Honest question

From a purely rational perspective, why can't children have sex (in particular, with adults)?

It seems the number one response is always 'they can't consent'. But what does that mean and what does it entail?

When people say 'they can't consent', how is that true? It can't mean that they can't voluntarily participate as an act of will, because they can. Even if the vast majority wouldn't (for natural lack of sex drive for instance), why couldn't some of them? Usually the 'they don't understand it' argument follows this but why not? Is sex astrophysics? Why can't you explain how it works then tell them it can be dangerous if you don't take a few basic precautions like condoms and generally not pushing your limits? I mean, swimming in a lake could be dangerous too, you could drown for instance, but no one says 'children can't go swimming because they can't consent to it because they don't understand it and it's dangerous!'

I suppose the last resort would be ' it will mentally scar them for life!', but how do we know this isn't due to the social variables and taboo nature of it? Maybe they become 'scared' because they are told after the fact how traumatized they ought to be. Maybe it's all police and courts and therapists that get thrown at them that causes them mental anguish.

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al._controversy
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

The reason that they're considered unable to consent is that we have decided that the brain of a child is too physically immature to reason on certain things. We restrict them from other things (especially medical procedures) for the same reason.

That being said, you obviously haven't researched jack shit regarding this topic considering some of the points you bring up.

Several reasons:
1) Sex is a mean of procreation and kids aren't geared towards it(before widespread legislation kicked in, "if it bleeds it can breed" was a common attitude towards it). Now I don't agree with it fully because casual sex is cool but there is a point in it when you think of what does it mean when you think of paedophiles from this side - kids have very minimal amounts of "sexual" physical characteristics, therefore a person who is attracted to them is at least some heavy case of fetishist.
2) Kids aren't fully conscious of their decisions - you wouldn't let 8 years old to take mortgage. As for your swimming analogy - most parents don't throw their kids into water and tell them "lol, swim", but rather they teach them how to swim or have an instructor to do it.
3) Human emotional development takes much longer than you'd think and, just like "early porn", early sex, especially this early may hinder it. It may, but for sure it'll make their social development much more troubled(which is a case with porn btw.).
4) Our social relations have certain rules to them and intentionally trying to change them is idiotic, especially on individual's level. A 6 years old boy being horny for sex with his 6 year old girl friends(not girlfriends) is bound to have lots of troubles everywhere. Girl would probably get exploited by paedophiles left and right.

And there's more.

Of course the legislation around it in some countries is retarded with some states in the US having legal age set as high as 18 etc. but that's beyond the point.

Children are stupid, to be blunt. Sex is just sex, but unwanted sex is traumatic, if there is the slightest risk of sex being traumatic and no reason to have sex it is unjust. The margin of error shouldn't be in the "grey area".

also this >you obviously haven't researched jack shit regarding this topic
You are obviously that pedophile rumored to spend all day posting this everywhere on Veeky Forums even though you constantly get BTFO. Thankyou for gracing our humble board, I see you brought a picture of that cretin gary glitter.

Disgusting.

>The reason that they're considered unable to consent is that we have decided that the brain of a child is too physically immature to reason on certain things.

What does it mean to be 'too immature to reason on something'?

>We restrict them from other things (especially medical procedures) for the same reason.

Like what?

>That being said, you obviously haven't researched jack shit regarding this topic considering some of the points you bring up.

Tell me about some of this research you're bringing into this.

>why can't children have sex
Because they cant/shouldnt have children. They cant care for themselves, much less another human.
>muh hookup culture
Fuck off, as if we need more fatherless Tyrones in the world

>What does it mean to be 'too immature to reason on something'?
I know that telling person on Veeky Forums to talk to kid is pretty dangerous but try to explain some toddler some terms from calculus, just without the "math lingo". He may be very bright kid but he will likely never get it because kids have problems with abstract thinking among with other things like understanding cause and consequence chain.

They are too immature to reason.
>Like what?
You don't let kid to sign papers whether he wants to be operated or not, you don't let them to get plastic surgery(not everywhere), credits, mortgages, bank accounts whole lot of administrative stuff(passports etc.) you either don't let them to do/have it at all or ask the parent about it.

They are not fertile nor are their sex hormones active retard.

>Sex is a mean of procreation

Or as a means to pleasure

>but rather they teach them how to swim or have an instructor to do it.

You can see why this is a bad argument, right?

>Human emotional development takes much longer than you'd think and, just like "early porn", early sex, especially this early may hinder it. It may, but for sure it'll make their social development much more troubled(which is a case with porn btw.).

A lot of things can make children's social development harder and even turn them into little sociapaths. Can we ban parents from bringing children to fundamentalist churches are being overbearing or too permissive or any number of thing adults could do to fuck a child up? I mean, aren't parents allowed to withold life saving medicine or surgery from their children (think Christian science)?

>Our social relations have certain rules

I said 'from a purely rational perspective'.

it physically hurts

>I said 'from a purely rational perspective'.
This is purely rational perspective because your kid is gonna get raped by bunch of creeps to the point where you'll have to get him to surgeon to deal with his prolapsed anus if he'll be "open" about sex.

>I know that telling person on Veeky Forums to talk to kid is pretty dangerous but try to explain some toddler some terms from calculus, just without the "math lingo". He may be very bright kid but he will likely never get it because kids have problems with abstract thinking among with other things like understanding cause and consequence chain.

Sex isn't abstract, it's pretty visceral. Not hard to understand either I think I pretty much got the jist of it by the time I was 8 or 9 and that was with everyone around me actively trying to prevent me any exposure to it whatsoever.

>You don't let kid to sign papers whether he wants to be operated or not,

That's exactly where the 'kids can't understand abstract shit' argument would likely apply though. It's one thing to get them to understand death, but things like 'there is something you can't see or understand that's going to kill you if we don't give you this shot' is indeed too abstract. They very probably would refuse, not because they would actually rather die than get a shot, but because they can't understand or accept that there is actually any threat to their life.

>you don't let them to get plastic surgery(not everywhere), credits, mortgages, bank accounts whole lot of administrative stuff(passports etc.) you either don't let them to do/have it at all or ask the parent about it.

They don't credit cards or loans because they have no credit, not because they are children. Adults are denied credit and loans for the same reason all the time. And passports? Seriously?

>Or as a means to pleasure
pleasure isnt an end tho

>how do we know this isn't due to the social variables and taboo nature of it?
We already do know this.

It absolutely is.

prove it

An 'end' is any goal pursued by someone as an act of will, you can pursuit pleasure as a goal, therefor it is an end.

>you can pursuit pleasure as a goal
youre begging the question tho

Are you denying that people can pursuit pleasure as a goal? I'm not trying to make a circular argument I'm just asserting something pretty trivially true, I've never heard anyone deny this before.

the idea of a goal presupposes the idea of an end.

Because the human brain isn't developed enough to make entirely rational decisions at a young age, since kids don't really tend to think of consequences for their actions all that much. It's why there's an age restriction on drugs, getting a job, and driving a motor vehicle in all developed countries.

That's just tackling it with an elementary psychological view of the situation, I'm sure that there's much more to it. In addition to that, there are also a lot more physical aspects that hinder children from really enjoying intercourse until much later, but I'll let other anons tell you about that because I'm a lazy piece of shit. I also wanted to tell you that you're a degenerate.

The reason is social conditioning and culture. The West consider sex with children disgusting because it is viewed as exploiting a person who doesn't understand what is going on for sexual pleasure.

A child cannot vote either, for the same reason.

Children can drive cars though, just not on public roads. Private roads though? They can.

And that's because they're not considered mature enough to drive a car somewhere it effects other people.

That analogy translates directly to kids being allowed to jerk off or do whatever they want sexually if it doesn't involve others, but not to sexualities that incorporate others.

You type the exact same way the pedo guy that constantly gets BTFO'd on every fucking thread he posts does though. Why do you keep doing this?

>Why do you keep doing this?

Why do you think he does? He desperately needs to rationalize his abnormal thoughts and behavior.

>And that's because they're not considered mature enough to drive a car somewhere it effects other people

I agree with that.

>That analogy translates directly to kids being allowed to jerk off or do whatever they want sexually if it doesn't involve others, but not to sexualities that incorporate others.

Having sex with someone does not put the public in danger. That analogy doesn't work.

>Having sex with someone does not put the public in danger. That analogy doesn't work.

Having sex endangers the minor at hand though, in ways that have already been explained. You're just ignoring shit you've been told over and over to keep making the same points.

They aren't allowed to do things that have serious potential consequences, such as driving on public roads, agreeing to surgeries or medical treatment, and having sex.


It's just bizarre that he's kept it up for so long, despite every thread him ending up looking ridiculous by the end of. I would have thought he'd go to a chan more accepting of pedophilia at least.

On top of these two, there's one very easy explanation: how much can go wrong.

Think about it. If a preteen had sex with a 15-year old, it would be akin to an adult having sex with a giant. There is just too big a difference in terms of size and power for sex to be considered safe in any way, thus at least penetrative sex A-to-C is immediately out of the question.

As for other forms of sex, I'm pretty sure that even without the presence of semen, if a young person has sex, their body and mind have to process a huge amount of new information without the necessary tools. In response, they most likely end up very disfocused and confused (which should never be a good thing), and end up forming fetishes of some sort simply to deal with what has happened.

As a child's body physically can't process alcohol, they just aren't equipped to handle sex. And besides the physical side, there's also mental and social side to it as well: "do I have the piwer to stop this or regress it back to my own pace? Will it have consequences? Do I want this?" The context is usually what fucks people up, as sex is never only physical.

Lastly, the most apparent reason is the following: who even would want to have sex with a child? Depending on their age, it would require pretty heavy strong-arming to get one to a sexual situation, and they're not sexually attractive either.

And what is to be gained from fucking people who may not be equipped to deal with it? Why would you even want that?

>Having sex endangers the minor at hand though,

That's not the argument. The was about endangering the public/others.

>They aren't allowed to do things that have serious potential consequences, such as driving on public roads, agreeing to surgeries or medical treatment, and having sex.

They are allowed to do many things that are far more dangerous than sex so where's the line and on a consistent rational basis how do you determine that line? That's the point of the thread and not one of you has actually addressed it.

>Think about it. If a preteen had sex with a 15-year old, it would be akin to an adult having sex with a giant.

Is this the 'you can have sex with preteens as long as you have a small penis' argument because that's what it sounds like.

>As a child's body physically can't process alcohol

Children don't have livers??

>And besides the physical side, there's also mental and social side to it as well: "do I have the piwer to stop this or regress it back to my own pace? Will it have consequences? Do I want this?"

You're making the same tired appeal without actually sorting it out. Yes, between infancy and adulthood there's gradual development of ability to consider and weigh consequences, we know this. This is why I'm not asking what the rational grounds for not allowing sex with infants are. The question is why are things like swimming, hiking in the woods/camping, contact sports, etc, allowed but not sex when sex is just as easy to understand as those things and less dangerous overall?

>who even would want to have sex with a child?

I don't know someone who is sexually attracted to them or something I would imagine what kind of question is that?

>That's not the argument. The was about endangering the public/others.

It was an analogy, not an argument. Don't be retarded.

>They are allowed to do many things that are far more dangerous than sex

Such as?

>where's the line and on a consistent rational basis how do you determine that line?

Based on long term damage caused compared to potential benefit. When something is more beneficial than it is risky, we consider it okay.

>That's the point of the thread and not one of you has actually addressed it.

Maybe because you never asked that? You're moving the goalposts from "What are the reasons kids can't have sex" to "Why are certain things considered okay while sex isn't", without defining what those things even are.

>It was an analogy, not an argument.

In this context, an analogy is a type of argument. But more to the point, your analogy was wrong.

>Such as?

I've mentioned this several times including the OP I don't why you are being so dense. See pic related.

>When something is more beneficial than it is risky, we consider it okay.

Is this some sort of poorly thought-out utilitarian argument? Is there any recreational activity that it 'beneficial' in the way you mean it?

>You're moving the goalposts from "What are the reasons kids can't have sex" to "Why are certain things considered okay while sex isn't",

Those aren't two different arguments. One entails the other.

>without defining what those things even are.

Did you even read the post you replied to?

>In this context, an analogy is a type of argument. But more to the point, your analogy was wrong.

The analogy wasn't incorrect, and I explained how it applied to the setting. Then you changed what the analogy was trying to say, and treated it like an argument saying that sex somehow endangers the public, despite no-one saying this.

>I've mentioned this several times including the OP I don't why you are being so dense. See pic related.

Accidental drowning deaths as a result of irresponsible behaviour are hardly a good example mate. Someone already addressed this earlier in the thread.

Try again.

>Is this some sort of poorly thought-out utilitarian argument? Is there any recreational activity that it 'beneficial' in the way you mean it?

Calling something poorly thought out doesn't make it so. For something to be allowed, it's positives have to outweigh it's negatives. Any recreational activity that gives pleasure with no real risk of serious long term harm is beneficial in the way I mean it.

You could have easily figured this out from reading my post though, instead of trying to strawman it into something it wasn't.

>Those aren't two different arguments. One entails the other.

They're entirely different questions. Them being related doesn't mean they're the same.

>Did you even read the post you replied to?

Apparently not, care to quote the part where you defined what they are?

>The analogy wasn't incorrect

It was completely incorrect. It went "children driving cars are like children having sex. Children driving cars endangers the public, children having sex endangers the pub- I mean themselves."

>Accidental drowning deaths as a result of irresponsible behaviour are hardly a good example mate.

Sex can be done either responsibly or irresponsibly as well. Not a useful qualification there.

> Someone already addressed this earlier

When?

> Any recreational activity that gives pleasure with no real risk of serious long term harm is beneficial in the way I mean it.

2 children die every single day in the United states from drowning, how many die from having sex? Which has more risks/negatives?

>They're entirely different questions. Them being related doesn't mean they're the same.

When you set out to define conditions upon which things become rights, its necessarily a part of the discourse that it be asked why some things are seen as meeting those conditions and not other comparable things.

>Apparently not, care to quote the part where you defined what they are?

"swimming, hiking in the woods/camping, contact sports, etc,"

>It was completely incorrect. It went "children driving cars are like children having sex. Children driving cars endangers the public, children having sex endangers the pub- I mean themselves."

Okay, so either you're pretending to be retarded, or you legitimately can't fucking read. That's not what it said at all.

>Sex can be done either responsibly or irresponsibly as well. Not a useful qualification there.

You're ignoring the fact that an accidental death in a non-harmful activity isn't the same as an activity that nearly always causes harm, no matter how responsible you are. Adults having responsible sex is irrelevant, as we're not talkng about adults having sex with other adults.

>When?

Literally the second post in your thread, right here Quote so you don't get confused and accidentally make up an argument
>2) Kids aren't fully conscious of their decisions - you wouldn't let 8 years old to take mortgage. As for your swimming analogy - most parents don't throw their kids into water and tell them "lol, swim", but rather they teach them how to swim or have an instructor to do it.

>2 children die every single day in the United states from drowning, how many die from having sex? Which has more risks/negatives?

Dying isn't the only way something can harm you mate. And once again, ignoring the difference between accidents, and inherent harmfulness.

>When you set out to define conditions upon which things become rights, its necessarily a part of the discourse that it be asked why some things are seen as meeting those conditions and not other comparable things.

No, it's not. You asked a question, then when it was answered, moved the goalposts to somethign else. Then when that was answered, started trying to strawman and rationalise how apparently an accidental death that is very fucking rare is the same as something that in almost guaranteed to happen.

You said it was your original point, not one you made late in the thread.

Because it pisses off moral fags.

>inherent harmfulness
God forbid science contradicts orthodoxy.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rind_et_al._controversy

Childhood development with regards to the brain is such that before and during adolescence children don't have the physical capacity to make abstract decisions or reckon their consequences. The age of consent is honestly pushing it as it is. Kids really don't think on more than a concrete daily level until they're almost adults. Their minds literally don't allow it.