Here's a serious question /his/
Is it wrong to have sex with a minor, IF the minor has shown consent?
I'm well aware that it's illegal, but is there anything wrong with it?
It's a crime with no victim.
I would personally never have sex with minor, but I just simply don't see what's wrong with it.
Yes because children are stupid, naive and often unaware of their own decisions
>>848509
It can fuck a child up psychologically. Even if they give "consent", they may not realize what they're getting into.
Are there kids who had sex and ended up fine? I'm sure there are, but I'd consider them the exception not the rule.
>>848509
I had a friend who was 14 that wanted more than anything to be a professional wrestler.
If a professional wrestler heard that and offered to go 1 on 1 with them and the kid agreed, would that be right? Of course not, because kids can not comprehend what they are choosing to do.
>>848528
>children are stupid, naive and often unaware of their own decisions
Yeah, but you learn from your mistakes, right?
Also, when I was 13/14 years old, I was well aware that my actions had consequences etc.
>>848533
>It can fuck up a child psychologically
Yes, and so can interacting with other kids at school, as they might get bullied by the other kids.
>>848536
So you're saying that when you were 14, you would agree to wrestling a proffessional wrestler with no concern of breaking your back?
>>848540
Bullying is not on the same level as sex. Sex is very intimate and disarming.
Bullying is a challenge to be overcome. Also, our society actively discourages bullying. Sure it still happens, but theres only so much one can do.
For the record, I'm referring to kids as pre-teens. Granted, everyone developes differently, but I would say that by 14 one should have a pretty good idea of what sex is. In that case, the people who don't are the exception imo.
>>848571
>The people who don't are the exception
So how will you know who knows and who doesn't?
>>848578
You don't, which is why we have laws specifying a specific age of conesent. Obviously some people can give consent prior to 16, but its much easier to just set an age and go off of that.
Is it always fair? No, but there isn't much one can do about that.
>>848540
The psychological effects sex has on children and early teens is well documented. Many victims of sexual abuse (which includes 'consensual' sex) develop severe mental problems. You have to understand how undeveloped brains are before adulthood
> would you have agreed ect
I wouldn't, no, but I know plenty of kids back then that would've jumped at the chance so that they would seem cool. Hell, remember all the Jackass wannabes that popped up in the 90s? 15 year olds letting their friends hit them with trucks to get a laugh. There is no limit to the stupidity of children/teens
>>848597
To me this looks like a case of "I want to save the whole world"
Let people's instinct lead them on in life, it's the most natural thing to do (as long as nobody gets hurt directly). At least in my opinion.
>>848509
Your argument assumes children are subjects.
>>848607
Yes.
They have a consciousness, don't they? Aren't they able to think for themselves?
>>848606
There's nothing there to suggest saving the world, only that at young ages your decision making process is flawed, which has been proven to the best of our abilities, and allowing young people to make those decisions that can and often do have life altering repercussions is not right. Parents and the child's community have responsibilities to that child, that it can grow, learn and develop. But that's descending into parenting methods and I won't go there.
>>848606
>as long as nobody gets hurt directly
He is arguing that someone is being hurt directly.
>>848615
>They have a consciousness, don't they?
Demonstrate they're not p-zombies.
Demonstrate you're not a p-zombie.
Using phenomenological experience only demonstrate that you're conscious.
Cogito doesn't specify a subject btw ;)
>Aren't they able to think for themselves?
Ha ha ha ha ha, no less and no more than anyone else.
>14 year olds having a pretty good idea of what sex is
an idea at least. this idea however apart from the mechanical biological and legal stuff you learn at school will be skewed by the media, especially advertisement and porn. 14 is young as fuck to have sex and looking back I don't think I was mature enough at the time. It is not natural for kids to want sex. If that is the case it is because of false expectations from media/porn consumption or word of mouth and from social pressure in their age group.
OP's question is a tricky one because obviously law is not always morally right and setting a standard age for sex ignores the uniqueness of the situation each individual finds them in. I'd also argue that at times it can be harmful: one reason I had sex with 14 for the first time was because I had learned that from that point on I was allowed to have sex. avid porn consumption taught me that it's the best thing in the world and so it happened (my gf was also 14 and she certainly wasn't mature enough to give consent, neither was I).
tl;dr: abolish porn and advertisements and you might find the rare child who has matured to the point of understanding and wanting sexual intercourse, if that doesn't happen we need these laws to keep people from exploiting misguided children.
Yes because a child connect consent. Statatory rape isnt that bad.
Historically fucking little girls happened occassionay, but in a more tasteful and meaningful context. Modern pedos are shit tier and most chuck little girls when they are done.
>>848748
I agree with this sentiment. There are too many kids who wholeheartedly believe they are ready for this they are very clearly not ready for, and the consequences of their judgements could be very bad
Doing something that has been statistically shown to be highly likely to cause harm is a bad idea whether or not it actually ends up causing harm in your individual case.
It's statistically unlikely that you're going to get into a car accident on any particular drive. Now let's say I took your child for a drive and chose not to buckle them in. Even though we ended up being just fine, how would you feel about me and my choice?
Unless you can see the future, you should generally avoid doing things to children that are very likely to cause harm without a unique and overwhelming benefit. The only way I can realistically avoid tooth crowding is to have some teeth pulled, but there are countless ways to have a good time with a child that is not sex.
>>848625
But we DO let allow children to make those decisions with each other. A 14 year old isn't going to juvie for having sex with their 14 year old partner, and their parents are not going to jail for choosing not to stop them.
In fact our society generally sees nothing wrong at all with 14 year olds having sex with each other, most even think it's perfectly normal healthy behavior if practiced safely.
So clearly society disagrees with you as far as what is right.
>>848606
>Appeal to nature fallacy
>>848833
I am going to preface this by stating that I'm not trying to justify either scenario.
Neither party can legally consent when they're the same age.
The scenario is approached with both parties being hypothetically equally experienced, mature and emotionally developed.
If one partner is above the legal age of consent then this is generally considered not to be true (Though I'd argue this varies). That partner is fully capable of taking advantage of the inexperience, immaturity and lack of emotional development of their underaged partner, whether they're explicitly intent on doing it or not.
Also parents can't watch their children all the time.
>>848509
This kind of belongs on /pol/ if anywhere unless you really want the historical context as opposed to the opinions of other people.
>>848896
Yea, they legally can. Children are specifically a protected class, legally. So you are flatly wrong in a huge amount of jurisdictions. Children are legally allowed to have sex with each other, and even if they werent it's still a 100% disingenuous argument to bring up while public schools are handing out free condoms to children. Where we are now, children having sex with children is legal, and if it wasn't (it is) it would still be de facto legal.
So the argument is an older partner is more likely to take manipulate a child than another child. I don't think that's true, I think children demonstrate an obvious penchant for manipulating each other.
I right now am capable of manipulating you. Is interacting with you wrong? No, manipulating you is wrong. This isn't an argument about what we should do, I'm just saying that is how things are. We shouldn't allow adults free access to children for precisely that capability, but the capability of wrongness does not make something intrinsically wrong.
The board is called history and humanities and as such it's perfectly acceptable here.
>>848509
Depends on the axioms that underlie your morality. If you think informed consent is needed to engage in contracts etc., you'll oppose it because children can be assumed not to be able to form informed consent.
Other people with other belief systems will find nothing wrong with this, however, if other conditions are met. For instance, if you own the child as a slave.
At it's base, it is wrong because the people around you will uphold this belief.
>>848896
This can relate to philosophy in a way, because morality and all that.
Besides, as a regular /pol goer, I can tell you its a stupid idea to expect serious responses there. Maybe once in a blue moon.
>>849009
>children can be assumed not to be able to form informed consent.
Pretty shitty assumption. Age and being informed aren't always correlated, and there's plenty of smart kids with better critical thinking skills than half the adult population.
>>848509
Only if the minor in question is a female. They are vulnerable and it will fuck them up psychologically. A young pubescent male however is a different set of standards. I don't know if you remember what it was like to be a 13 year old boy but I remember I'd have given anything to bust a nut in the teacher. Instead of being psychologically scarred I think it would have made me a more confident and well rounded young man if I had a sexual encounter with an older experienced female.
>>849156
Plenty of women would say the exact same thing, what an absurd and idiotic reasoning. Are you being facetious?
pedophiles have been relentlessly spamming 4chan for a long time driven by their mental illness, in nearly every thread they say almost exactly the same thing because they are retarded
http://desustorage.org/_/search/text/age%20of%20consent/type/op/
/his/ plz ignore
>>849173
No I'm being serious. I don't think an older woman having sex with a 13 year old boy harms the boy, and I'd go as far to say that she's doing him a life favor. I do however believe that the older woman is depraved sexually unless there is a close bond or connection between them. A young girl having sex with an older man is different even if she gives consent. She is weak, vulnerable, and instead of gaining confidence like the young male I think her giving herself to an older man will make her feel weak and vulnerable for the rest of her life. Sex is more an emotional thing for females, whereas for males it is mostly physical.
>>849191
You are an utter and absolute fool to the point of being a caricature, so there is simply no way to rationalize your post as anything other than satire.
>>849191
So you know nothing about teenage girls then
>>848509
The hard part is the borderline case- a 15 year old may actually be more ready and have more agency than their 18 year old sibling. But in general we want to stop older people using their power to take advantage of kids- so we need some sort of arbitrary cut off point that will minimize this to some degree. IMO 16 is fine and that is the law where I live. Though we also have laws against 16/17 year olds sleeping with anyone who is in a position of power over them, like their boss.
>>849191
a 13 year old boy is generally weak and vulnerable, with the older woman holding far more power over him, I'm not even debating whether or not 13 year olds should be allowed to have sex, but what you said is completely dumb and retarded
It's wrong to have sex with someone who cannot give free and informed consent, which clealry includes young children.
Is that the case for every person aged below whatever the statutory limit is in your jurisdiction? Probably not. But legally, it would be extremely difficult to actually prove the child's mental state in each case (particularly since a year or two might pass between the act and the trial, and the child's feelings towards the defendant at the time may influence their evidence). So for the sake of practicality we have to draw a line somewhere.
There are arguments about where that line should be, particularly in cases where both parties are relatively young.
>>849191
>le girls are delicate flowers meme
This has largely died out with the rise of feminism. Now women only use that meme when it benefits them. Tons of teen girls whore themselves out now. Then when they get pregnant or an std they blame the men for preying on an innocent little flower.
I think that the main souce of confusion here is that by giving consent to sex, you don't create an automated carte blanche to everyone who's contemplating having sex with you. When you consent to sex, you consent to sex with THAT specific person, based on how you feel about your personal relationship with that person.
So when two adults or two children are in question -- the playing fields are even. No-one is neither less nor more emotionally dependent on the other person. (If the bare minimum of mental wellbeing is assumed.)
However, between a kid and a grown-up, there's always an inverse distribution of power. Grown-ups are, by default, the children's ad-hoc caregivers. In any situation where both are present, a kid will always look to the grown-up when determining the best course of action. Because after all, sexual assault or not, following the grown-up's cue is still the kid's best bet for survival in this world.
>>849746
Why is sex seemingly the only situation in which a power disparity is relevant? No one says its a bad idea to play monopoly with your boss because he might pressure you to throw the game in his favor. When a father plays catch with his son no one is worried he's going to cave the kid's skull in with the ball. But when you get sex involved suddenly exploration becomes a physical law of the universe. Yea the potential exists and it's a completely valid and correct reason to protect vulnerable people from it, but it seems most people refuse to acknowledge it's only a potential, that exploitation is the only way possible to have sex with a kid. Its almost like people are more fanatical about child sex than about child neglect or child beating, things recognized by psychology to cause much more severe trauma.
>>849438
>literally saying fucking little boys is doing them a favor
>calling anyone else pedofag
