/fringe/ - Fringe

1. The problem of the "individual".

An individual is a person. Children are persons. An anatomically correct person can experience sexual sensations. Hence a child can experience sexual sensations. Sexual sensations are considered as pleasurable by the person experiencing them in the majority of instances. (There are some rare cases in which a person feels emotional pain seemingly as a result of sexual sensations. But this is more likely the result of aversive associations with sex - caused by perhaps a traumatic sexual experience, and not by the sexual sensations themselves.) Hence a child can derive pleasure from sexual sensations. If they do not appear as pleasurable, it is in fact other sensations which are confounded with the sexual sensation, such as the aversive feeling which is induced by unwanted force. Force is the undesirable sensation, and not sex itself. There is no sensible reason why the individual, which includes the child, must not experience pleasurable sensations that he is biologically capable of experiencing.

"It is harmful," the reader might respond. "Surely you agree that sex between a young person and an adult is harmful."

"Harm" includes emotional and physical harm. What type of harm is caused by sexual sensations? Obviously it is not physical harm, because people have sex all the time without experiencing physical harm. Physical harm may exist alongside sex, but it is not sex itself. Is it emotional harm, then? But in fact, it is contradictory that a sensation which is emotionally pleasurable can be emotionally harmful. And as I have shown above, sexual sensations are pleasurable sensations.

"But it causes delayed emotional harm," the reader will suggest. "It may not have caused harm when it happened, but in the future it is very likely to cause emotional harm."

This means that, after a person indulges in the sexual act, he might experience emotional harm in the future, perhaps as a fully developed adult, because he was "too young" when he engaged in that activity. There is no delayed emotional harm resulting from sex. There is simply no evidence that sex induces deferred emotional harm. It is always the use of force which is made use of alongside the sexual act which causes the delayed emotional harm - it is never sex itself. Force and sexual sensations are being confused. Sexual sensations, which are pleasurable, are, by the very definition of "pleasurable", not harmful. What might be harmful are acts which occur concombitantly with the sexual act, such as force, coercion, inter alia. The experience of sexual sensations, being a sensation of pleasure, is not itself harmful.

"But sex between one of non-consenting age and an adult is necessarily coercive," replies the reader. "Therefore, it is harmful - whether the harm be delayed or no."

This leads us to the second problem.

2. The problem of "consent".

Our reader seems to believe that children cannot consent. But children can consent. Consent consists merely of "I do", or "Yes." It is irrational to believe that children cannot "consent". It is clear that, in this sense, the child can consent to sex just as easily as anybody else can.

"Technically, yes, children can consent. But they can also consent to things which are harmful to them. Thus, they must informedly consent. The age of consent is the age at which one can make an informed decision. This is what we mean by age of consent."

Of course. But can an adult not consent to something which can harm him? Is he not capable of making an uninformed decision? Must the adult, therefore, be refused all sex, because it is possible he will make an uninformed decision?

"Of course adults can make uninformed decisions, but surely you cannot deny that there is a correlation between informedness and age. And the correlation is such that the adult is far more informed about decisions concerning sex than the child."

It has not been denied that there is a correlation between informedness and age. But what is the child not informed about - about which he needs to be informed - to be able properly to have sex? Why can he not be informed about this? Are his mental faculties really that defective?

"What is there in sex that he is not informed about that he needs to be informed about? Protection from sexually transmitted diseases. Rapists. Etc. Can a child be informed about these? No."

First: The sexually transmitted disease is not such a difficult concept to get one's mind round. In the Netherlands, for example, children as young as eleven are fully informed about this. It is purely an educational matter. What is more, the type of relationship about which we are speaking is not a one-sided one: the adult ought to use "protection" as well. Everyone on Earth can, and must, be informed about "protection". If the adult did not use "protection", would you say that he would not be informed, and therefore cannot consent to sex? By your own logic you must admit this. And what about before there was a significant problem with sexually transmitted diseases, hundreds of years ago? Or in some isolated culture, in which there is no history of sexually trasmitted diseases? The child would not need to be informed about STDs in such examples (even though, given education, he certainly can).

Third: As regards rape, is my informedness about it going to change anything? If someone is going to prey upon me in an alley, it makes no difference how "informed" I am about the concept of rape. The key is not how informed one is about the existence of rape (though that certainly is desirable), but how to avoid dangerous situations. The child must therefore be carefully guarded by his parents. And he must be educated about, and thereby protected from, the dangers of the world, including rape, by his parents.

Second: I suspect that you are once again thinking about the "correlation between informedness and age". Sexually transmitted diseases aside, a child no more needs to be informed about sex to enjoy sex than he needs to be informed about poetry to enjoy poetry. For indulging in both is a pleasurable experience. It is not as if he will suddenly be harmed by poetry if he is not "informed" about rhythm, meter, the anapest, etc. And the same is true (perhaps truer) with music. Sex, like enjoying music, is a pleasurable sensation. There is no inherent harm with it, irrespective of the person's age who partakes in it. There is harm involved in force - and this must be stressed - but not sex itself.

Third: If there is not a particular age at which a person develops the informedness at which he can consent to sexual contact, then age of consent, whatever it may be, is arbitrary.

"And I have no problem with admitting that. But still, though I can admit that the age of consent is arbitrary, it is used to protect children who cannot defend themselves, who generally have not the informedness to consent, and is therefore laudable."

But what about "sex play" between two children? Do you disapprove of that as well? Is it harmful, too? The children are not "informed", even in such cases (what would they have to be informed about?); and by your reasoning it must be harmful, and punished severely.

"It is not harmful because an adult is not involved in it."

And thus we arrive at problem number three.

3. The problem of the "adult".

The adult is falsely defined as a lustful being with an obsession with sex, and will only get it by means of coercion and force. It is for this reason that all sex between adults and young persons is perceived as harmful, because the adult is coercive, etc. However, if this were the case, all sex between any adult would involve at the very least coercion. But this is not the case. In the majority of instances, sex does not involve coercion, but on the contrary involves "mutual consent".

"I cannot agree with that. But even if you are right, by engaging in the sexual act, the child loses thereby his innocence. That is wrong in itself, regardless of whether he feels harm or not."

Thus do we get to the fourth problem.

4. The problem with "childhood innocence".

The principal defect of this concept is that it implies that sexuality is a "sin", and that children are "innocent" because they have not as yet indulged in this "sin". The singularly Christian notion of "childhood innocence" is a vestige of our anti-sexual heritage which reached a high point, in many aspects, in the Victorian era. Its origin can be traced to the 1700s. It is a highly irrational notion, and I need not attempt to refute it. For the burden of proof is not on the Author, that sexuality is a sin. I have yet to see an argument that sexuality is a sin, and hence have nothing to refute. I have only come across dogmatic assertions, mainly in the form of religion, of the sinfulness of sexuality and "childhood innocence" (which is implicit in the notion of the sinfulness of sexuality).

Such are my reasons for advocating the abolition of "Age of Consent".

Every instance of perceived emotional harm by sex, is not in fact emotional harm by sex, or the result of being "too young"; it is caused by force, by coercion, coupled with the sexual act. If there were no force, no coercion, I guarantee that there would not have been any harm whatsoever.

I therefore advocate strengthening rape laws, abolishing Age of Consent laws.

Interesting, but why are you posting this on /fringe/? I think if it were not for our laws, many adults would admit attraction to people starting at age 13 or 14. That attraction is not only denied but reduced by our laws and culture. It makes sense to me to allow sex between two youngsters, but it's quite different with somebody in their 20's approaching somebody in their low teens. The human brain doesn't finish developing until around age 25, and so judgment is extremely poor during the teenage years. It's one thing for two people with poor judgment to get together, but when somebody whose brain and judgment are complete has intercourse with somebody undeveloped with poor judgment, the teen is being taken advantage of fully. They are capable of basic consent, but their judgment is so poor that their consent is meaningless. I don't blame you for being attracted to them, but if you wanted teen pussy you should have gotten it during high school when you had an even playing field with them. Becoming a parent yields significant instinctual changes in one's psyche and outlook, I think if you ever have kids you will better understand why our laws are so protective of children.

>>105277

Exactly. People of poor judgement should get together as much as possible. It's a time in life meant for learning. Getting teenage pussy as an adult, although it's a biologically normal thing to desire, it's also irresponsible at the very least.

Besides, it's x100 more magical when you're a teenage as well. I'd rather be with a level headed adult woman these days.

This is not a topic that is suitable for /fringe/ at all btw.

>>105277

You look from an emotional perspective. When two children have secual relation it is always harmful, because both are ignorant and foolish and will end up harming each other. When adult and child enter sexual relationship it is always harmful because it is the adult using the child for sexual purposes. In the latter case the fault is not sex but the purpose of the relationship. Sexual intercourse as a result of a long term dmotionally invested relationship where at the very least the dominant party truly cares about the recessive party is not inherently bad. That being that if we assume the adult legitimately cares for the child and that the sex arises as a result of the relationship there is no harm.

However the modern economic and social structures of the western world do not and cannot allow for this due to a variety of circumstances I need not explain.

As long as society and the state of civilization does not change these laws will not change. But you are only bound by the laws given those who wish to enforce them have both the knowledge of your non compliance and the ability to capture you, and that you are within their jurisdiction. Given that, you could just move if this is a personal issue for you. If this is not a personal issue and you are emotionally invested in the laws of others you are a fool.

>>105282

I had sex as a "child" with a girl my age and it was a fun and exciting learning experience, not a big deal.

Although I've seen the occasional 14 yo girl with 30 yo man relationship work, when making laws you need to legislate for everyone, so you have to account for the majority of cases, in which such a relationship may end in fucking up the girl's life with stupid decisions.

Laws cannot be customized, so they must account for the lowest common denominator.

>>105282

>When two children have secual relation it is always harmful, because both are ignorant and foolish and will end up harming each other.

As it should be. That's how you learn to be an adult, by fucking up while growing up. Otherwise you end up with 30 year old pampered snowflakes who know nothing about relating to other human beings (and 30 year old virgins who still want to fuck teenagers but could not manage to keep the relationship healthy because they lack the experience).

>>105282

>If this is not a personal issue and you are emotionally invested in the laws of others you are a fool.

>caring about your community is foolish

This is what I was talking about when I mentioned parenthood. Emotional investment in children's lives is not the same if you haven't experienced the instinct.

>>105287

Laws have nothing to do with ibdividual communities. That's not how legal systems work, and it hadn't been for hundreds of years. What country do you live in that does not have federal legislation decided by bureaucrats based soley on its ability to improve the lives of the controlling minority? You live in a fantasy world in your own mind.

>>105300

Are you implying that there are no laws that serve the majority of a community's people?

>>105302

There is no community which benefits the individual.

>>105304

Blanket statements with no justifications, examples, reasoning, etc. are (hopefully still) not what /fringe/ is about. Please explain.

Not going to read all that, OP. Nice mind drivel, though. You get an A+ for effort.

It comes down to Yin and Yang. Yang is the growth principle. Children are full of Yang energy that's why men are drawn to them. This all changes at puberty and the girls begin to become Yin dominant. Yin is stagnant water and gross. That's why society is no longer advancing, not enough Yang injection. The Yin will falter and collapse on itself.

Inside your bodies you have both Yang and Yin of course and can nurture both to remain eternally youthful, something pubertal cunts will never understand nor could likely attain since they are truly the disposable gender lacking the essence of resurrection.

>>105284

>I put my undeveloped yang pee-pee in a pond and got it wet, weee!! but introduced an invasive species now the flora is suboptimal

>, not a big deal

>>105304

>>105282

>an imposter Taoist is detected

>a pond can't be cultivated and given cool waterfalls and stuff

Semen from heaven has other meanings but I am referring to genetic contribution.

This is my last post with this flag here in this thread.

Watch out for subjective moralistic imposters!

>>105460

>>105462

>>105463

Cringe

Virgin alert LOL!