Intelligence, maturity, consent.

Consent at its core implies agreement and wanting, for your desire to be in accordance with something or not, I offer to give you a cake, you consent, agree, want it, or you don’t consent, you disagree, you don’t want the cake. A simple enough concept.

You cannot consent to get raped or be a slave, that would be what we call an oxymoron, because it innately implies unwanted sex, what might be meant by ”wanting to get raped” is that you want someone to have sex with you who doesn’t care whether or not you want to have sex with them, but ultimately you still wanted the sex, so it wasn’t truly non-consensual.

A common argument against having sex with children/minors, or also mentally handicapped humans of similar intelligence or non-human animals (beastiality) is that they cannot consent, because they are unintelligent and immature.

Intelligence and maturity of course have nothing inherently to do with consent, you can consent to, agree to, want to do things even if you are stupid and immature. A child can disagree to eat broccoli, a child can agree to eat ice cream instead. A dog can disagree to go for a walk outside, a dog can agree to take a shit in the garden instead. Every conscious organism can agree to, want things, or disagree to, and not want certain things.

The argument to my understanding is really about whether or not we should allow children, the mentally handicapped and other animals to consent to certain things, because they may lack the intellect and maturity to make decisions in their best interest and appreciate future ramifications and consequences of their actions, they may be vulnerable to certain harms and risks.

The problem here is the idea that sex is innately dangerous, risky, harmful, so parents don’t want to allow children to agree to sex, whereas in reality, it is not inherently dangerous, risky, harmful, so there would be no reason to not let children agree to it. I would argue:

P1: Intelligence and maturity are required when the act has a clear risk of future harm.
P2: Sex does not inherently contain a clear risk of future harm.
C: Not all sex inherently requires intelligence and maturity.

Whether or not you need the ability to understand future consequences is entirely dependent on the future consequences of the act.

Here we can use differing examples to make this point in both sexual and non-sexual contexts. Let’s say a child isn’t able to understand traffic rules yet, but this child wants to ride a bicycle. Can this child consent to ride a bicycle?

Depends on the environment and consequences would be the answer. On the freeway, no, the child shouldn’t be riding the bicycle, but in a safe and harmless environment with no traffic going on inside it, it’d be perfectly fine.

We can allow the child to ride the bicycle in a safe environment, but we shouldn’t allow it on the freeway. Now let’s use a sexual example, let’s say a child is sexually curious, found out about the existence of sexual pleasure and wants to experiment with it, but is too immature to understand sex education and take it seriously. Can we allow this child to consent?

Again, depends entirely on environment and consequences.

Would it be a good idea to let such a child go to have unprotected anal sex with 100 strangers in a row despite not even knowing what an STD is?

No, of course not, we can entirely agree with the anti-pedo folks here that that would be a bad idea. But would it be bad to let such a child hump the leg of a pedophile they know and trust? No, because that would be a harmless scenario, there’s no risk to that that the child may fail to appreciate due to their childishness, so it’d be perfectly fine to allow that.

Similarly, we can use such examples in the context of disabled people.

Can a severely intellectually handicapped person that wants to play with blue marbles but has a tendency to swallow them (and fail to comprehend that this is unhealthy) consent to play with blue marbles?

Depends on the environment and consequences. Alone in their room with no one at home? Probably a bad idea, probably shouldn’t be happening. But under the supervision of someone who makes sure once in a while that they don’t swallow the blue marbles? Fine, no problem, they can consent.

Now let’s use a sexual example again.

Let’s say there’s an adult woman on the mental level of a 5 year old child that doesn’t understand sex education, but it is clear that she wants to someone to stick his dick in her pussy. Should we allow her to have sex? Again, depends on the environment and consequences.

Should we sell her out on the streets to have an unprotected threesome right away? No, bad idea. But let’s say she finds a partner, and he’s willing to stick it in her, and he takes care of the contraception process. Then why not? No problem, she is consenting to receiving the sexual experience, and the risks she doesn’t comprehend are no longer present, there’s no need to comprehend them.

You only need intelligence and maturity to understand potential negative future consequences of your actions, if those potential negative future consequences actually even exist.

We don’t forbid children to eat broccoli, and that is because there is no great foreseeable future consequence to eating broccoli that this child may feel bad about later on, so anyone who would screech that children can never consent to eat broccoli and you should be put in prison for giving a child broccoli would sound insane, but there is an age restriction for alcohol, and the idea there is that while a child may agree to drink a bottle of whiskey, they may not appreciate the risk of harm that it later on imposes on them, so they didn’t really agree to all aspects of it.

Some also call it a difference between simplistic and informed consent.

So simplistic consent would just be the ”I want something” statement/indication which a child, mentally handicapped person or even non-human animal can do, informed consent refers more to also understanding the consequences and ramifications of wanting and agreeing to things.

Then the argument would be as follows:

P1: Clear risk of harm requires informed consent.
P2: Sex does not necessarily have a clear risk of harm.
C: Therefore, sex does not necessarily require informed, but only simplistic consent.

So what I’m arguing is mostly to take away from this is that if you are interacting with someone who is less intelligent, less mature, has impaired foresight – there’s extra responsibility on you to make sure that the individual is not harmed by anything you do, because they may not be able to take care of that by themselves, but that doesn’t mean they are fundamentally incapable of consent. In that sense you could even argue that it’s sometimes even better if a young girl who is still somewhat irresponsible would have sex with an older man rather than someone her age, on her maturity level, who would equally be too irresponsible to use a condom, since that is often a concern parents have.

The adult has to make sure the child that doesn’t understand traffic rules isn’t riding the bicycle on the freeway, the caretaker has to make sure the retarded person doesn’t swallow the blue marbles, and similarly a pedophile would have to make sure they are not subjecting the child to some undesirable consequence of a given sex act. Adults already do this with children in other aspects of life, so I don’t see why the same reasoning shouldn’t consistently be applied to sexuality.

This idea that children can never consent to sex is based on the assumption that sex is automatically, inherently and always dangerous/harmful, so no one feels comfortable with allowing less intellectually equipped individuals, like young children, the severely disabled or non-human animals have sex – this becomes apparent when they then like to bring up dangerous scenarios where children supposedly consented to do certain things but have to be stopped by adults because they were endangering themselves, they use these examples to invalidate the idea that we should let children consent to anything, or take their consent seriously.

”So what if a child consented to run across the streets without looking left and right???”

If this is happening in a dangerous environment where the implication is that the child would definitely get hit by a car, then obviously, the child did not actually consent to run across the street at all, because the act of running across the street encompasses getting hit by a car, so obviously if the act ”crossing the street” encompasses ”getting run over by a car”, and the child in question does not want to get hit by a car, then the child did not consent to run across the street.

The question to these pedophobes here should really be – what is the harm in sex that the child always fails to see (due to their childishness)?

They never want to allow a child/minor to agree to sex, even if we eliminate all potential harmful factors. It’s true that we don’t always just allow children to do whatever they think they want, but that is because there’s usually some kind of danger to it that the child/minor may fail to see.

Why should I think that sex is so inherently dangerous that a child should never be allowed to have it? Why should one believe that?

Let’s say the child found out about sexual pleasure on their own by humping their pillow, they were not manipulated, blackmailed or forced to hump the pedophile’s leg. The pedophile didn’t do anything to the child that the child did not want, like penetration, the child cannot get an STD or get pregnant, no such risky sex act was performed.

Now where’s the risk of harm that requires the child to be a rocket scientist first in order to be able to circumvent it?

In these examples that they give to discredit the idea of a child consenting, they always smuggle in some kind of later on harmful consequence that will befall the child, like the child running across the street and then getting hit by a car, or the child refusing to get vaccinated and then dying of small pox – so I would agree with them that if there is such a harm to an activity that the child wants to do or not do, the child shouldn’t be allowed to do it.

But what is the harm to sex, why should I assume sex is per se harmful? Why would a child agreeing to sexual pleasure necessarily result in harm to the child? There is nothing inherently about sex that makes it so that whenever you have it under 16, 17, 18 (or whatever is considered to be the particular holy age), it would automatically result in pain and trauma, there are acts I’ve listed like voluntary leg humping that don’t carry any significant risk of harm, so it’d be non-sensical to suggest that one needs to have high intelligence or maturity first before they consent to it.

Possible pedophobe answers might be:

”The child could regret having sex later on!”

That is true of every activity a child, minor or even adult could possibly engage in, including riding a bicycle or eating ice cream, so we cannot allow the child to do anything by that standard, they could always regret it later on. I see no reason to think sex what be particularly regrettable unless society started to make a big deal out of it.

”There are still social consequences that the child might not be equipped to deal with yet!”

True, there are certain social consequences to sex between the child and the pedophile that the child might not be equipped to deal with, like being hysterically screeched at by everyone around them how they got raped, forced to have sex, when they really were not forced at all, which confuses the child, plus they witness their partner being ostracized and arrested – a lot of unnecessary drama.

Those consequences definitely exist, but society is responsible for creating them in the first place, they are not innate to the sexual encounter, so if they appeal to those self-created consequences, they are just committing an argumetum ad baculum fallacy – it’d be like saying children can never consent to buy ice cream, it’s harmful, because we live in a society where we burn people alive in front of children for selling ice cream to them, and children aren’t mature enough to deal with that possible traumatic consequence yet. Don’t wear a red hat, it’s harmful, because if you wear one, I’ll cut your head off and set you on fire.

So again, in that case the social environment can be expected to be safer for the less intellectually equipped/less mature individual, why not? Why should they insist on inflicting harmful social consequences after such an act, if the act itself wasn’t harmful?

”I don’t care, the child is still emotionally undeveloped and immature, so the child can NEVER consent, period!”

That is just blind dogmatism at that point. If it’s just per se wrong to have sex with a child just because that child is unintelligent and immature, it’s also wrong to do anything else, e.g. hug children non-sexually or give them ice cream, because the child has the exact same level of IQ and maturity while they’re eating the ice cream as when they’re having sex.

P1: It’s wrong to have sex with children/minors because they don’t have fully developed brains and/or cannot consent.
P2: Children/minors don’t have fully developed brains and/or cannot consent.
C: All social interaction with children/minors is always wrong, not just sex.

If it’s just per se wrong to have sex with a child because they are unintelligent, undeveloped, immature, then it is just as wrong to give a child ice cream because they are just unintelligent, undeveloped and immature when they eat ice cream. If a child can never consent to sex because they are unintelligent, undeveloped, immature, then a child can likewise never consent to eat ice cream because they are just as unintelligent, undeveloped, immature when they are offered ice cream. It’s logical consistency, if you like apples because they have a round shape, you must like oranges because they have a round shape.

You actually need to specify why intelligence and maturity are prerequisites for all sex acts, not just say ”they are unintellligent and immature”, because their level of intelligence and maturity is exactly the same in all other areas of life, so if that makes sex with them wrong/unethical, then it makes all other interactions with them wrong/unethical, logical consistency 101.

In conclusion, I would say you only need to be intelligent, developed and mature when you want to engage in acts that carry a significant risk of future harm, sex is not necessarily an act that carries a significant risk of future harm, so sex does not require you to be intelligent, developed and mature by default, a child/non-human animal/mentally handicapped person on the IQ level of a dolphin can perfectly consent to sex under many circumstances.

No one would forbid a child to consent to eating broccoli (or go as far as to say they are somehow intrinsically unable to consent), because they recognize there is no harmful consequence to eating broccoli that this child fails to understand due to their childishness.

The reason why pedophobes won’t allow children to consent to sex is because they already falsely believe sex is intrinsically harmful, based on irrational feelings of disgust and repulsion towards pedophiles, leading them to conflate harmful cases of child sex (where coercion and violence were involved) with harmless cases of child sex (where no coercion nor violence were involved), so they reach the false conclusion that it is innately impossible for a child to consent to sex.

Pedophobes and the argumentum ad baculum fallacy.

There is absolutely zero evidence for the hypothesis that sexual experience in childhood or youth is inherently harmful, there is at best proof that there is a correlation between sex in childhood and trauma in societies that are unaccepting of sexual relations between children/minors and pedophiles/adults, no proof whatsoever that sex in childhood or youth in and of itself causes the trauma.

Because pedophobes irrationally feel disgusted and threatened by the topic, they immediately think of certain harmful factors when they try to process it, like manipulation, blackmail, force, anal penetration, STDs, pregnancy, etc, which are all things that are not inherently connected to the act of having sex with a child/minor though.

Children have genitals and can obviously find out about the existence of sexual pleasure by exploring them on their own, without somehow needing to be fooled or violently coerced into doing so, there’s no evidence and/or reason to think it’s the result of some kind of evil scheme by some underground pedophile cabal misleading children through propaganda.

So if a little girl wants to simply experience the same pleasurable sensation from rubbing herself against a pillow by rubbing herself against a pedophile’s leg, and the pedophile isn’t some kind of violent psychopath that does something to her that she doesn’t want later on, like anal rape, there’s no evidence that such an encounter would be harmful to children unless society reacted negatively to it.

There is zero conclusive scientific evidence that children that voluntarily received sexual relief even in societies where pedosexuality was acceptable felt traumatized by sex, and there are zero reliable or coherent explanations from pedophobe professionals as to how this magical process of trauma just poofing into existence out of the great nowhere is supposed to work, even if the child initially engaged in the sex act without having been manipulated or otherwise forced into it and society simply stopped reacting negatively to it.

Pedophobes just like any other group of bigots assume that because they could prove a correlation between sex in childhood and higher depression rates in adulthood, it proves that it’s caused by the pedophilic sex act itself.

It is similar to how a homophobic bigot would assume that if they see some questionable study that says children of gay parents are more likely to suffer from depression, they assume that it’s directly caused by the fact that the parents are gay and definitely nothing else, the child is depressed because their father sucked a dick, not because the bigots are raising their children to harass children of gay couples.

It’s just a post hoc fallacy, correlation equals causation – B happened after A, therefore, A caused B. The child had sex, the child is traumatized by society’s negative reaction to it, so therefore, sex causes trauma, that’s the faulty idea here. The child left the house while it was raining, the child was wetted by the rain, therefore, so leaving your house causes you to be wetted.

When it gets to that point in the discussion, the pedophobes sometimes simply like to commit another fallacy to prove their point by then simply appealing to the extrinsic harm caused by the harsh social reaction that they themselves are creating in response to such sex acts and say something along the lines of:

”Even if having sex with children is not inherently harmful, in our society, there are still consequences to this perverted behavior either way, so it’s still just as harmful to the poor child in the end, they’ll feel ashamed later on! Why does it matter by what exactly the trauma is caused? No excuses!”

It is ultimately an argumentum ad baculum fallacy – because it’s an entirely self-created consequence. Instead of proving something to be harmful, society, which you are forming part of, is causing harm to someone for engaging in an activity you don’t like, then pretend that the activity they engaged in is harmful because you harmed them in response to engaging in the harmless activity, frequently followed with standard moronic phrases like ”don’t drop the soap LOL”, i.e if you’re a pedo, you get raped in jail, so therefore, pedo=bad.

Argumentum ad baculum (Latin for “argument to the cudgel” or “appeal to the stick”) is the fallacy committed when one appeals to force or the threat of force to bring about the acceptance of a conclusion.^[1][2] One participates in argumentum ad baculum when one points out the negative consequences of holding the contrary position (ex. believe what I say, or I will hit you). It is a specific case of the negative form of an argument to the consequences.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_baculum

Let’s say you like to wear red hats. I don’t like that, so in response to you wearing a red hat, I cut your head off and set you on fire. Does this prove that wearing a red hat is harmful? No, it does not, it just proves that I harmed you in response to wearing a red hat, but it does not actually prove the wearing of red hats to be intrinsically harmful.

The pedophobe at this point in the discussion is just appealing to a consequence that they themselves are creating.

They pretty much admit that child sex is not intrinsically harmful, they just appeal to the consequences bestowed by the bigoted society they form part of, such as for example:

The child and the pedophile being separated.
The child being screeched at by their hysterical parents.
The child being sent to a similarly delusional therapist.
The child receiving strong social pressure to ”accept their rape”.
The child hearing they now ”lost their innocence” and this is a great problem.
The child seeing the pedophile tormented/beaten in front of them.
The child feeling responsible for the pedophile going to prison.

This is no better than any other bigot althroughout human history just using force and threat to explain why the behavior they are bigoted against is somehow bad.

Don’t be a homo or else I’ll beat you up for it, therefore, gay sex is harmful/bad.
Don’t be a whore or else I’ll rape you for it, therefore, prostitution is harmful/bad.

Just that the pedophobe is essentially saying:

Don’t be a pedo or else I’ll beat you up for it in front of the child you gave an orgasm, thereby traumatize the child, then attribute that trauma to the orgasm rather than my uncivilized primitive conduct, therefore, child sex is harmful/bad.

It is akin to a homophobe in Saudi Arabia arguing that even if the homosexual activity itself does not cause harm, when you, as a bigot, set the homosexuals on fire for having homosexual sex, they are still harmed by it, therefore, somehow the sex (rather than the consequences you inflict on homosexuals for having sex) is still harmful, so homosexual sexual relations ought to be outlawed because otherwise you’ll burn these faggots!

It’s ironically the argument of a rapist while pedophobes pretend to be so anti-rape, like saying you can’t go outside dressing like a whore, it’s bad, because if you do that, he’s going to rape you, this proves how harmful it is for women to not wear a burqa, there is a consequence for not wearing one, a consequence which the rapist himself is creating, which is that he’ll rape them for it.

It might even become circular reasoning, i.e it’s harmful to have sex with the child, because if you have sex with the child, we’ll harm you (and by extension through this whole drama the child too) by imprisoning you for it, and why do we harm you for it? Because having sex with the child is harmful, you sick pervert! – That would be circular.

As an example to illustrate just how absurd appealing to self-created, extrinsic harm to demonstrate that an act is harmful is, let’s say society acted about harmless sexual encounters between children and pedophiles about any other pleasure-seeking activity, like eating ice cream.

They all believe that because children don’t have fully developed brains yet, a child can never possibly consent to buy ice cream you sick monster, it’s a crime even if it really seemed like the child consented to taste the ice cream, that’s not real consent because they haven’t reached the age of consent yet where society has decided the child is allowed to consent to eating ice cream.

Whenever there’s an ice cream salesman and the child agrees to buy it, some psychotic lunatic father has a meltdown in front of the child.

”OMG this is my daughter you sick fuck, one step closer and I shoot! I don’t care that there’s no actual evidence whatsoever that eating ice cream in childhood in and of itself causes lifelong trauma, once I’ve beaten you pervert to a bloody pulp right in front of my little girl, she’s still traumatized, so that proves that ice cream is indeed very traumatizing, I’m doing this protect your precious wellbeing, little Suzie! You can’t consent!”

The child is then pressured by society to accept that they have been horribly wronged by having been sold exactly the ice cream flavor that they wanted, if they don’t, they’re just the poor dumb child that can’t understand how horribly violated it was by having been sold ice cream and the therapists won’t stop harassing her.

She also hears others joke how the guy that sold the ice cream is now going to prison and has Big Bubba shove his chocolate ice cream in his asshole, teehee, violent anal rape for a completely victimless crime harming absolutely no one, it doesn’t get any funnier than that!

At some point now, little Suzie is kinda sad.

Society concludes – ah see, ice cream is very harmful to children indeed! Doesn’t matter if selling ice cream isn’t ”intrinsically harmful” or any of this weird science and philosophy shit jargon, I’m a simple man, fact is, little Suzie is harmed, so no ice cream! NO ICE CREAM!

Has this society legitimately proven how bad the selling of ice cream is by harming the ice man in response to selling a child ice cream, have they made a great consequentialist argument as to why selling ice cream to children is always bad?

No, it hasn’t, they just demonstrated themselves to be primitive barbarians in need of psychiatric institutionalization that for some irrational narrative harm others in response to selling ice cream to children, anyone who has not been indoctrinated into their cult can fully see through their non-sensical notions of right and wrong behavior.

That they are in fact just suffering from a delusion that the selling of ice cream is harmful, and then attribute the harm that they cause in response to ice cream being sold to the selling of the ice cream rather than their uncivilized, backward, moronic behavior.

The vast majority of humans on this planet, neurotypicals, the neurologically typical are socially imitative animals that have a strong tendency to conform to many rules that are taught to them without questioning, this had certain benefits of social security at some point in our evolutionary history, but is also why humans can be indoctrinated into believing things that are completely disconnected from reality or fail to understand science like the earth being round, when their society keeps insisting that it is flat, it produces discomfort to go against their tribe.

Just like someone can be indoctrinated into believing that god is real but allah isn’t rather than to acknowledge that god is just as real as the easter bunny – someone can also be indoctrinated into believing that one particular age of consent, like 18 instead of 14 is the only correct one, and feel uneasy and repulsed whenever this delusional perception of their’s is challenged to any degree at all, although they most likely exactly see the delusion for what it is if they witnessed someone who believed in a special number that were even higher than their’s and thought that sex under 21 is never possible without resulting in harm later on.

Of course the lower we go, the more likely someone might be to be manipulated into having sex, the point is that it is being treated like a religion. Just because someone is more likely to be manipulated into sex, that doesn’t prove that when they have sex, it must be the result of manipulation, it could be, but doesn’t have to be, rape is the problem which can still be illegal regardless of the age of consent, but many pedophobes have a religious mindset in that they would pretend that all sex under the holy age is rape no matter what.

So does this problem apply to the ”victims” of ”rape” (wanting to get raped is an oxymoron, if it’s wanted it ceases to be rape) that they initially wanted to engage in when they were children, obviously, if a social animal is being put under excessive social pressure to pretend they got raped, then they will more often than not simply start to go along with the narrative to avoid being labelled as the poor, dumb rape victim that doesn’t even understand how raped it truly is.

Pedophobes would see their behavior for what it is if were to be manifested in someone else, like the hypothetical society that demonizes particularly selling ice cream to children, they would just as clearly detect that it’s not the selling of the ice cream itself that causes the harm, but the complete overreaction to it of sending someone to prison for it and pressuring the child to accept how it has been wronged.

Yet when a pedophile gives a willing child that discovered sexual pleasure and now wants to receive a pleasurable sensation in the form of an orgasm rather than ice cream (which is probably even healthier in the long run), they torment the pedophile in front of the child, then attribute the resulting trauma to the harmless pleasurable sensation of relief from sexual frustration rather than their fundamentally irrational, psychotic behavior.

Of course, you could even argue that because in response to ice cream being sold, the cult reacts in this violent manner, it might be somewhat negligent of the iceman to sell ice cream when he knows that the reaction has the chance of in some way emotionally harming the child from seeing the iceman being harmed in front of them, but the harm still lies in the reaction.

The social reaction doesn’t need to exist in the first place, so it would still be better to simply get rid of the reaction, just like in the cases of pedophiles and children exchanging sexual pleasure, obviously the real problem at hand is that you’re castrating and shooting people in front of children for selling them ice cream, not the selling of the ice cream itself.