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 (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.
A loosely moderated place to ask open ended questions
If your post is
it’s welcome here!
You’re assuming age of consent is about puberty, reproduction, but age of consent is about being intellectually capable of understanding and having responsibility for actions, which isn’t something you can measure in a physical sense.
“the conclusion of sexual development allows a person to have sex without sustaining damage” this is baseless and incorrect and fucking creepy as shit, tbh.
How is it baseless and incorrect? Without puberty, humans would never become able to sexually reproduce safely and also develop into adults.
What’s creepy about saying that ending puberty allows a person (or adult in that case) to perform sex safely (without sustaining damage)?
Being able to reproduce is completely irrelevant to whether a person is ready and able to enter into a sexual relationship. You’re making shit up to skirt around that. That’s creepy as fuck, you sound like you’re trying to excuse child abuse.
Ohh. I should have just meant and said perform sex. I treated the two like they’re the same. Sorry.
There’s more kinds of damage than physical damage. Your wording is awful.
I thought that was implied through the general term damage, that’s why I used the general term damage and not just physical. Sorry if it came off that way.
(Technically, all damage (physical, emotion, neurological, etc.) is physical as it affects the human body, but that shouldn’t and hopefully doesn’t downplay their effects and importance of recognition.)
I’d rather use the word “harm” than “damage”, since “damage” removes the perpetrator from the equation. However, fewer words are not optimal in that case. I’m glad you clarified all that :)
I got curious about what the Bolsheviks would have done so I searched.
Interestingly enough, the Bolsheviks seemed to have went for no fixed or constant age of consent; instead, they used the presence of puberty as a primary factor for the age of consent. Courts would use medical testing to determine if a person was going through puberty.
In the 1922 RSFSR Criminal code of article 166 and 167:
Same for the 1926 RSFSR Criminal code:
So, for example,
What I wonder is what would happen to people older than 18 who never got puberty, like some people with Kallmann Syndrome. Would they still be considered minors then?
Of course this is for the RSFSR; I don’t know what the other soviet republics did.
Surviving socialist states
The current surviving socialist states seem to have stuck to the more common fixed age of consent concept:
Age in years:
https://docs.cntd.ru/document/901757375 (russian, use translator) ↩︎
https://docs.cntd.ru/document/901757374 (russian, use translator) ↩︎
Interesting. Clear attempt to use dialectical materialism in lawmaking.
About the Kallman syndrome, such person wouldn’t be considered minor since that was separate cathegory, but the law does not specify age in numbers, but clearly mention puberty so it would depend on medical opinion most likely.
To attempt answering your question, I dont think its solely a matter of sexual development of the body. Mental development is much more important, especially the ability to manage human relationships and set boundaries.
Age of consent is also not simply a binary question of yes or no. One approach I know about is that relationships between young teenagers are only legal up to an age difference of 2 years or so, not with adults. And the older relationship partner holds much higher legal responsibility if any abuse happens. I think that makes a lot of sense. It also makes sense that parents should be able to decide if their child can enter in a relationship with a specific person, after all they know their child best.
Parents sell their underage children in to arranged marriages all the time.
Parents discretion isn’t sufficient
I never suggested that it would be sufficient. Did you also read the rest of my comment?
I didnt think about brain development until now. Yes, that is important.
Yes. through dialectical materialism, sexual coercion can’t be simplified into merely use of physical force; there is also economic coercion (through capital), and they all influence consent.
It’s also said that the child knows best; and I think that children should learn what makes for a good relationship (no damage of all types).
Having sex without physical damage doesn’t mean it’s a good idea to have sex. How would you measure the end of puberty and would you say there’s an age limit where you’d consider someone not being able to give consent? What about a 13yo boy who went through puberty early being seduced and coerced by a 30yo teacher? Would that be okay in your opinion? Why or why not?
First, based on your post history i assume you’re discussing in a good faith.
But you’re probably gonna get banhammered anyway. Thanks to horde of libertarians in the internet every discussion about those things is automatically considered bad faith pedo bait everywhere except liberast pits.
That’s why internet marxist stance is “do not talk about it”. From what i see in the real life marxist theoreticians also basically just accepted current societal norm without any comments.
Edit: i seen Nutomic posts so i guess no ban.
Yep. They suck. 😒
Please keep it civil. @Amicchan@lemmy.ml has been here for a long time, you shouldnt assume bad intentions based on a single post which might be badly formulated. If there is something you disagree with you can express that, thats what a discussion forum is for. But dont attack a community member because of your own bias. If you dont like to discuss the topic then simply ignore this post.
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.
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.
I’d rather you just keep this on 4chan or whatever pedo site you come from tbh.
Never said prepubescent sex was good. It’s still bad because it damages the child.
So you don’t see an issue with rape and taking advantage of teenagers after puberty, just before?
You should really work on your wording if you didn’t mean that. It’s hard to backpedal when you use language where it’s possible to interpret it that way.
I have issues with rape and abuse; of course I want to be and am against that.
Yeah, maybe I should have worded that more clearly to say “sexual abuse” is still bad.
Then you should also define what sexual abuse means to you. Because someone using their power dynamic to coerce a minor into sex isn’t sexual abuse to some people, while it is to me, for example.
That is sexual abuse to me.