You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

0
2

[–] classy_nigger 0 points 2 points (+2|-0) ago  (edited ago)

What is the alternative? If a person cannot decide for themselves who they want to have sex with, then they must not be the possessor of themselves and their body. Who owns them, then? It could be argued that they are owned by the government, or society. I'm sure you'll agree that this is not a solution, but even a greater problem. It could be argued that they are owned by their parents. This is my belief, but then it ought to be the parent's decision regarding who the child has sex with, and still not the government, and in any case does not preclude pedophilia.

The author states that

Having sex with people who are neither physically nor mentally mature enough to consent to it is rape.

There are already laws against fucking someone against their will, i.e. actual rape. The argument that someone is not "mentally mature enough" to will to have sex is something is precisely how the government neotenizes its subjects: It is the argument that allows women to say that they were "raped" because they regretted having sex, the argument that allows the government to confiscate guns from "extremists", the argument that allows imprisoning peacefully people for their "own good", the argument that a child ought to be allowed to mutilate its genitals against the wishes of its "mentally immature" parents, the argument that allows all sorts of laws that favor the government and not its subjects.

If someone is capable of forming a thought and accurately expressing it in language to another person, they are "mentally mature enough" to know and desire what they are asking for, i.e. consent to sex.

If you want to make it illegal for someone to have sex, then you must claim that the government has the right to dictate what you do with your body. That I find unconscionable.

0
1

[–] prairie 0 points 1 point (+1|-0) ago 

If a child is physically able to walk into a busy street, they are able to consent to its effects therefore parents have no place physically restraining them.

0
0

[–] classy_nigger ago 

If you believe a child owns themselves. What is the alternative?

As I said, I believe that parent owns the child. A parent's consent, not a child's, is what matters in determining what a child may do by right.