Age of Consent

[TargeT]

Posted by boutreality (here)
I submit that any argument made to justify an Age of Consent lower than 18 is results from individual and/or cultural Moral Relativism

I dunno where you grew up, but my age of ... "consent" was 14..... and possibly would have been earlier if I had a clue at younger ages... now granted that was between like age groups (14 and 15 respectively).

Did I or the other participant lose anything by that interaction? was there a moral issue there?

Did I (as the younger party) get taken advantage of?

I think "we" have some very strange hang ups about sex & for some individuals even 18 is too young (my daughter is one of those, 20 years old currently with my 1 year old granddaughter and a string of failed relationships)...


The prefrontal cortex, which begins to develop around the onset of puberty, does not complete its development until age 25. This section of the brain controls impulse inhibition, goal planning and organization. The brain's reward system also becomes highly active around the start of puberty, receding to a normal adult level around 25. This overly active reward system causes adults under 25 to seek out uncertain situations to find out whether they might be rewarding & is a HUGE part of growth and development.

How many great stories (life lessons) do you have from your 15-25 year range?

Should we limit that?


If we are going to base it on biology, shouldn't the age of consent be 25 or (to be safe) 30?


I think this is a lot more complex than just physical development.

[boutreality]

TargeT

This culture does have sexual hang-ups- yes. You were 14 with people in your own age group. I'm not saying teens can't have sex- that'd be stupid.

I'm saying that adults should damn well know better, and not play the swimming justification picture; explaining their role in a sexual encounter with an underage girl/boy in terms of a their-side only perspective.

As I said, even at 18 some near age consideration of 2-3 yrs should be enacted.

-I'm not sure what tangential "whos-a-whatsit" argument your pulling the 25 or 30 argument from; I was very clear.

[TargeT]

Posted by boutreality (here)
I'm saying that adults should damn well know better, and not play the swimming justification picture; explaining their role in a sexual encounter with an underage girl/boy in terms of a their-side only perspective.
.

I can be VERY persuasive and apparently I'm (or was) not terrible to look at... I relentlessly pursued a 27-28 year old... she did wait until the day after I turned 18 to return any attention; but what about situation?

I do not feel like I lost anything in that interaction...


or are you (assuming here... ass u me.. haha) focused mainly on the older male younger female interaction?


Ahhhh misandry, the only prejudice we are allowed anymore these days.

[music]

Let’s imagine that ideal world, where we are all individuals who operate from ascended consciousness, and were the dark twists and turns of repressed aspects do not colour all we say and do. That dream where we recognise that we are all one, precious little God fragments dreaming a dream.

In that world of full awareness, consensual sexual relationships between partners of any age would be unremarked, as each person would be fully in control of the who and the what of themselves, and act accordingly.

We don’t live in that world.

While we live in this world, where the psyches of all of us are twisted and coloured by experience and repressed aspects, and by our communal abnegation of our inherent darkness (as opposed to acknowledging only the light), then it is important to have a sensible age of consent to prevent predatory abuse.

No amount of philosophising will make up for the inherently flawed nature of humanity as we currently stand, and the young must be protected at all costs. Otherwise, we are nothing.

[TargeT]

Posted by music (here)
the young must be protected at all costs. Otherwise, we are nothing.

As a father of 6....I completely disagree.

Protected from what? Lessons about life??

I take the opposite stance, the young MUST be educated and prepared for what may come, not put in bubble wrap and hidden from reality...

Seriously, if your not a parent; wtf are your (the general "you" no one specific)opinions based on?

Even if you aren't a parent... Just common sense should tell you this... I've had the experience of what you speak of with my older children (raised when I still had much to learn) and now my younger ones that I'm working with differently.... It's a dramatic difference.

[music]

Posted by TargeT (here)

Posted by music (here)
the young must be protected at all costs. Otherwise, we are nothing.

As a father of 6....I completely disagree.

Protected from what? Lessons about life??

I take the opposite stance, the young MUST be educated and prepared for what may come, not put in bubble wrap and hidden from reality...

Seriously, if your not a parent; wtf are your (the general "you" no one specific)options based on?

And what makes you assume I or anyone else involved in this thread is not a parent? In fact I am a parent, of a boy and a girl. I was also systematically abused as a five year old, a fact that was only discovered by my mother when my arse started bleeding in the bath. So, yes, you might say that I have a rough idea of what children need to be protected from.

So, my opinions are based on experience, and on the fact that children are not developmentally prepared to enter the sexual realm, and in fact introducing them too early even to certain concepts can be damaging to them. If I was seeking to groom my children for paedophilia (very important you don't think I am accusing you of that, because I am not), then by all means I might tell them everything, and burst that bubble of childhood innocence, but I am interested in the natural, not unnatural, development of my children. If they ask a question about sex, I will answer that question, but there are some areas of sex that are just beyond the understanding of younger children.

Yes, children are naturally sexual animals, and naturally curious, but that nature and that curiosity are often cited by paedophiles as justification for their crimes. "The child wanted it", "the child seduced me". This is the correct place for you to insert 'wtf'. This is not cool, and I would suggest that telling our children too much, too soon, is as damaging as telling them too little, too late.

[TargeT]

So, would you consider your experience to be the norm?

Cause I figured that's what we are talking about.

I highly doubt consent ever came up in your experience, and it's a terrible one for sure... But is that the current discussion?

[music]

Sexual abuse of children is far more the norm than most of us would care to admit. Discussions on the age of consent should always be conducted with the worst case scenario as a yardstick, as surely this is the best way to reduce abuse?

I have always seen the notions of lowering the age of consent, and the sexualisation of children as NWO agenda items by the way, one thrust (pardon the pun) in their multi-pronged attack upon the coherency of the stable family unit.

[Atlas]

Posted by boutreality (here)
I say raise Age of Consent from 18, (California is 18) to 19 nationwide, some "close in age" consideration is likely valid.

The brain begins the process of refining its own reasoning capacity at 21, and at 23 -neurologically- one is thought to be capable critical analysis.

If there must be an age for consent, I'd suggest +24 for the same reasons.

Posted by music (here)
No amount of philosophising will make up for the inherently flawed nature of humanity as we currently stand, and the young must be protected at all costs. Otherwise, we are nothing.

Well said.

Posted by TargeT (here)
The prefrontal cortex, which begins to develop around the onset of puberty, does not complete its development until age 25. This section of the brain controls impulse inhibition, goal planning and organization.

This is what I'm saying.

[boutreality]

TargeT-

I'm glad she waited, if the situation was reverse I'd be glad he waited.

[greybeard]

In UK there is a sex register, offenders are put on this--their name remains there for an allocated period of time, on going, after the crime is committed against an underage person and that includes where an underage but " mature teen" has given consent. Not getting into what is mature. So that remains after sentence is served.

Is this an additional deterrent? --who knows
Does setting an age limit prevent underage sex happening? I have my doubts--some will partake, some will not

Chris

[KiwiElf]

Time for some frank and honest chat:
The thread title is Age of Consent (as opposed to abuse or pedophiles), so that's where this chat is going from me )

Setting an age limit has never prevented kids from having sex. Most play "doctor" well before puberty. The youngest "couple" so far on record to have conceived a child were both aged 7. At the other extreme, some don't hit puberty until 18. I was a fairly early starter: I could, (in theory), father a child at the age of nine, most of my mates didn't hit that point until around 13, pretty much the "average". (One at 18 was still waiting for his voice to break!)

And yeah, I lost my virginity at the age of 13 by seducing my babysitter who was 18. (She and I weren't too worried about it at the time, altho that would technically make her a pedophile! I didn't know that then or care - I remember us both having a very enjoyable experience!. It was consenting.)

I'm assuming that the age of consent for most countries took the more conservative route and generally decided on an all encompassing "safe" age at the outer end of the spectrum of around 18. (In NZ it's 16 for either gender regardless of sexuality). Crazy rule... you can "do it" at 16, but you can't "look at it" until you're 18! (ie pornographic material). Go figure. That and there's plenty of evidence of teens and even younger "sexting" each other on their phones these days.

To my knowledge, most of my mates and friends (incl girls), had lost their virginity anywhere from between 12-14.

Making a law that you can't "do it", saying you can't "do it", or shouldn't "do it", or not "do it" hasn't and won't stop many young people "doing it".

[TargeT]

Posted by music (here)
Sexual abuse of children is far more the norm than most of us would care to admit.

I was talking purely of consent. All of my conversations have been about that.

Now you try to frame it in abuse, which was never discussed before.

well now that the waters are muddied, I don't think I have anything to add to what ever this conversation is.

But your tact, were I a more triggry type could be seen in a bad light from my perspective............. that's about all I'll say.

[boutreality]

A culture acknowledges its laws, whether at the state or federal level. In a state where the AoC is 18 any adult pursuing anyone under 18 knows he is intent on breaking the law.

Where the AoC is lower, that same bar is necessarily lower; the line to be crossed between what is considered "acceptable" and illegal. A 30 yr old with a 16 yr old -NV AoC: 16 is acceptable, the couple will not have the easiest social schedule. It is not, in any ethical determination, for any reason, justified.

That's what's at issue when determining the AoC; the cultural standard.

"It ain't so simple is it? -Handcuffed to my wrist again, you wanna keep your head above then swim, or sink." -"Kudzu" by Astronautalis

[Fanna]

Posted by boutreality (here)
A culture acknowledges its laws, whether at the state or federal level. In a state where the AoC is 18 any adult pursuing anyone under 18 knows is intent on breaking the law.

Oh god, I ACKNOWLEDGE a lot of laws are there, but I will knowingly break the ones that make no sense. I mean in one day I usually rack up a number of illegal activities from feeding the homeless to undermining our educational system to sharing classified documents to downright treason!

A number is arbitrary. Consent is not.

[boutreality]

Apparently the lowest Age of Consent by state is 16, which is honestly better than I thought.
I retract my comments alluding to lower AoCs in different States.

Fanna: We're not talking numbers, we're talking age.

I'm happy you do so much to help, even, apparently breaking the law to do so -it is BS that we can't feed the homeless and do other activities to offer aid in general to our fellow man. I applaud you for doing so.

Specifically (how I see it) we're talking at what age can we realistically determine that consent is in the hands, both mentally and emotionally, of the one expected to give consent.

Therefore I maintain that 18 should be the absolute minimum, and based upon current neurological understanding, that 19 is more appropriate, and let those close in age have their fun.

Children need to be allowed to grow -totally let them "do it" with each other if so inclined- keep grown ups out of the equation; it's only decent.

On PA the concept of Service to Self v Service to Others has been bandied about. It's a decent distinction.
How is a grown man with anyone under 18 Service to anyone but the Self of the grown-up?"

Nothing about the SoO v SoC says "discount knowledge and facts." -Really do the research on neurological development, reasoning and emotional security and take that into account.

I get that this world has fractured many; that maturity is a sliding scale proposal. Can't we at least agree to let kids be kids without undue (older) influence, even if that entails dedication and (perhaps difficult) growth for us as individuals?

"My time spent there grew tiresome and dimmed my eyes. What I thought I'd find turned out to be the shadows of what people like to pretend they will become." -Me

[Fanna]

I will always stand by that the answer is education, not retribution.

I am sorry if I sounded vindictive, I really do not belong in this thread at all. Too close to the issue.

Much love <3

[KiwiElf]

I'm not familiar with sex education practises in the US? Here, we are taught in school at a very young age ie 11-12 onward - this continues through into what we call high-school and the US calls College (from 13-18).

My parents, and most of my friend's parents, had the good common sense to teach their kids what they could starting at around age 10-11. In my case, a book on the "birds and the bees" specifically written for kids. (my very Catholic Aunt also did this with my cousins of similar age, but from a very negative point of view and a "book" written by the Catholic Church - everything in THAT Catholic book was just plain WRONG, full of "sin", fear & guilt and "you'll grow hairs on your palms, and go to Hell" rubbish. They ended up with some very screwed-up ideas about sex! (Yeah - we "compared notes" )

Good education at a young age has a lot to do with it.

[music]

This will be my last post on the matter, so as not to de-rail this thread intent of focussing ONLY on the age of consent. My input is that the age of consent CANNOT be considered in isolation from Monarch programming and the sexualisation of children through mass media. But of course, feel free to continue, in a discussion which appears to me to centred around guys saying how young they were when they first did it, or how they had a Mrs Robinson-type figure in their youth.

http://whale.to/b/sexualizing_children.html

[boutreality]

music- i cannot agree more. If I could list two thanks I would.

It's one of the reasons for my strong stance; I consider this an aspect of a large scale war against sentient consciousness, discouraging decent behavior, and not in a "you all should be religious" sense.

If interested check out my take on a mass, highly advanced system of control into which all "Monarch"/"Soft Kill"/"Mk-Ultra" type programs feed.
https://projectavalon.net/forum4/show...WO-the-NEW-AGE