Talk:Age of consent

Revert
@User:GrammarCommie: Why have you reverted my edit? Since it should show the range, the youngest age is the best, and the puberty occurs before 12 on average. Also, Mexico has more in common with the West than Angola, so it might be more tangible and interesting. --178.11.82.73 (talk) 19:15, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * @User:GrammarCommie: Please do not forget to answer. By the way, I couldn't answer your answer on you user-page, because it got semi-protected. --88.71.43.6 (talk) 16:15, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * The language and arguments seem iffy in my opinion, in addition to the fact that the modern human before age 12 being legally and medically prepubescent. 16:29, 6 July 2018 (UTC)
 * According to Wikipedia puberty begins around 10–11 for girls and 11–12 for boys, so mostly before the age of 12. Hence it is a lower bound than Angola. Even if it were the same bound, an example nearer to Western culture seems preferable, and both together would seem even more preferable. And what do you you you mean with iffy language? Maybe this is because I am a non-Native speaker. --88.71.43.6 (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
 * @User:GrammarCommie --195.91.171.225 (talk) 07:49, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * @User:GrammarCommie: Can you please answer? It was not completely easy to figure the information from the edit that you reverted out. --92.77.8.242 (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * Put back in I guess. Sorry about the delay, I've been busy with other stuff. 14:31, 9 August 2018 (UTC)
 * I suppose you mean by "Put back in" that I can change it to my state again, and I did so. (Sorry, I'm not a native speaker.) --92.77.8.242 (talk) 22:14, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Bias
Citing from debate-wise in order to defend removing the age of consent is... desperate. I have yet to see any indication that info from Debate-wise is in any way more relevant or "scientific" than info from high school speech and debate. Don't throw a source there to just look cool. Also, I understand RationalWiki is meant to be biased, but come on. Eugh. On the For-Side, we have not a single source (although it wouldn't be hard to legit just cite debate-wise again... I wonder why y'all didn't?) but you DO have a completely unsolicited note essentially saying "by the way guys, the people for age of consent are vague and stupid, hur dur" (note 6 btw). Also completely unsources, AND unsolicited; it literally exists to signal the writer's displeasure with the arguement. We also have "brilliant" summations of the arguments for the age of consent with only 90% snarky titles: The Woman Will Later Regret It Argument, The Adult Only Wants One Thing Argument, The Unmarried Sex With a Teen is Wrong Argument etc, while the against side are all presented professionally. Very "cool". By the way, notice my sarcastic quotes around cool. The writer of this page saw fit to add sarcastic quotes to multiple For arguments! Ha! Pray-tell, are children not innocent? So why say sexual "innocence"? Maybe some of you lot find it healthy to bang at age 12; I don't, and I reckon most sane people don't. Certainly there is a 12 year old out there who thinks it's not healthy — are you going to offer him to the wolves? Why the sarcastic quotes over "philosophical"? Is Age Does Not Reflect Maturity not also a useless "philosophical" argument? And the "Human Right" argument is, btw, the most idiotic argument you can throw around for sex. You might convince yourself, weakly, that any sex is a "human right", but there comes a point — if you're tough, maybe involving an octopus, 2 zebras, a midget with down syndrome, and the corpse of Chairman Mao, but the point exists somewhere — where you say enough is enough. "Human Right" is not a "Gotcha" card, especially when it is as well defined as the pattern of my drool when I sleep.

So, enough is enough. Enough IS enough. If y'all don't want to "debate" slavery, or genocide, or rape, all these non-controversial things, and if y'all even refuse to "debate" VERY controversial things like the right for a guy to bake a cake for who we wants to bake, or even the right for women cyclists to not get ka-stoomped by biological dudes with maybe 125% their muscle mass — don't defend pedophilia. If your world is a world where 3-year olds get to "consensually" have sex with a 44-year old prostitute — but only if the little boy says "yes", of course, even if he just learned that word yesterday and thinks it means, in his little infant brain, "daddy came home and bought me cookie yummy yay" — but people like me can't defend the idea that I get to make cake, or break bread, or share sake with who I choose to do so, your worldview is frankly irrational. Or maybe it is rational. Rational and insane.

Anyways, Rant over. I'm going to make the article less straight up biased. And I'm actually, on second thoughts, also going to eliminate all the moronic "no age of consent" arguments that have no backing, as well as the strawmen on the other side. Someone must tell me — I thought you lot loved defending the weak and poor? I certainly still do, regardless of where my politics drags me to and fro. Why not defend children? Why not defend babies? Do you think we need more Daisy's Destructions? More sex trafficking victims stuck in Japan, in Saudi Arabia, in Miami? More Mr. Epsteins?

A society that will not keep safe her pure is a society that cannot keep safe her wicked. It will rot and die and shrivel like a wet worm finally pulled into the sun. Oh America, when shall our long fall cease, and upon which world shall our carcass be dumped? We've gathered too much speed already; too much is lost, the head tumbles, the feet float. When we arrive, the question will not be of our survival, that ship has sailed — but how many innocent will survive the crash?

OOh, look at that too. And I gave the Protection vs Autonomy argument the benefit of the doubt! hahahah. Planned Parenthood pulled down the sources apparently. It was too embarrassing even for them! Well, now, since the old source doesn't exist, the citation is plain deceptive, and the argument itself doesn't exist in real life (not outside of PP, it doesn't), I guess I'll delete that too. Thank you Planned Parenthood for knowing SOME (very limited form of) shame.

I'll act less stupid, but let me change this stuff
Compulsion is a strong force, yeah? Anyways, my alt was never closed in time, so might as well use it :D This time, I'll play nice and talk before I delete stuff. Please reply to me quickly, or I'll probably delete the stuff without citation (so not rule-breaking!) myself.
 * Age Does Not Reflect Maturity no longer has a proper source (404). Additionally, the source itself was always, well, bad — it was debate-wise, which sucks. No peer-review, no nothing. Also it is logically unsound: I could say "Individuals drive well at different speeds; some people above the speed limit can weave like a boss, whereas some people below the speed limit may crash into a tree. Since cars can't be banned entirely[note 7], it might as well be legal at all speeds.[10]" Taking this wiki's love for Nader into account, I assume this argument wouldn't work. It also doesn't work based off of logic alone; nothing can be banned entirely, if we're taking circumvention of laws into account, so everything should be legal. Yeah, no :/
 * Human Rights no longer has a proper source (404). Like above, its source was debate-wise, which is bad. Also, human rights has been defined by the UN and multiple agencies. I have never heard it refer to pedastry or child-sex. Never. Until now, I guess.
 * Conflict between protection and autonomy also no longer has a proper source (404). Outside of that source, I have rarely heard the autonomy argument applied to children, and it is my firm belief that it should not be. Besides, the argument itself calls for informed decision making, which the previous arguments FOR the age of consent argue doesn't exist for children (and also Ratwiki's own article on AoC supports this idea as well). This argument is, in my opinion, invalid.
 * On Reluctance to seek or offer advice, I have no comment.
 * I will admit bias — I hate the idea of innocence being tarnished. I dread pedophiles. And men like Peter Scully and Jeffrey Dahmare are the stuff of nightmares. Call me sentimental, but just out of spite for Mr. Scully especially, I am for the legal protection of teens and tots and babies from any sexual activity with older folk.
 * Also, I'd like to add a link to NAMBLA in the article. NAMBLA's article share my opinion on pedos and AoC, and is anyhow an important point of discussion for any discussion of AoC.


 * Get back to me soon, thank you. ThisSiteRuxExDee2 (talk) 23:31, 11 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Alright, I think nobody is gonna come here and look :( That's fine. I'll edit this article as I believe my actions follow norms (provided explanation for every addition and subtraction, only modified sourceless material). If someone edits this back, I'm willing to talk.ThisSiteRuxExDee2 (talk) 00:20, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

RationalWiki, my faith in you is (partially) restored
No longer do I fear the pedo in our mix! Turns out the first arguments against the age of consent were made by someone mocking it. This is what Cheeseburger Face added on 23 Nov 2016. Note that this forms the basis of all future "against age of consent" arguments: (THE FOLLOWING IS ALL CHEESEBURGER FACE, NOT ME)


 * Tl;dr: The person is a pedophile
 * Age does not reflect maturity: Individuals mature at different rates, even a person above the age of consent may not be mature enough for a relationship.[9]
 * Human right: As human beings, adults have the right to have sex with kids ((this part was marked off sarcastically, idk how to replicate it)) kids should have the freedom to have sex with adults[9]
 * [Insert any other argument against age of consent here]: The person is a pedophile.[citation NOT needed]
 * [Insert any other argument against age of consent here]: The person is a pedophile.[citation NOT needed]

Haha! My angry heart calms. Glad to see even here, these bottom lines are maintained :D That being said, apparently someone took these arguments real seriously in the future, and made them professional and non sarcastic. :/ Oh Cheeseburger face, what hast thou unleashed? Nonetheless, I will stand firm then that the arguments I deleted (Argument Age Does not reflect maturity, Human right, and Protection/Autonomy) did deserve to be deleted. They started off as apparently a joke, using joke (debate-wise) sources. Since they were made serious, despite the sources not being professional, it only makes sense to revert this source back to its professional phase. If nobody cares for this, I hope you all delete the last pro-noAoC argument as well.128.135.98.162 (talk) 02:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Wait I wasn't logged in nvm :/ 128.135.98.162 (talk) 03:01, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Additional reason
Not sure if this should be added, but I feel that the AoC is partially there to get rid of "he said, she said" situations. Rather than having to prove that the sex was non-consensual, which is notoriously difficult under normal circumstances, we just declare it to be rape by statute. It's a bit of an assumption that sex with an underage girl is more likely to be non-consensual than consensual, but it's "good enough". CoryUsar (talk) 15:21, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Plus, it may sound a bit crass, but we only charge people with statutory rape if we catch them, which I'd imagine happens mainly when the girl herself claims it was a rape. In which case, it's back to "he said, she said"... except that technically what "he said" is now legally defined as a form of rape. CoryUsar (talk) 15:28, 12 November 2020 (UTC)