. The early integration of children into adult society is a result of the negative aspects of these societies, not a cause. There is no reason why we could not have a society that fully integrated children into all areas of it and was not plagued by the negatives that you (I believe) outlined in a later post.

I'm not sure that's possible. Oh I agree, the cause and effect are the way you portray them but I am not sure that it is possible to a society that you or I would want to live in in which that is the case. I'm not, in fact, certain without the absolute requirement for children to "grow up" early that one can force them to. Worse, the degree of exploitation found in even otherwise fair societies with regards to children BEFORE things like AoC laws and laws governing when children could enter the workforce, was appalling.

[Trotskylvania]

And how exactly do you plan on doing that? Children, as it has been pointed out time and time again, are not just mini-adults. They are not ready for autonomy. There's a reason why humans have always had the longest adolescence of any animal. You can't create an adult overnight. It takes two decades of teaching, tempered with experience and plenty of mistakes.

It's not a matter of social conditioning, it's a matter of biological imperative. Children by their very nature emulate and look up to adults.

No, that state of dependence is a fact of human nature. You can no more annul adolescence then you could convince the tides to turn back.

That's not more participation, that's slavery. Education and long adolescence is the only thing that gives people a fighting chance in this dog-eat-dog world.

Throughout most of human history, people have generally joined adult society in their early or mid teens. People certainly were generally economically independent by then up until a couple hundred years ago, and most human females started families by their mid teens. Adolescence, as we in Western society know the concept, is largely nonexistent even today in preindustrial societies. It can hardly be a biological imperative when it doesn't even exist in many cultures.

As has been noted, biologically, people in their early to mid teens are not functionally adults. They are incapable of rational long term decision-making. The fact that many cultures, out of necessity, booted their youth into adulthood is irrelevant. And the statistics simply don't bear out most people being full adults in their teens. In nearly every culture, men are expected to be stable, independent and providers before they can court and marry. This usually pushes marriage into their early to mid 20s. Women, who had been stripped of their humanity by patriarchal culture, are bred out at a younger age.

Even the very notion of economic independence is a Western bourgeois cultural norms injecting itself where it doesn't belong. Before the industrial revolution, a man's independence often truly didn't begin until his father died. The family as an extended unit had a far bigger role than it does today. Independence wasn't a luxury or to be sought after, it was a curse. It was the younger sons of farmers and tradesmen, who stood to inherit very little, that often had to make their own way as journeymen.

[GeneralHaNor]

You see, one of the signs of adulthood is knowing that, no matter how you look at it, you live on a state, and you need to make compromises.
.

Would it be immature to ask for your freedom from a cruel slavemaster who whips and beats you.
Or would it be required of an adult to "Compromise" ?

"Sure I'll work for no pay, just please don't beat me master"

That is your state that you require we make concessions to.
I say, no compromise, the state can rot and die.

[DaWoad]

Because it's not because I'm a 14 year old, it's because I'm a 14 year old egoist who also sees all forms of discrimination as irrational.

that's just silly. would you allow someone to have sex with a four year old?
Would you allow a three year old to move out of his/her parent's house?
would you allow an infant to drink?
Discrimination is not inherently irrational.

Why does one have to be entirely mature to consent? Why do the other things I said not deserve a response?

*sigh*, look at Farn's post that I quoted there are A LOT of reasons that maturity is very, very important to consent.

[DaWoad]

You see, one of the signs of adulthood is knowing that, no matter how you look at it, you live on a state, and you need to make compromises.
.

Would it be immature to ask for your freedom from a cruel slavemaster who whips and beats you.
Or would it be required of an adult to "Compromise" ?

"Sure I'll work for no pay, just please don't beat me master"

That is your state that you require we make concessions to.
I say, no compromise, the state can rot and die.

really? the state is now a slave master? oh well done sir, you have managed a grotesque overstatement and a massive insult to those who have and still suffer from true slavery. Bravo.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

You see, one of the signs of adulthood is knowing that, no matter how you look at it, you live on a state, and you need to make compromises.
.

Would it be immature to ask for your freedom from a cruel slavemaster who whips and beats you.
Or would it be required of an adult to "Compromise" ?

"Sure I'll work for no pay, just please don't beat me master"

That is your state that you require we make concessions to.
I say, no compromise, the state can rot and die.

Yeah yeah, this is the typical General HaNor response. But since the OP isn't a slave, and lives within the parameters established by the law of the state (lol, same as you no matter how you want to rage against it), nah, the state cannot rot and die. The state's laws are in place for a good reason, mainly to protect me.

[GeneralHaNor]

Would it be immature to ask for your freedom from a cruel slavemaster who whips and beats you.
Or would it be required of an adult to "Compromise" ?

"Sure I'll work for no pay, just please don't beat me master"

That is your state that you require we make concessions to.
I say, no compromise, the state can rot and die.

really? the state is now a slave master? oh well done sir, you have managed a grotesque overstatement and a massive insult to those who have and still suffer from true slavery. Bravo.

I do what I can. Even sibrisky will agree that income tax is a partial slavery, as the state now owns a fraction of your labor, without your consent.

[Trotskylvania]

You see, one of the signs of adulthood is knowing that, no matter how you look at it, you live on a state, and you need to make compromises.
.

Would it be immature to ask for your freedom from a cruel slavemaster who whips and beats you.
Or would it be required of an adult to "Compromise" ?

"Sure I'll work for no pay, just please don't beat me master"

That is your state that you require we make concessions to.
I say, no compromise, the state can rot and die.

Comparing the relationship of the average 20th century citizen towards the democratic state to chattel slavery is blindly misguided and cruelly ignorant. This Manichean view of the state is just rubbish, and insulting to people who actually have faced conditions akin to slavery.

[Xomic]

Throughout most of human history, people have generally joined adult society in their early or mid teens. People certainly were generally economically independent by then up until a couple hundred years ago, and most human females started families by their mid teens. Adolescence, as we in Western society know the concept, is largely nonexistent even today in preindustrial societies. It can hardly be a biological imperative when it doesn't even exist in many cultures.

You're making the mistake of equating sexual maturity with adulthood. The two are very different things. animals typically become sexually mature before they've actually finished developing, because passing on their genetics is often the most important thing in terms of evolution.

Despite these female' ability to bare children, most of them were unable to do so well, likely due to the fact that they were not physically mature to really be baring children even if they're capable. To use an analogy, sexual maturity is like a typical mmo at release- wholefully incomplete. Yes you can play on it, yes you can pay for it, but it's not complete and it won't be grown up for years, if it ever does make it and does die from trying to be a game without most of the game being there.

The second point is that these young wives were not being wedded to men of their own age, but rather adult men. This suggests nothing of these young girl's ability to consent and a great deal about the fact that an adult can abuse children.

[Grave_n_idle]

If teenagers aren't mature, they can't consent.

I don't see how that follows.

It doesn't matter. If you can't see how pouring water on something makes it wet, that is still true, regardless, too.

[GeneralHaNor]

Would it be immature to ask for your freedom from a cruel slavemaster who whips and beats you.
Or would it be required of an adult to "Compromise" ?

"Sure I'll work for no pay, just please don't beat me master"

That is your state that you require we make concessions to.
I say, no compromise, the state can rot and die.

Yeah yeah, this is the typical General HaNor response. But since the OP isn't a slave, and lives within the parameters established by the law of the state (lol, same as you no matter how you want to rage against it), nah, the state cannot rot and die. The state's laws are in place for a good reason, mainly to protect me.

Your desire for the artificial (and ineffectual) safety as provided by the state, does not give you (or the state) license to oppress others.

Your ordered society is created under the threat of violence, admit your hypocrisy and accept that fact that statism is simply embraced/pragmatic evil.

[Xomic]

Then what's wrong with saying, "Oh, it's a fourteen year old, no wonder?"

Because it's not because I'm a 14 year old, it's because I'm a 14 year old egoist who also sees all forms of discrimination as irrational.

Orly. So, in your opinion, picking one wine over another is irrational?

[Grave_n_idle]

Why does one have to be entirely mature to consent?

If one is not mature, then one's consent is compromised, since one's capacity to give informed consent relies on the ability to fully comprehend not only one's actions, but also the consequences of them.

[DaWoad]

And how exactly do you plan on doing that? Children, as it has been pointed out time and time again, are not just mini-adults. They are not ready for autonomy. There's a reason why humans have always had the longest adolescence of any animal. You can't create an adult overnight. It takes two decades of teaching, tempered with experience and plenty of mistakes.

It's not a matter of social conditioning, it's a matter of biological imperative. Children by their very nature emulate and look up to adults.

No, that state of dependence is a fact of human nature. You can no more annul adolescence then you could convince the tides to turn back.

That's not more participation, that's slavery. Education and long adolescence is the only thing that gives people a fighting chance in this dog-eat-dog world.

Throughout most of human history, people have generally joined adult society in their early or mid teens. People certainly were generally economically independent by then up until a couple hundred years ago, and most human females started families by their mid teens. Adolescence, as we in Western society know the concept, is largely nonexistent even today in preindustrial societies. It can hardly be a biological imperative when it doesn't even exist in many cultures.

Those societies were not, by any means, anything anyone living in a modern, first world, nation would want to live. Sure, a woman can be forced to become a mother by her mid teens, but it's generally not under any condiditon anyone (least of all said mother) wants.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

Yeah yeah, this is the typical General HaNor response. But since the OP isn't a slave, and lives within the parameters established by the law of the state (lol, same as you no matter how you want to rage against it), nah, the state cannot rot and die. The state's laws are in place for a good reason, mainly to protect me.

Your desire for the artificial (and ineffectual) safety as provided by the state, does not give you (or the state) license to oppress others.

Your ordered society is created under the threat of violence, admit your hypocrisy and accept that fact that statism is simply embraced/pragmatic evil.

Yeah, yeah, and laws are still in place to protect others, even those who wish to 'break free'. Even you. Because I am sure that if someone breaks into your home and steals from you, you will appeal to the justice system to help you. A system that, lol, is in place thanks to the very state you call 'ebil'. Mhmm... I think that the hypocrite here is, well, you.

[DaWoad]

really? the state is now a slave master? oh well done sir, you have managed a grotesque overstatement and a massive insult to those who have and still suffer from true slavery. Bravo.

I do what I can. Even sibrisky will agree that income tax is a partial slavery, as the state now owns a fraction of your labor, without your consent.

sibr is an ANCAP of course he'd agree. I, on the other hand, do not. What kind of slavery is it when, by ceasing to use the services for which you are paying, you can simply stop paying.

[GeneralHaNor]

Would it be immature to ask for your freedom from a cruel slavemaster who whips and beats you.
Or would it be required of an adult to "Compromise" ?

"Sure I'll work for no pay, just please don't beat me master"

That is your state that you require we make concessions to.
I say, no compromise, the state can rot and die.

Comparing the relationship of the average 20th century citizen towards the democratic state to chattel slavery is blindly misguided and cruelly ignorant. This Manichean view of the state is just rubbish, and insulting to people who actually have faced conditions akin to slavery.

Blah Blah Blah
"It's not as oppressive as it could be, so be a good little sheep, obey your laws, and pay your taxes"
No dice pal, A=A, less of A is still A
To quote John Locke
"The State is, at the best a necessary evil, at worst an intolerable one"

Where I disagree is the both the necessary part, and the tolerable part. in that it will never be tolerable.