I have noticed that when I looked at some discussions on age-of-consent that the arguments are often built on metaphysics. (For example, the idea that sexual development (or puberty) has definite, exact stages; and start or end dates.)
However, the dialectical materialist conception opposes metaphysics; so this would mean that if the age-of-consent is built on metaphysics; then it will not correspond to material reality.
This would include the start and end of sexual development in people; some people self-initate or end puberty much earlier (like at 8 or 9 years age) than what is traditionally expected (12 to 13 years age); and the rate of puberty onset has changed with the material conditions[1] (as dialectical materialism predicts).
So, if a person ends puberty (sexual development) much earlier than the age-of-consent and has gotten clear sex education; then should they still be not allowed to have sex until that age? What about adults having late puberty? What about people who never went through puberty, like some people with Kallmann Syndrome?
Since the conclusion of sexual development allows a person to have sex without sustaining damage, with good and proper sex education (as is education that doesn’t lead to rape), that would mean the person would be able to safely have sex, even if they have late puberty or end puberty earlier than expected. This is the opinion I’ve developed from my rethinking on this topic.
I’m sorry, but how is arguing for under age sex to be legalised a reasonable discussion?
It does absolutely nothing but legalise abuse of power that traps young girls in forced marriages and unwanted pregnancies.
What am I missing here that you’re leaving space for this discussion to happen?
How do you come to that conclusion? Age of consent is 14-16 in most European countries, and there are none of the problems you mention.
https://www.ageofconsent.net/continent/europe
This post was talking about people who end puberty at 8 or 9.
There was also zero discussion of age differences or the abuse this would enable.
It’s one thing to not criminalise a couple of horny 14 year olds, it’s another to create a system that sanctions adults sexually abusing 9 year olds.
This post is the latter, not the former
Yes and there is nothing wrong with talking about these people. Sure the post is not ideally formulated but thats hardly a reason to shut down an interesting discussion entirely.
Now you are completely moving the goalposts, your previous comment was specifically against legalising underage sex. And no one here suggested that adults should be allowed to sexually abuse children.
I dont think you are discussing in good faith here.