"Also, young teens are in general much less good at discerning intentions of their potential partners.


So are college freshmen and adults, particularly young adults. They make sexual mistakes and bad relationship decisions all the time precisely because of fear indoctrination and a lack of real education."

Teens also make mistakes with dangerous things other than sex. Cars, alcohol, money...

"We sweet, loving pedophiles in GirlChat think of wonderful relationships. The world is in fact full of men (pedophile or not) with much sleazier intentions leading to more sordid realities. The law can't tell them apart, so it has a strong motivation to prohibit all.


Do you not think many of those sordid outcomes could be prevented if children were allowed the freedom to learn and talk about sex as soon as possible? "

Many, but not all. Sordid outcomes happen to adults, too.

"Here's what I suggest...in an enlightened society that healthily accepts and fosters child sexuality, adult-child sexual contact would only be allowed under specific conditions. That's how it would have to be and that would be the safest and best way to go about it. The age of consent without parental/guardian supervision would be 13. Anyone under that age would need parental/guardian consent before engaging in any sexual activity with an adult. The reason for this is obvious, because kids are less able to take care of themselves and are generally more susceptible to abuse. It is thus very important that the child's parents/guardians are directly involved to ensure that the experience is a good one. The legal process for this would be similar to the guidelines for any other activity or pursuit that children legally partake in with adults, such as a sport or a research study. With sex, the adult friend would have to be known to the child for a reasonable amount of time (at least a year), would have to be tested for STD's and would have to pass a test proving they are knowledgeable of the risks. This would involve a legal waiver just like with anything else. In this society adult-child sex occurring outside of this context wouldn't be legal per se, but it also wouldn't carry the stigma it currently does and wouldn't result in such harsh criminal proceedings as to avoid traumatizing the child (except in cases of clear coercion and assault.)"

Very well. Suppose that a boy in your Age of Attraction, like 10...11, gets a crush on you, confides in his parents and gets cheers for it. So you have the parental consent to sleep with him. Like Preparez vos Mouchoirs, if you´ve heard of the film.
If he were 13, then he should have reached the age of consent. No one cares that the parents are unaware of the relationship, or if they positively object. STDs do matter, in that you could be punished if you give STD for an 13 year old - but you could likewise be punished if you give STD to a 33 year old. So for an adult, nobody can legally require a STD test - if you trust that, as a paedophile virgin, you could never have caught STD anywhere, and your partner trusts your word on it or simply does not think to ask, and does not get STD, then no one can complain about your not having made a test about STDs. Nor would a test on knowledge about risks be required. And the freedom of consent for the 13 year old includes freedom to have sex on first date.

So, say that you get the parental consent for a 12 year old, but don´t bother with STD tests (reasons stated above) or knowledge tests or waiting for a year, and the matter comes out. What should be the punishment for you? For the parent?

Also: it is the boy who´s minor. You cannot hurt him - he will hurt you (defloration hurts whether at 12 or 32, and his penis is smaller than an adult man´s, but probably does cause tearing). If a consenting adult is hurt, not as badly as she would have been in being deflowered by an adult, who cares?
What should be important is protect the minor fathers from responsibility. If a 12 year old boy can consent to have fun in you, this does not mean that he should be stuck paying for the child. So, you should take full responsibility - and the law should permit you to take, not criminal responsibility but the obligation to take care of your children and not demand obligations from an ex-minor that he was not at the time qualified to accept.