Re: What age do you think children can consent?

No, that's not a problem. The problem is that we view consensual sex play as a threat, a reaction that should be reserved for abusive sexual contact. The problem is, we can't tell the difference, because we've convinced ourselves there is none. The problem is that if a kid has sex and enjoys it, then the kid must be traumatized for life. We prop this ideology of shattered innocence above the actual well-being of kids. That's the problem. Anybody who cares about a kid will be happy to hear that they've had a positive sexual experience, and will be very grateful to get this news instead of learning that the kid got run over, for example.

But that's the point I was making: it's all too easy to twist what is a natural instinct in humans towards whatever goals you want to accomplish: in this case it is for certain factions--namely conservative religious types and the anti-sex stripe of feminists--to turn back the tide of the Sexual Revolution. "Think of the children!" has become a cliche for a reason.

This is not a parental issue. If a parent chooses to engage or enable their child to have sex, they will not go unpunished. It is not the parent's responsibility to determine whether a child is able to have sex. Society has dictated that children under a certain age simply cannot have sex, and it doesn't give a damn what any parent thinks is right for their child. Abolishing age of consent, for example, while still propping up guardian rights, will give parents more control over raising their children than they currently have.

I'm sorry, but it IS a parental issue. I have a close friend over at DU who understands my position. When I first met him he was a bit on an anti. He has almost entirely changed his views because he did the necessary research and actually read the materials I suggested for him to read. But he stops short at doing away with AoC laws (though I think he may be in favor of lowering them a bit.) He is a parent. Another woman over there is a friend of mine as well. She is a feminist and parent and hated me originally. She was quite vicious towards me in the beginning. Now she is in favor of doing away with schooling and believes the AoC should be lowered to 13! She's even in my Facebook--both of them are actually. Bear in mind not everyone in my FB knows my orientation, though most of them do. I trust these two that much, even though we still occasionally argue over stuff, and so far they have not let me down.

I mention these two to show that by and large most people, I think, even those who seem to be the most anti, are often simply misinformed about us. But these two are incredibly bright people as well; I'd put them up against anyone here in the intelligence department. They are also quite reasonable people, clearly, or they would not now be my friends. But both are adamantly opposed to sex with prepubescent children. Why do you think that is? Clearly these aren't people who just go with the most popular opinions, but they stop short at sex with kids below pubescence. It's because there is just something in that idea that triggers a defensive reaction from most parents, regardless of how safely it can be done. The first friend I mentioned here believes it might be that people are repulsed by pedophilia--at least in part--because of it's resemblance to incest (consider the Westermarck Effect, which is inbuilt.)

Whatever the case, there is a strong emotional revulsion in most people towards the idea of sex with young children. I think the repulsion to sex with teens is almost entirely socially conditioned, but I do not believe the same thing is true of the repulsion to sex with kids younger than that. Indeed, I suspect the repulsion to teen sex is merely a socially conditioned extension of that repulsion to adults having sex with small children.

Anyway, this idea that this is not a parental issue is exactly the attitude that turns parents against us. If you really think you're gonna convince enough people outside this board to count, well, all I can say is, good luck with that. In my estimation it is exactly those kinds of opinions that turn potential allies off. As I said, if I wasn't an MAP and came here and read someone say that, I would most certainly dig my heels in. Sorry, but the great majority of people on this planet either are parents or will be, and they generally rank that pretty high on their list of important things in their lives. You are never going to make an argument like that stick. And frankly, I rather agree with the parents' position to a point (probably more so now than I did two days ago after Dissident's bullshit--he's a manipulative ass who tried to turn this community against me by calling them stupid if they agreed with me. At the very least he just reinforced the view that most people have of MAPs being manipulative.)

Society has dictated that children under a certain age simply cannot have sex, and it doesn't give a damn what any parent thinks is right for their child.

Dude, in case you haven't noticed, parents ARE society. You cannot the two concepts that easily.

Personally, my approach towards youth lib is to give them the right to take what they want. If kids were allowed to have what they want already - including consensual sexual relationships - I'd be much less motivated to fight for youth lib. Then again, in that case, youths would already be more liberated than they are right now. Frankly, I think it's offensive of you to suggest that youth libbers are only interested in giving kids sexual freedoms so they can then have sex with them. It undermines our care and concern for children. You think I support youth lib because I'm pissed that I'll go to jail if I rape that hot little schoolgirl? Has it ever crossed your mind that I might be pissed off at the way I see young people's voices silenced on a regular basis? That I want to support them because I care about them and because it's the right thing to do? More rights means more power which means kids getting what they want, not what I want. If what I want coincides with what they want, it's only because I'm happy when they're happy. You think kids would be easier to rape if they had more power in society? What planet are you living on?

Okay, back up. First off, simply giving kids more power does not assure that they will know how to use it. Educating them will help, but it won't fix the problem entirely. Kids need good peer role models, but it'll take awhile to get the kinks out of the system we set up for assorted reasons. Secondly, deep down, you and I both know that the reason people here get so irritated at the very suggestion that MAPs do not always have pure motives is because there is some truth in it. Don't get me wrong: I'm not saying that describes you or anyone specifically, but yes, I do think there are some liars on this board who only say they support youth lib because they want to have sex with young girls. Their entire worldview is wrapped around this desire.

Do you think there are so many minarchists and anarchists here out of coincidence? The truth is, some of these guys--probably not most of them, but certainly a few of them--came to their philosophy because it best served their sexual desires. Sex is one of the most powerful drives we have, and the feelings associated with it (including romantic love) can be intoxicating. Anyway, even those of us at GC who do not just want to sex up the littluns know deep down that there's bound to be deceivers in our midst with regard to that. And that's why some people here are so insecure about that. They want to reject the very idea that there could be anyone here with less than noble intentions saying the same things they're saying. Think about it.