Pedophilia does not vary by area. What you are thinking about is statutory rape.
Ye, you're right, I got a bit confused there.
You're injecting edge cases and what-ifs, in addition to arguing a strawman.
This.
You say "they're unable to provide consent", as if consent is a concrete thing. But in reality consent is a social construct, same with morality. And by consent, I mean informed consent, because anyone can say "yes", you will probably say "muh they didnt know what they are doing".
No, I said a preteen might not know what consent is i.e., they might not fully understand what it entails.
You understand that there are useful social constructs and useless ones, right? Languages, laws, and conventions, like the metric system, are all useful social constructs. Gender fluidity, safe spaces, and other cultural Marxist bullshit, for example, are all useless (and arguably harmful) social constructs.
I didn't say sex is bad, nigger. Don't throw words in my mouth.
For the same reason aforementioned in the previous post. The developmental gap creates a power dynamic and puts the moral onus of responsibility on the one with more power. The one giving oral isn't receiving pleasure in the same way (there are no sexual nerve endings in your mouth) or arguably at all, so the one receiving it has to convince the giver to agree to it. The moral wrongdoing comes in when the one with more power uses their power to gain an advantage at cost (or no benefit) to the one with less power. It's quite clear that when a 12 year old blows a 27 year old (exact ages aren't important here, I'm just using your numbers) it's the 27 year old who is getting the far better deal out of that agreement.
I understand that girls are learning about sex and becoming whores at a much earlier age due to the current culture, but it's those outliers are what helps guide the rules for the general case. Just think of the law against murder. It's not there for the vast majority of us. The legal decree against murder is there so that the 1% of psychopaths who give zero fucks and kill people for all kinds of reasons don't disrupt social order.
But I do kinda think so. If a 12 year old is angry at their parents, and the thought of killing them crosses thier minds, they would understand that its not a wise choice to do it, because they would lose a caretaker, and they may go to jail for a very long time.
I didn't say it was invalid, I was trying to say it's a circular argument in a way.
You cut my sentence off, I was clearly talking about sex in regards to risk of pregnancy. You cropped that part out, which is misleading.
Why does a developmental gap necessarily put the "moral onus", on the older person? Once again you are saying this as if it "just is".
I draw the line at anything under 13.
This is the problem with using arbitrary numbers. It's quite possible that this hypothetical 12 year old in question that you're using as an example has enough maturity to understand and process at least the surface level implications of their decisions, but for the most part it's not true that all 12 year olds are mature to this degree. Again, this is an instance of generalizing from an edge case. The exception does not disprove the rule, as the phrase goes.
It's not an assumption, it's a psychological and medical fact that their brains - specifically, the prefrontal cortex, which is responsible for long-term planning and impulse control - are not developed well enough for them to properly evaluate (or evaluate at all) the long-term consequences of their decisions. In fact it's fully developed by age 25, but full maturation of the development of the prefrontal cortex is not a reasonable threshold to determine fitness and soundness of mind when making sexual decisions, which is why things like AoC laws aren't set at 25 (that would be fucking ridiculous). Even most adults don't demonstrate the ability to properly evaluate the long-term effects of certain decisions when you talk to them. The ones who are more aware and have more intelligence, wisdom and life experience tend to be able to, though.
Saying that the argument is circular is saying that it is (in general) invalid. This is not circular, though. It's logically sound, valid, and true, and it's an empirically verifiable fact of reality that some concepts are more useful to societies and civilizations than others. Take the concept of the meter vs the concept of gender fluidity. In what possible way is saying that the "meter is a useful concept" is an appeal to the usefulness of gender fluidity, by virtue of the fact that both of them are social constructs, resulting in the claim of circularity?
I cut off your sentence and cropped out it because your assumed that I said something I didn't, and it was in fact not a relevant counterpoint. I wasn't talking about the risks of pregnancy making sex "bad." I said that pregnancy is one of the risks, and that the majority of freshly pubescent kids have very little to absolutely no idea what having a child entails in the long-term, let alone what it means for their own lives, their respective families, and society at large (e.g., single moms having kids in broken homes resulting in far higher probabilities of their child becoming criminals and a burden and the rest of us, etc. etc.; you get the picture - I hope).
Really, nigga? That's "water is wet" tier. This time, yes, it just is. Between two people in any kind of relationship (social, duty, romantic etc.), the one with higher power has a greater moral responsibility for making decisions that can affect both parties. This is just a moral axiom. As an exercise, try to construct any plausible, real-world scenario where this isn't the case. You can even use hypotheticals with extremely contrived conditions, if you wish.
Oral sex is a learned behavior. Female humans, upon reaching puberty, don't instinctually have a desire to put cocks in their mouths, but they do have the desire to put cocks in their pussies. Any enjoyment attained from giving oral sex is purely psychological, not physiological. It's likely something they learned early on from having positive experiences with the act, or from social influences from their peers, or from a desire to make the man happy, which in turn makes her happy when she feels the security and comfort from the man.
Completely a false equivalence. It would be accurate to ask if a 12 year old boy was asked by a 27 year old woman to lick her pussy. I don't know what you mean by "bad," because nobody said it was "bad" (however that's defined here), so why are you even mentioning that? To answer the question, it would be equally "good," "bad," or neutral (however we decide to evaluate it) if the sexes were reversed.But what would happen if a female 27 year old gave a 12 year old boy a blowjob, and he enjoyed it? Would that therefore not be bad? By that logic, it's okay for adult females to engage in sexual acts with 12 year old boys, and not for adult men to engage in sexual acts with 12 year old girls?
Why can't they process the risks of sex. They think to themselves "sex is risky, could potentially result in pregnancy or STD's. If vegainal sex doesn't occur, and only oral sex occurs, the risk of pregnancy is cut to zero. If prehnancy does occur, it creates a baby, which is a hassle.
Seems extremely arbitrary. You're saying it doesn't fully develop until age 25, but also saying it doesn't necessarily need to be 25, and that it can be younger. But where you are putting that number (which you're saying may even be 12, is arbitrary, as you said)
Them not realizing single moms are bad for homes, is society's fault for not teaching them. Even some adults think the same way because society likes to defend women when they make mistakes.
So if a 40 year old bangs an 18 year old, the older party still has the greater moral responsibility? At this point couldn't this just be saying all age gap relationships can be construed as potentially evil? And that only certain conditions are less evil than others.
That's what I was getting at, that the pleasure is psychological. Still pleasure though.
You seem to be saying that one party is getting more out of sex than the other party makes it immoral, so when it comes to oral sex, the receiving party is getting more. So would a 27 year old giving a 12 year old oral sex, be the same a 27 year old getting oral sex from a 12 year old, or would there be a difference from a moral standpoint?
How would some adults having consensual sex with some 12 year olds, be comparable to murder on a grand scale. Murder causes harm, consensual sex does not. And when I say consent, I mean agreed upon sex, since you will claim it's not consent, and also that the 12 year old had the oppurtunity to reject the adult
12 y.o. girls can be quite developed bodily.
They're basic to you, because you're seeing this through your own adult, fully developed lens. It's impossible for you to imagine the thought processes of a 12 year old, developing female. The best you can do is to infer, but it's still a biased view. This is why you have to prioritize the medical and psychological analysis of the brain's development over subjective interpretations and outliers and make reasonable estimates.
The AoC is arbitrary, yes.
Then you already understand that it's something that needs to be taught and is not a thing that a 12 year old can typically reason a priori. That is precisely my point.
To some degree, yes. The 40 year old knows better (should, anyway). As the younger party grows older and becomes more mature (cognition, life experience etc.), the gap of moral responsibility closes.
You're ignoring the point that it's learned behavior, not natural pleasure sensation. And that psychological pleasure is not in the act itself (unless she's some kind of degenerate who's probably been exposed to blowjobs and has sucked dick from a very young age), but in what it can provide (feelings of comfort aka being loved etc.), like I said.
Getting the better deal is not what it makes it morally negative (I prefer this term over "immoral"). That happens in business all of the time, where one side takes an immediate small loss for a payoff later on. It's the intentional manipulation that the one getting a bad deal is getting a good one. That, too, happens in business, like in sales and marketing, and yes, I'd argue that this is also morally negative.
I'm using the example of murder to explain why laws are created to curb the behavior of the few that could potentially harm the many and be a net negative for society. The crux of the argument is that failure to properly understand the implications of consenting to sex by one party very easily opens the door open for potential harm (the obvious, direct case) done by the other party, which can harm society as a whole (the less obvious, indirect case). This kind of harm can only take place because of the culture that fosters the need for these laws to prevent the kind of harm that the culture naturally would allow if those laws were not in place.
So has the medical analysis actually said that 12 year olds are unable to understand sex can lead to pregnancy, and that its oral sex that doesn't. Their brains can't understand that basic fact? How have they actually concluded that specifically, besides merely saying "it still has a long way to go to full development". When I was 12 everyone around my age understand that vaginal sex = potential pregnancy and oral sex = no potential pregnancy.
Well, when it came to "moral responsibility", I assumed morality had something to do with "good" and "evil"
How does one manipulate someone into sex, when that party knows what sex is and understands it? You can't just trick someone who knows what sex is into doing it. You can seduce them, but thats just normal interaction between two people. I could see the argument of "manipulation" for a 5 year old since they have no clue what sex is, but 12 year olds know about sex.
I find it hard to see the negative effects of a lower AoC, because if 12 year olds are having sex with each other, you could say neither party is responsible. But if an adult is there, the adult is more mature and more likely to have responsible sex, and thus less pregnancies. Meanwhile 13-15 year olds getting pregnant with their same aged high school boyfriends happens all the time (even a show made on it, "teen mom", or "16 and pregnant")
I think it works the other way around. The AoC was raised in the early femists movement, which lead to the gynocentric society we have today. Lower AoC would work against feminism, since men could exert power over women at younger ages, and also reduce the overall SMV of women in general, since there is more competition for women.
!You're sidelining (or not getting) the main point again. It's not that they don't understand that basic fact, it's that they can't fully comprehend what getting pregnant can entail for them in the long-run years down the road, because, again, they're still mentally developing.
Moral responsibility here means you're the one under greater obligation to make the morally good decisions. You jumped the gun and assumed right away that somebody getting into a relationship with a large age gap which puts themselves in a position of higher moral responsibility automatically means they're committing evil, which is not what I said.
Manipulation can still occur, though it's going to have to be more sophisticated, because they're smarter. This is not saying that eliciting the consent of a noticeably younger party is automatically a manipulation tactic. It's saying that manipulation can occur more easily.
You're really grasping here. As I said, the act of oral sex and its enjoyment is learned behavior. That means that the younger party (assuming they don't know what oral sex is) has to learn about it and be convinced to try it out. Remember that's it's not naturally a pleasurable act for the performer.
Then you probably need to widen your horizons and think about more variables and scenarios. I briefly touched upon it when I mentioned that this culture allows for greater sexual freedom. If you give a few minutes of concentrated though, you'll think of something, but it requires that you challenge your own preconceived notions.
I suppose. It's chicken or egg question at this point (AoC rising leading to gynocracy VS gynocracy resulting in higher AoC). Doesn't matter all that much, because the culture has vastly changed from the times when a man would wed his 10-14 year old daughter to a hard-working man who is established and can be trusted to take care of her and raise a family.
I don't believe this to be true, because just because their brain isn't 100% developed doesn't mean it can't comprehend such concepts. I need more than "their brain is still developing", or otherwise the same argument could be used for 18 year olds, and the only counter would be "thats more developed", without going into the exact intricacies of why they can "fully comprehend" it.
What is the difference between manipulation and seduction? This seems extremely vague. Because its arguable that all social interaction in general is a form of "manipulation".
So some adults will bang teenagers, so what? Teenagers already have sex anyway. Higher AoC just means less competition for adult women, which makes their SMV higher, causing them to postpone marriage. Lower AoC would probably cause men to feel less scarcity and be less likely to betabuxx roasties, which would cause these roasties to feel scarcity of betabuxxers, and settle down earlier.
@based_meme did you get a notification? I know there was a glitch last time.
You can believe what you like. Beliefs don't change facts. It's a fact that young brains develop until their mid 20s. It's a fact that the prefrontal cortex is fully developed by age 25. It's a fact that the prefrontal cortex is responsible for forethought and planning. Put these facts together and you get a no-brainer (pun possibly intended). Developmental progress and milestones are in ranges, they're not set in stone. The "exact intricacies" (I assume you mean exact ages) are unknown, which is why AoCs are not fixed worldwide, but converge on an average range of late preteens to mid teens.
Nigga your point of argument is a quote from a fucking fictional character?
Bruh, I don't care about the AoC. I'm only explaining to you why the AoC even exists, by necessity, in the first place in feminized, gynocentric societies that are individualistic and promote sexual freedoms as part of their cultural values. Modern AoC laws in the West are a byproduct of the changes in Western culture and the socio-political ideologies that helped influence the culture, which, in turn, influenced the changing laws. But AoC laws exist in all cultures in some form or another.
you never established anything.
You're coping. It doesn't matter if it's "muh fiction", his point still stands.
You didn't explain the negative effects of an AoC of 12. I guess you should just take the L
Weird cope, but OK.
You didn't read what I said, did you? You responded almost immediately within three minutes (were you F5ing the whole time?
).Yes. Laws have to be argued and justified, before they're legislated.
No, it does matter. The fact that you're using a fictional character to serve as moral guidance in your personal life is pure KEK fuel.
I left that as an exercise for yourself when I said that you should think about more variables and scenarios.
average AoC worldwide is 16, and its rare to go under 14 anywhere. so late preteens (12) is very uncommonYou didn't read what I said, did you? You responded almost immediately within three minutes (were you F5ing the whole time?
I'm talking about the average ranges of AoCs worldwide, not in the US.
when I said defenses, I meant the laws already existed, and they are only defended nowadays with the brain development argument. They were not originally changed for that reason.
You are evading the prompt. The prompt states that manipulation is at the core of social interaction, which is true. If you actually look at how people interact its clear people will act in certain ways to get what they want. Which is what manipulation is. Just because the prompt happens to connect to a fictional character, does not mean it's false. You are just saying it is in a desperate attempt to justify your stance on how an adult who bangs a 12 year old is manipulating.
You didn't explain the difference between manipulation and seduction, and you gave only a brief explanation about AoC by referencing brain development, and never explained how mutual oral sex (where both giving and receiving occurs) would be exploitation.
OK, well, whatever. We're splitting hairs over arbitrary numbers that change between borders. You're fixating on unimportant details here.
You can take a certain action or make a certain decision and then later learn the explanations and justifications for it which reinforce your action or decision. If it doesn't, then the rational thing to do is to change your actions or decisions in the future.
Except that that's in fact false. Three seconds of thinking will tell you that.
Read a dictionary, FFS.
Well according to you if early adolescents are so stupid then it should be easy to manipulate them into sex. You can't have it both ways. Either it's not easy to manipulate them into sex, or lowering the AoC would solve inceldom for some people.
Saying "excuse me", is a subtle form of manipulation. You're probably going up to a stranger on the street randomly, and trying not to seem threatening. This is manipulation. It's not deceptive manipulation, but it is still manipulation.
I didn't watch that show, I found that prompt online anyway. So its not necessarily about the fictional character, its about what the prompt says, and how it describes social interactions.
Fuck off with this pseudo intellectual "I can read you" bullshit. You still haven't given any examples of how an interaction would be seduction, while on the other hand it would be manipulation, you're all theory.
Nice strawman. I said - multiple - times - that they're not mentally developed enough to understand the implications of sex for them in the long run.
JFL @ YOU IF YOU BELIEVE THIS.
Some comnents are just so stupid that it's hard to find a reasonable way to continue.
Totally irrelevant that you don't watch the show. In fact it's arguably worse, since you distilled an entire viewpoint from just a fictional quote you read and incorporated that into your way if thinking for your own life.
PersonalityInkwell, is that you?
Everything is a circular argument with you. JFL
I thought you said because of power imbalance its easy to manipulate.
I don't really think that's the best analogy.JFL @ YOU IF YOU BELIEVE THIS.
This is like arguing that raising taxes on the rich means that you're going to be able to pay your rent on time at the end of the month.
Nigga it literally has zero effect on you.
not malevolent, but I suppose if you wanna say social influence, then whatever.
more like the prompt. I saw it as a writing prompt
Don't know who that is.PersonalityInkwell, is that you?
You want me to give you examples of two basic ideas that you can learn from a dictionary when you think that saying "excuse me" to someone is manipulating them?
Bruh, this is killing me.
whatever.
