Age of consent needs to be increased

Ok you degenerate shit kickers. Think with your brain and not your dick.

>Sex with kids is illegal because they are mentally not ready
>Modern western women are so fucking retarded there is no mental difference between a 25 year old and a 13 year old
>Make it so age of consent is 30 years old, anyone male or female gets put on a sex offender register if they get caught
>Birth rates plummet (that's ok, this is temporary)
>Society freaks the fuck out because MUH DICK
>We shame them (feminists actually want this)
>Modern society realizes what fucking shit kickers they are and how they should act like adults and not children
>We can restore it back to 16/18 once people act like adults once more.

This would stop people acting like children and falling for leftie propaganda ACROSS THE BOARD.

We need to start shaming those evil pedos who want to have sex with a 20 year old RIGHT FUCKING NOW.
THEIR BRAINS ARE NOT DEVELOPED YET

Other urls found in this thread:

gatesofvienna.net/2013/02/homosexuality-in-iraq-and-saudi-arabia/
human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/teenage-sexuality/teenage-sexuality-pedophilia
who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs364/en/
youtube.com/watch?v=9jtybQS0eIA
youtube.com/watch?v=sDVbAD5QCrk&list=PL6ehXt-qkfJitYVKXpUpqmOIwf7-32Bxc
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of_consent_laws
uib.no/sites/w3.uib.no/files/attachments/foucaultdangerchildsexuality_0.pdf
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

>this guy want to give the arabs/blacks 15 years of being the only ones fucking the women

seeing how they're the only ones who do not care about age of consent

Honestly it amazes me how high it is in some places. 16 is the right legal age, even though most teens are probably active by then anyway

Not sure if i kek or if i agree
Things here are about the same

No, i want to at the same time go HAM on sex offenders. No matter what race.

Full scare campaign, parents will go along with it because of their parental instincts.

You fags are going about this the wrong way. You don't understand how people's psychology works.

>active at 16
Y-you too

this is so messed up that i actually would love to see it implemented for teh lulz.

>>Make it so age of consent is 30 years old,
SO sexually repress more kids. Fucking great idea OP, where can I sign up?

>16 is the right legal age

decreased*

>Modern society realizes what fucking shit kickers they are and how they should act like adults and not children

your entire plan is shit but this part is by far the least realistic.

>decreased
Guess I better get back to fucking that nonexistent baby

No, it makes perfect sense.

Modern adults are practically children. They don't listen to reason.

We take away their toys (sex) and threaten to put them in time out (sex register).

Watch how fast they comply with being good to get their privileges back.

Why the fuck would someone want to fuck those stick girls? I'd probably break them.

I need THICC goodness.

If it bleeds is old enough to breed.

better idea:

>sterilize all non-whites
>lower age of consent to 12 or 13 so teenage girls can marry mature men as nature intended instead of wasting their virginity screwing around with dumb teenage boys and getting unwanted pregnancies

Go back to watching your christian values burn, Aussy

Nah it should be lowered if anything.

People are having sex at a much much lower age and there is basically nothing negative with having sex as long as you use condoms.

So not being ready is bullshit, having a condom makes you ready.

>millions of years of evolution is wrong

Just raise it for women. Then point out they are too stupid to think and need laws that only protect them.

Friendly reminder that if you support child pornography laws then you are against freedom of speech.

t. feminist who doesn't want competition from young more desirable women.

Good luck keeping people motivated to do things if they can't have sex.

No age of consent laws minors are considered those who are pre-lingual. Teach kids what rape is and how it's bad. Sex education in all grade levels. If a nine year old kid wants to get naked with her twelve year old friend and suck his dick because she's curious she can.

Mods will likely delete and ban this just like the last one because any discussion on AoC the anti fags get blown out by pedos.

You can predict the future from that picture

>I think that´s not appropiate way to dress for children
>What, do you feel anxious abou it?
>No, I just think kids shouldn´t dress like whores
>They have the right to dress whatever way they like!
>But it´s like inviting pedos to approach them
>Are you a fucking pedophobe?!

And this is how pedos become accepted

>Ancient Greece/Rome
>Japan (before Meiji restoration)
>Bacha Bazi
>Muhammad and Aisha

I'm genuinely curious if kids living in those times were traumatized for life when they got boned by adults. It seems like every culture around the world eventually decided to stop doing it.

t. Pedo scum

If she is on four, she is already in position,.

This. I am so tired of all the conservacucks I know who claim to be small government Liberty lovers being the same statist fucks as all the leftists.

I thought argentina was white...

This just in: modern society is based on an arbitrary set of rules.

gatesofvienna.net/2013/02/homosexuality-in-iraq-and-saudi-arabia/

Leads directly to faggotry

>guys pls stop fucking women who aren't disgusting old hags
Shoo shoo vaginal Jew

>Ancient Greece/Rome
>implying you don't wish you were this baby

>arbitrary
Fuck off cuck

Shut the fuck up and post more lolis

Actually it is 16 in most states because doctors in the 19th century correctly determined through statistics that by that age they suffered no higher rate of deformity or miscarriage.

16 is fine, 14 is dumb because the children have higher rates of deformity and the girls suffer more lost children.

That said hookers, thieves, liberals, and non-whites should be hung en mass thus solving the root cause of the problem.

We wouldn't need laws if we had authoritarian social orders of a traditional sort.

GIRLS NEED TO STOP SPREADING THEIR LEGS AT FIRST SIGN OF PUBERTY

Laws on murder? Wtf? I was just expressing myself when I blew his brains out! Where is my freedom of speech?

Fun fact: Child pornography wasn't made illegal in America until 1982. Possession wasn't made illegal until 1990.

sex with children should be legal.

>atheist morals
What did you expect?

damn i love girls licking icecream

Oh look a shitskin who fundamentally misunderstands rights. Stupid fuck.

>People have kids at 30-40
>Mental illness and disability numbers start to grow

People are acting juvinial because they refuse to have kids to continue living like children. Leave it as it is, but encourage births at around 20-25. Ideal age plus gives time to finish uni if people really want to do that and use it as an excuse to not have kids.

this is true. this is is the direction that the world is going in. just end us.

Maybe we should ban all videos of murder, that way the market for murder will be gone and no one will ever kill anyone again!

Since I can't have a separate thread even stay up to criticize this (mods delete it too fast)

Take a look at what these fucking nigger SJWs on this very board do. Censor shit because it's not PC.

human-stupidity.com/stupid-dogma/teenage-sexuality/teenage-sexuality-pedophilia

There are cultures in the world that raise their children to be capable of starting their own family by 13. Western society supresses this unnaturally.

Raise more intelligent offspring.

Case in point, OP.

In nature, anything that has acheived the age of reporduction begins doing so.

Do as you wish, yet violate none.

Children are the most abused class for the amount of disinformation they are fed at the hand of well meaning adults.

Ignorance is the greatest evil.

>unironically beinga pedophile
Literally as worse as niggers,shitskins,spics and the rest of all the subhuman
Daily reminder that you will all hang when the day of the rope will come

>authoritarian

Fuck off. You're probably a Christfag too.

Of course!

CP is evidence of a crime.

It should be distributed to as many people as possible to increase the chances someone will piece together clues present in the image to recognize the child rapist.

The real reason it's illegal is because da jooz rape children 24/7 and take pics of it. They want it to be illegal for anyone to leak the evidence of their crimes if they do come across that evidence.

I bet you have sex in the missionary position, with eye contact, for procreation.

>traumatized for life

Life was tough as fuck back then. You could die from a scratch and nature would regularly fuck your shit up. People were too busy to survive to get traumatized.

>bootlicking fuck
Fucking neoliberal detected
This is Cred Forums, neither reddit nor tumblr
You will pay for your degeneracy, your so called 'freedom' is a pseudo-jewish dream

How come you have to be 21 to drink but you can vote and join the army at 18?

>Evidence of a crime
Masturbation isn't a crime, but a picture of a minor masturbating is illegal. Being naked isn't a crime, but a picture of a minor's genitals is illegal. 16-year-olds having sex is legal in most states, but it's still illegal to film.

The whole "child porn records a crime" thing is a total farce if you just look up the actual definition of child porn. Child porn laws have practically nothing to do with protecting children and everything to do with hurting pedophiles.

who are those semen demons?

>Sex with kids is illegal because they are mentally not ready

No they are not mentally ready BECAUSE it is illegal. In sweden they can have sex from the time they are 14 and nobody have been adversely affected by it. While 14 year old girls who have sex in Norway are adversely affected and mentally destroyed for the rest of their life because they believe they have been exploited and that they have done something wrong. While a 16 year old in norway is completely fine if she fucks because it is legal. While in other countries where the limit is 18 then all 16 year olds who have sex become mentally deranged and suffer for the rest of their lives with depression, but only because it is illegal.

The greatest enactors of child abuse are the ruling class and the fraternities they are a part of.

i agree, 18 should be the age of consent but it doesnt matter. i lost it when i was 14, early teens will fuck, thats unavoidable

I want all pedofags to leave

you've acknowleged your own moral hypocrisy and deviation from nature in thought, there.

I'm not a pedo.

This. How people act depends on the brainwashing.

Good instincts, but the truth is that the "consent" doctrine of sex is what right-wingers should want overturned.

Lowering the "age of consent" so 13 year olds can do what they think will be "fun" would be disastrous, but the basic redpill is that almost no adults can make good decisions with the "consent" mindset, particularly in an environment where everyone else is also acting under those mindsets.

TLDR: ~AOC should be lower than 18, but sex should only be within marriage and marriage should be a serious contract.

Little hope of that happening with modern leaders and modern democracy though.

>Stupid tucking wehraboo newcancer
>calling me a newfag
Yeah, tell me about the 'good old' Cred Forums days, user
You filthy subhuman, you chose the wrong board
Cred Forums is a community which condemns your nigger-tier degeneracy, fuck off with your >muh dick argumentation

Don't need to be a christfag to not want to fuck kids you fuckin degenerate what a great life you must have. Jerkin off to child porn then down to Wallmart for a shart sesh?

>Also"Amazing (fat degenerate) Atheist" confirmed here

You don't that's only for Amerifags. It's as young as 12 in some places in glorious Europa shart ass.

Nigger your teeth as yellow as your ID tag

>by that age they suffered no higher rate of deformity or miscarriage.
Source?

The literature I read says that girls under the age of 19 have a high chance of complications.

>Complications during pregnancy and childbirth are the second cause of death for 15-19 year-old girls globally.
>Babies born to adolescent mothers face a substantially higher risk of dying than those born to women aged 20 to 24.
>Early childbearing increases the risks for both mothers and their newborns. In low- and middle-income countries, babies born to mothers under 20 years of age face a 50% higher risk of being still born or dying in the first few weeks versus those born to mothers aged 20-29. The younger the mother, the greater the risk to the baby. Newborns born to adolescent mothers are also more likely to have low birth weight, with the risk of long-term effects.
who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs364/en/

No Cred Forums used to be filled with purples and you dumb gullible niggers were a minority.

Holy guacamole this is actually brilliant. Where do I sign up?

What do you think about sex acts which don't result in pregnancy? Vaginal sex isn't the only thing illegal right now.

>No Cred Forums used to be filled with purples
What did he mean by this?

While being 20

>Legally buy a gun
>Legally drive a car
>Legally get married
>Legally smoke
>Legally get high (depending on State)
>Legally vote
>Legally buy a house, move out and start a family
>Legally die for Israel
>Can't drink
>Can't gamble
>Land of the free

This website "Human Stupidity" sure does focus on child sexuality and pornography.

Am I in the bad part of the Internet?

*tip*

Purples as in purple on the political compass that's posted here all the time.

Too bad we have better dental health than you. You can look at the statistics, but I don't think you'd understand them. You see because we also have higher IQ's than Americans. But then again that could be because you're being dragged down by 44 million niggers and 56.6 million beaners. Check fuckin mate Amerifag.

>Inb4 "mad?" "Britfag" "1776"

The anti-drinking shit was designed by feminists who wanted the state to be their new husbands because they weren't responsible enough to marry non-alcoholics who didn't beat them. That and gullible Christian moralists who refuse to use basic reason. Feminists also raised the age of consent in western society. Feminism has been a huge loss of freedom.

The wrongthink part, you mean? Even the mods here think its wrongthink.

look into the darkness within yourself
allow light to be shown upon it

>Think with your brain and not your dick.
Think with the logical part of your brain and not the indoctrinated part.

>There is no such thing biologically as not ready for sex. Sex is not harmful or in any way damaging in and of itself. It's like a handshake, except you may get STDs instead of the flu. The "people must be protected from vile sex" meme started in victorian times, and the prudish USA adopted it and spread it across the world.
>Yes people are retarded, and i guess then you should just make having sex with anyone illegal, because you will ALWAYS AT ANY AGE find dumb people.
>30 years old AoC first reveals that this is shit bait and i really don't want to continue now, and second would be detrimental health wise because women are most fertile and have the highest chance of conceiving kids without genetic damage while they're unde 30.
>society freaks the fuck out because prudish cunts like yourself and the US and the censor boards in australia think that sexuality is inherently bad which comes from a misinterpreted bible verse. you are ignorant pieces of shit. i appreciate that you want to help, but this is like when someone with hooks instead of hands wants to help with brainsurgery.
>shaming is done by people. people need to stop being cunts and not shame people for things that aren't bad
>society will never act like adults, because they don't exist. it's an arbitrary definition and even the adultiest adults act like children quite fucking often.
>instead of all this bullshit and subsequent restoration of the main reason for teen pregnancy, just get rid of it and replace it with a test.

Its not dental healthy that does it, its inbred genetics and tea sipping. You have a higher average IQ, but White Americans have the highest IQ of any group besides East Asians.

1776

>an intelligent non prudish american.
truly this is a great day for me to have met such a rare specimen as you.

One of you pedos redpill me on William Thomas Stead?

>day of the rope
go back to sucking ahmed's cock.
when the rational people finally take over you will not hang, because killing people is irrational in almost all the possible circumstances.

The majority of the students at CIT are Asian you fuckin moron.....

Probably not even American Asian too.....

I said highest IQ behind Easy Asians. Read better pal.

Don't know much about him, specifically, but he was highly susceptible to bullshit. Believed in spiritualism, so its not hard to see why he would fall for the 19th century version of SJWs (Butler and co) who sensationalized and conflated everything.

it's not how i was raised.
btw, i am not a pedophile.
i am not a sex offender.

if any of that matters, to anyone. :p

like i posted before, the greatest enactors of sexual child abuse are the ruling class and the fraternities they support.

>the greatest enactors of sexual child abuse are the ruling class and the fraternities they support.
what do you mean?

>>Make it so age of consent is 30 years old

Oh boy the autism

...

youtube.com/watch?v=9jtybQS0eIA

while this may be fine if both are consenting, it does open your eyes to the flagrance that exists.

youtube.com/watch?v=sDVbAD5QCrk&list=PL6ehXt-qkfJitYVKXpUpqmOIwf7-32Bxc

this is only the tip of the iceburg

OP is confusing cause and effect.

Let's answer this relevant question:
>Why was Foucault against the idea of age of consent?

Why? Because he was just a degenerate faggot? Maybe... but his argument is somewhat appealing:
SAUCE: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_petition_against_age_of_consent_laws

>They believed that the penal system was replacing the punishment of criminal acts by the creation of the figure of the individual dangerous to society (regardless of any actual crime), and predicted that a "society of dangers" would come. They also have defined the idea of legal consent as a contractual notion and a ‘trap’, since "no one makes a contract before making love".

By raising or instituting age of consent, you are creating a crime where there is none.
Also, you are creating a bubble of "immunity" within which people are not pressured to develop awareness and ability to consent.

OP complains:
>Modern western women are so fucking retarded there is no mental difference between a 25 y.o. and a 13 y.o.
But that's exactly *because* we have so many theoretical safety nets that make them think they are in a safe bubble all the time.

If there wasn't "age of consent", they would be 13 y.o. with a 30 y.o. mindset; not vice versa.

>OP wants to raise age of consent.
My prediction:
>This will also raise the age of idiocy.

P.S.: This has nothing to do with rape. Let's say age of consent is sufficiently low (e.g. 14 y.o. like in Italy). Does this prevent 14 y.o. people who have been wronged from coming out and prosecuting their rapists? Not at all. Rapists are still being prosectued and jailed. Only difference is that consensual sex with a 14 y.o. person does not automatically qualify you as a rapist. Why? Because it shouldn't.

>Besides
>Behind

Pick one faggot. And let me get this right, you're letting 5.6 of your population take up 45% of your best university's places.

Wew lad
E
W

Meh
After reading scientific evidence that being molested doesn't actually damage your psyche if you weren't damaged physically, i can't really get mad about this.

I wouldn't exactly recommend just legalizing everything, but the fuss that's being created about this every time is worse than for people getting murdered and actually raped.

And an educated italian.

And you post stuff confirming that other very intelligent people think of even MORE extreme solutions to this discrepancy than i do.

This is a nice day.

Also, since you two are capable of thinking:
I suppose you agree with the Testing>AoC idea?

>Age of consent is thirty
> I'm underage again
>can fuck other underage peeps, even if they're in highschool
8D great plan

Foucault was a pretty smart guy, but people here assume he's just a leftist propagandist for some reason.

Raising the age of consent also allows governments to keep expanding the years the state has to brainwash people. Its a form of population control, sexuality is a major part of being human and independent, if you suppress it in children you can control them for life.

>I suppose you agree with the Testing>AoC idea?

wat?

>HAM

spotted the nigger

Get fucked pedo.

Not an argument anti American statist nigger.

OOOOOOHHHH :D
I can tell you about it! Great!

So basically the idea is that AoC will always be both discriminatory against younger people who could very well decide for themselves who they want to fuck, and at the same time insufficient to protect older young people who still would need protection from doing dumb shit.

The AoC is supposedly there because you're not "ready" under a certain age. The fact that this age ranges from 12 to 18 or 21 i don't remember, means that it actually has no real correlation to the mental readiness it is supposed to signify.

So why not instead test for the things you want people to have before they engage in sex?
There are standartized unbiased knowledge tests. There are tests that can determine how easy you are to influence.
You'd have to pass an exam and talk to a psychologist for half an hour.
This would be exactly like driving tests.
This would leave no one unprotected who doesn't know what STDs are or that you can get pregnant even if you pull out.
And at the same time would allow those who actually have all the characteristics you want from people to decide about their own bodies.

The same pattern could also be used for voting, drugs, driving, etc.

You would pass a general "maturity, decisionmaking and influenceability" test.
And a test to determine your physical ability t steer a car.
And knowledge tests about how to drive.
Knowledge tests that you know at least that the candidates actually most recently said on the issues.
Knowledge of the risks of drug abuse and the signs of problems and so on.

>getting a license to use your body

Jesus Christ fuck off

>Foucault was a pretty smart guy, but people here assume he's just a leftist propagandist for some reason.
See pic related as a reaction meme.
The guy fucking cancelled the subscription to the French Communist Party as soon as he realized they were authoritarian douchebags.

The reason everyone thinks he is a leftist is that, at the time he was writing
>it was only leftists who populated the universities
>such leftists were fascinated by his way of thinking
>yet they couldn't admit to themselves that he was hinting at something that was bigger and more compelling than their limited leftist views
>so they appropriated his ideas
For example:
>50-60% of French publications on Foucault are about how good he was as a person, how redpilled he was, etc... but the interpretive keys of such publications kept hijacking him as a leftist merely because he was a faggot. So they couldn't believe a fag like him could not only be anti-communist, but also -- so to speak -- beyond good and evil.
[End of the historical-philosophical lecture]

>Raising the age of consent also allows governments to keep expanding the years the state has to brainwash people.
I wish I had said that in my former post. That was exactly my point. Brevity fails me.

>Its a form of population control, sexuality is a major part of being human and independent, if you suppress it in children you can control them for life.
Same goes with weapons, doesn't it?

>getting a license to use your body

>versus NOT being allowed to use your body AT ALL depending on something you have no influence over, because the state wants to "protect you from yourself"
>and at the same time leaving others who REALLY don't know what the fuck they're doing unprotected and if they consented to getting railed by 20 black guys and didn't even know where the penis was supposed to go.... then tough shit.

this is what i call hypocrisy

That seems even more opressive than artificial AoC laws, why would anyone want to go through bizarre tests in order to have sex? Foucault was right, lovemaking has nothing to do with contracts. Just let people have sex if they want, since studies show kids who consent are often not harmed.

You're presenting a false choice, pick neither.

Don't you dare call me a hypocrite. I'm not. I don't want a bunch of fucking authoritarian non sense like sex licensing OR arbitrary ages.

seeing as many desire to set themselves as my master, i would not consent to such a test.

perhaps the test itself would ultimately only serve to indicate how subserviant you are by your choosing to take it.

governments aren't about to create more anarchists.

>I suppose you agree with the Testing>AoC idea?
No. Actually, I disagree.
Though the problem here is pragmatic and practical, not normative or moral (in the highest sense).
Let me explain:
>when was last time government tests turned out to really measure the thing they were supposed to measure?
I can quote countless examples from Italy:
>driving licences given to people who shouldn't have one
>national competitions meant to identify the best candidates for Medicine degrees who basically select people at random
>etc.

So no. I'm sorry, but my opinion is the same as per citizenship tests. They don't measure jack shit. They only measure compliance with government prescriptions... which is exactly what we want to avoid.

A solution to our problem, of course, would be respecting the tripartite alignment of learning efficacy.
Basically, this educational framework prescribes that the three element of learning processes should be in line with each other.

The three elements are:
>intervention (e.g. teaching how to drive by means of practical experience)
>goals (e.g. be a proficient driver who also cares for the safety of others)
>assessment (e.g. the final exam)

Now, assume that one of such three elements is off balance (off axis). For example, the final exam is just about ticking boxes.
It follows that even if the course achieves its goals, we will be unable to assess its success.

But it's even worse if the teaching activity doesn't attain goals and yet assessments register a huge amount of false positives... which is exactly the case in our society.

That's true, it makes far more sense to call him and some of the other post-moderns Nietzscheans instead of leftists. Its interesting tracing Nietszche through Foucault and Deleuze and Guattari (Cred Forums is like a schizoanalysis).

>Same goes with weapons, doesn't it?
Yes, definitely. I don't think people realize they're being brainwashed into the pedo hysteria for the same reasons and end results as the anti-gun hysteria. Its averse to Human agency.

This is from a radio discussion between Foucault and some colleagues:

>But what is emerging - and indeed why I believe
it was important to speak about the problem of
children - what is emerging is a new penal
system, a new legislative system, whose function
is not so much to punish offenses against these
general laws concerning decency, as to protect
populations and parts of populations regarded as
particularly vulnerable
. In other words, the
legislator will not justify the measures that he is
proposing by saying: the universal decency of
mankind must be defended. What he will say is:
there are people for whom others' sexuality may
become a permanent danger. In this catagory, of
course, are children, who may find themselves at
the mercy of an adult sexuality that is alien to
them and may well be harmful to them. Hence
there is a legislation that appeals to this notion of
a vulnerable population, a "high-risk
population,"as they say, and to a whole body of
psychiatric and psychological knowledge
imbibed from psychoanalysis - it doesn't really
matter whether the psychoanalysis is good or bad
- and this will give the psychiatrists the right to
intervene twice. Firstly, in general terms, to say:
yes, of course, children do have a sexuality, we
can't go back to those old notions about children
being pure and not knowing what sexuality is.
But we psychologists or psychoanalysts or
psychiatrists, or teachers, we know perfectly well
that children's se
xuality is a specific sexuality,
with its own forms, its own periods of
maturation, its own highpoints, its specific drives,
and its own latency periods, too. This sexuality of
the child is a territory with its own geography
that the adult must not enter. It is virgin territory,
sexual territory, of course, but territory that must
preserve its virginity.

Ooops, fuck greentext.

The adult will therefore
intervene as guarantor of that specificity of child
sexuality in order to protect it. And, on the other
hand, in each particular case, he will say: this is
an instance of an adult bringing his own sexuality
into the child's sexuality. It could be that the
child, with his own sexuality, may have desired
that adult, he may even have consented, he may
even have made the first moves. We may even
agree that it was he who seduced the adult; but
we specialists with our psychological knowledge
know perfectly well that even the seducing child
runs a risk, in every case, of being damaged and
traumatized by the fact that he or she has had
sexual dealings with an adult. Consequently, the
child must be 'protected from his own desires',
even when his desires turn him towards an adult.
The psychiatrist is the one who will be able to
say: I can predict that a trauma of this importance
will occured as a result of
this or that type of
sexual relation. It is therefore within the new
legislative framework - basically intended to
protect certain vulnerable sections of the
population with the establishment of a new
medical power - that a conception of sexuality
and above all of the relations between child and
adult sexuality will be based; and it is one that is
extremely questionable.

>radio will never be this thought-provoking again

why

Sauce:

uib.no/sites/w3.uib.no/files/attachments/foucaultdangerchildsexuality_0.pdf

>Same goes with weapons, doesn't it?
I disagree.
Weapons are not a part of being human.
Statistically every human represented genetically in mankind today had sex.
Meanwhile not every human whose genes were passed on had weapons. Much less weapons capable of killing someone easily from a distance.

Yes but a few studies alone are not enough to just take a huge fucking risk like that.
Also you run into epistemological problems because what constitutes consent.
There could be ways to make this work, like if you later regret the earlier thing and you actually didn't know what you were consenting to, you can sue the person who made you consent to it.

But this is not as stable a system and in any case would require further research on the topic before any such legislation would be actually based on sound rational deliberations.

But then you give up all protection.
It is a fact that adolescents are easier coerced into doing things purely by social pressure or just the authority of an older person.
So you would leave everyone unprotected.
You shouldn't sacrifice all freedom from some amount of security, but you also shouldn't sacrifice all security for some amount of freedom.

>a wild baby dick has been spotted

do you stay on all day just for these threads pee wee

Again, all three of you.
You are already living under a system where you are refused rights to your own body at the governments discretion full stop.
This would offer a way out without sacrificing the security of a particularly vulnerable group of people.

Also, do you also drive without a license because it's oppressing you?

If you want to use the roads provided by the government you better adhere to the rules they made for your safety.
Same goes for using their legal system.

And yes, there has to be some sort of legal system because most people who don't want to live in an ancap/ancomm meme colony want security.

In short
>current system
little liberty (none to < AoC)
little security (little to >AoC)
>my proposal
lots of liberty (anyone who can responsibly may)
lots of security (anyone who can't responsibly is protected)
>your proposal
maximum liberty (anyone may)
no safety (no protection even to vulnerable people)
>OP proposal
nigh zero liberty (no one who so much as seems immature may)
superhigh safety (almost everyone is protected)
>SJWs in general
nigh zero liberty (anyone can call you a rapist)
superhigh safety (no one will rape you because no one will even have sex with you since you can claim rape)

Furthermore, the test is not something government controlled. Much like visits to the physician before you get your drivers license are not government controlled. You're either scientifically speaking fit for it. Or you're not.

Unlike you I don't believe the state needs to protect us from ourselves in regards to a basic biological function to the degree where I would allow fucking sex licensing.

You're sacrificing loads of freedom for your security and muh chillens with that sex licensing non sense.

I dont give a shit. I havent had sex in years and I never had sex with an underage girl (first time me 22, her 19)
So yeah age of consent laws (or lackof it) deasnt really bother me at all.

>talk with a chick I'm thinking about asking out in my polisci class
>pretty sure she's younger than me so like 18 or 19
>notice ring on her left ring finger
>just think its jewelry
>she mentions she has a 3 month old baby

fucking dropped

You make AOC 30 you hand more power to women by pushing the wall back from 30 to 40.

Stupid idea. Millennials are already get the shit end deal of hook up culture. Leave them be.

A license for driving on public roads isn't directly comparable to a license that would or would not allow me to use a basic function of my body.

>Yes but a few studies alone are not enough to just take a huge fucking risk like that.
Well, its very unique as Rind et al. was the only study to even quantify and accept consent as a component, blowing all other studies out of the water. Most studies make way too many prior assumptions to be useful. The Trauma Myth was also done by a psychologist, showing that is isn't necessarily a component. It isn't too big of a risk if it becomes more acceptable, and people teach each other ways to make sure the child enjoys it and won't be harmed, if they consent. Pedos already do this.

>Also you run into epistemological problems because what constitutes consent.
This isn't complicated for me. Take tickling, for example. Its a form of pleasure and interaction which isn't coercive, but that both parties enjoyed. It isn't required, such as chores, it's a fun, loving activity. Why is sex different from this? They can say when to stop being tickled, or hugged, cuddled, etc, or if they don't want to be, same with sex. If their partners didn't stop or if the child doesn't like it, that's rape, which I'd never argue for. Psychological trauma comes from rape, not sex (but it can be manufactured).

>There could be ways to make this work, like if you later regret the earlier thing and you actually didn't know what you were consenting to, you can sue the person who made you consent to it.
This is weird, though. Even women can be brainwashed by other women they were raped if they later think the man was unattractive, and children are even more susceptible. Police and social workers often do more damage to kids than pedos.

>But this is not as stable a system and in any case would require further research on the topic before any such legislation would be actually based on sound rational deliberations.
Yes, we need to make it more open to study. Unfortunately most governments suppress studies which might have positive results.