I'm definitely no stranger to the sheer stupidity that a large part of the human race espouses on a daily bases due to the fact that I spend too much time on the internet, but the arguments and/or statements that are made regarding the topic and concept of the ''Age of Consent'' especially in regards to sexual consent, may just be some of the most retarded and asinine assertions I have ever seen in my entire life. I have so much retardation to work through and refute that there will probably be a part 2. However, after I am done with the refutation, I will then need to provide my own arguments/solutions for this issue, which probably won't take near as long as the refutation.
The first thing that everyone needs to understand before there is even a serious discussion or debate about this, is what CONSENT actually is. The reason that the vast majority of people make clowns out of themselves when they attempt to speak about this subject, is because they simply don't understand what consent is or more precisely, what is required to consent to sex or anything else for that matter. As far as definitions go, consent simply means to agree or to give permission for something to occur. This doesn't delve into the actual nature of consent or it's actual requirements though, which is obviously the most important thing.
Most people have gotten their idea of consent, especially sexual consent, from the ''Government'' and it's ''laws'' and that pretty much guarantees that they don't have a fucking clue what actual consent is in reality. Most people consent or agree to something every single day but don't seem to even realize since the process of consent isn't complex at all and is usually done subconsciously. Despite people acting like it is when it comes to sex (only non-adults though) it's still simple. The truth is, consent is a very simple MENTAL process that only requires sufficient cognitive/intellectual capabilities so that the person can conceptualize and comprehend information or knowledge about the action or activity they are engaging in or will engage in.
To give a simple example, if someone hasn't played basketball before and wants to engage in and consent to that activity, someone or something presents them with information and knowledge about that activity, they listen to or read about it, and if they successfully comprehend or conceptualize it, they can and probably will consent or agree to it. Then the action will follow, but consenting to something and performing the physical action that is required to engage in an activity are two separate things. The latter's requirement is obviously sufficient physical development.
Obviously, sex and basketball are a little different since sex requires a special urge and desire that doesn't develop until puberty and also the fact that sex has certain serious risks attached to it in most cases. So, before I get into a long misanthropic rant (that will probably happen in the future) or ramble on too much longer about things I don't need to ramble on about, I will begin the analysis, dissection, and refutation of pure retardation. Enjoy and let's get started:
THE LEGAL ARGUMENT
Since most of the people who view this will probably be voluntaryists and anarchists, I SHOULD NOT need to go into too much depth on this but since a lot (probably most) people who claim to be those two things are actually not either of those things and still support some particular aspect of ''Government'' or '' The State'', I feel incredibly compelled to do a detailed breakdown of the God-Tier retardation this type of thinking contains.
I should first point out that the people who have initially made these claims DO NOT actually make any of the latter arguments I will go over. The politicians/lawmakers who initially created the ''laws'' or ''legal'' assertions, do not make any arguments or claims about these things other than the ones that assert that you are obligated to follow them and will face physical consequences if you don't. These are simply ridiculous claims/assertions (and argumentum ad baculum if the latter is used as an argument) since no one legitimately consented to these rules.
I could go into more detail on that but I feel like it's a waste of time for now, especially since most people that see this will likely understand that part of Anarchism or Voluntaryism. Now, everything else I'm about to go into, are arguments that people make about these ''laws'' or rules, which are pretty much devoid of any substance and pretty fucking boring.
Here we go, '' Minors or people under 18 can't consent to sex legally or mentally''. This is so error-laden that it's hilarious. First, a ''Minor'' is a word made up by people (I can do that too) in suits and calling people that, does not mean they can't consent to sex or anything else for that matter; it obviously has nothing to do with actual consent itself. Second, the people making this claim are referring to the term ''Minor'' as a reference to another made up ''legal'' term called the ''Age of Majority''. The reason why this is retarded (other than the obvious aforementioned reason) is due to the fact that the ''Age of Majority'' is something that is completely separate from yet another made up ''legal'' term, which is the almighty and scientifically verifiable (far from it) ''Age of Consent''.
The ''Age of Majority'' is when someone is considered a ''Legal Adult'' and can vote, but it's separate from the ''Age of Consent'' and has nothing to do with when someone can ''legally'' consent to sex. If you actually look into it, you will find out that most states have the ''Age of Consent'' laws at 16 years of age and the rest are 17 and 18. In some other countries, it's even lower like 14 in Germany. There is also another made up and void ''legal'' term known as the ''Close-in-Age Exemption'' that is for people under the ''Age of Consent'' who want to have sex with someone in a tight age range of 2-3 years (14/17 yr. old).
There is also the fact that all three of these ''laws'' vary from state to state and from country to country and by the logic of people that make these arguments, if someone lived in a state where the ''Age of Majority'' is 18 and then they moved to some place like Mississippi, Alabama, or many provinces in Canada, where the ''Age of Majority'' is 21 and 19, they would suddenly not be able to consent. When it comes to actual consent and not the arbitrary ''legal'' version, this is obviously completely asinine and God-Tier retardation. People's cognitive capacity and capability does not magically increase or decrease just because they move from one spot on the earth to another, in case you didn't know.
I'm really getting tired of rambling on about made-up words that have absolutely no relevance to reality in terms of science or logic, so I'm going to go ahead and destroy this entire pile of clown fuckery by asking a simple question. Is there any actual scientific evidence behind any of these claims that demonstrates that someone doesn't possess or loses the cognitive/intellectual capability to consent to sex as soon as they fall below one of these certain ages?
No, there is not a single goddamn scientifically rigorous (or otherwise) study behind any of this made up fuckery, which means making claims like this is just retarded since they can't be backed up with any actual evidence that is obviously required for such extraordinary claims like this. Yes, claiming someone can't consent is an EXTREMELY extraordinary claim that at the very least requires strong inductive evidence, but the claims that are usually made about this require deductive proof due to how those claims are usually presented, which is impossible to provide considering the nature of this issue but I'll get into that later on.
In summary, trying to use words that politicians have made up as arguments or part of your argument as a premise never works out well, logically speaking. Making claims about someone not being able to consent and basing that claim on words politicians have made up never works out well, especially when you then are unable to provide any actual evidence for that claim because the evidence required for such a claim doesn't exist since all of the ''laws'' those people have made up are not based on actual evidence or reason, only on baseless assertions and scribbling convoluted nonsense on pieces of paper.
THE CONSENTING ADULTS ONLY ARGUMENT
This one is definitely a top contender for the most retarded argument out of all of the ones that are made about this issue. The first thing that everyone needs to understand is the reality of what an actual ''Adult'' is and also the reality of what an actual ''Child'' to a smaller degree. It doesn't seem like a lot of people even know that a real and objective adult is just someone who is physically grown and developed, physically and biologically speaking of course.
It seems that the most commonly used version of 'Adulthood'' is the supremely retarded ''legal'' version, which is not based on actual science or objective human development and isn't even consistent across all the areas of the world where the retarded ''Age of Majority'' laws exist. Scientifically speaking, someone is a biological Adult when they reach sexual maturity or are able to produce children, but there is also the fact that the human brain doesn't fully develop until the mid-twenties (23-25 depending on the study you look at), which is an important part of being a real adult.
There are also several different but arbitrary social/cultural definitions of ''Adulthood'' that are based on financial independence or some arbitrary ritual or activity. Obviously, the definition that you want to go with is the one that has the strongest scientific backing to it and the one that aligns with objective reality the most, which would be the first definition I went over in combination with scientific facts that are relevant to being fully developed across all areas of the body. One of and the most important scientific fact to note in this discussion is that the brain is the last part of the human body to fully develop, which means that sexual maturity and outer body growth has already been attained.
This means that someone isn't an objective adult until their mid-twenties, but that is almost completely irrelevant to the overall issue and the only reason I'm explaining this is to expose how retarded the above argument truly is and to also save time in the future. When most people make the argument of ''Consenting Adults Only'' in regards to sex, they are mostly referring to the legal version of Adulthood, which again, is not relevant or based in objective reality or science since nothing of biological significance or topic-relevance happens at the age of 18 (or 19 0r 21) and humans also aren't fully developed at that age either.
In actual reality, in order for the aforesaid argument to hold any legitimacy whatsoever, the person making it is going to have to provide evidence that someone's cognitive capacity and capability takes a significant and drastic hit as soon as they cease to become an objective adult. This is the only way this argument would hold any logical weight and not be completely retarded. For anyone who has a rudimentary understanding of human development or biology, arguments like these are obviously beyond asinine and are wild claims that at the very least require strong inductive evidence based on an individual's overall behavioral performance and bodily competence.
So yes, unless you want to hold the retarded position above, you are going to have to hold the position that Adults can legitimately have sex with certain children or ''children'' in terms of biology. Obviously, biological children who haven't reached puberty or sexual maturity can't legitimately consent or even want to because they don't have a sex drive or a desire for sex. ''Children'', teenagers, or Adolescents if you prefer, can if they have the sufficient cognitive ability that's required to consent to sex or anything else. Yes, there are retarded arguments against this that will be addressed and thoroughly refuted.
In summary, using the absolutist argument of ''Consenting Adults Only'' when it comes to sex is clearly retarded unless you can provide evidence that shows that someone's cognitive ability/capacity decreases drastically as soon as they cease to become an adult. You obviously can't since that evidence doesn't exist, especially in a deductive sense. Inductively speaking, someone's overall behavior and bodily performance would have to be very poor (similar to a small prepubescent child, a clinically retarded person, or very drunk person) and would have to present significant and relevant practical consequences in order for a strong inductive case to be made for someone not being able to consent.
APPEAL TO ADULTISM/APPEAL TO NOUNS
I'm gonna try not to make this as long as the other two because it's not worth it due to the sheer idiocy and simplicity of this argument. This fallacious argument is just appealing to single words, labels, or nouns to be precise. The exact labels or nouns that are being appealed to in this instance are ''Adult'' and on the other side of things, ''Child''. The people that make this terrible argument state that someone can't consent simply because they possess or are given the label or ''Child'' and they require the label of ''Adult'' in order to consent.
This is obviously ridiculous because the deciding factor in whether someone can consent or not has nothing to do with a noun or label they possess or do not possess. It has to do with the individual's cognitive capabilities and whether or not they are sufficient for informed consent. The closest that you can get to creating an actual valid and sound argument is using the biological definition of the word child and adult since that would mean that there is a valid and scientific reason why someone can't consent behind that definition.
The argument wouldn't be based solely on the words ''Child'' and ''Adult'' though, but would be based on aforementioned scientific facts that demonstrate a person's objective inability to consent due to the fact that there is a crucial biological function missing from such an individual that produces an intrinsic lack of desire to engage in sexual activity. Before I end this section, I want to point out another context where this type of retardation was deployed. This was the same terrible thinking that was used back when certain people claimed women couldn't vote simply because they were ''Women'' and weren't ''Men''. If someone could've provided evidence that showed women didn't possess the mental/cognitive ability to understand or comprehend political matters, then it would've been justified in restricting their right now to vote just like it's completely reasonable to restrict an infant's or animal's right to vote.
AGE-GAP/POWER DIFFERENTIAL ARGUMENT
This one is a little off topic and involves a particular type of relationship but it's so common, relevant to the overall discussion, and highly retarded that I just have to go over it. The first thing I want to go over is the fact that power differentials and dynamics exist in pretty much every relationship to some degree or another and are not inherently evil or even harmful in any way. Power or ability alone is a neutral or amoral thing that only turns into something immoral or harmful if the person with that power uses it in a way that actually causes harm to someone. Yes, that is also true when the power differential is extremely large.
So many people like to use the argument of '' That relationship is immoral and harmful because there is a power differential/dynamic'' when they see relationships that have a large age gap, especially when the younger person isn't perceived as an ''Adult'' by them, which is usually based in all of the ''legal'' retardation I've gone over before. However, if you are going to deploy that logic and want to be consistent with it, you are also going to have to extend it to parent-child relationships since that relationship has the largest power differential/dynamics of any other relationships. It will also apply to numerous other relationships that have power disparities, whether small or large. I could list an hour's worth of examples, but I think the absurdity of this argument is clearly exposed.
Now, does any of this have anything to do with consent and whether or not someone can consent to a relationship like this or not? No, it amounts to a non-sequitur when used as an argument, since the mere existence or non-existence of a power or ability disparity in a relationship is completely irrelevant to consent and to someone's ability to consent. Once again, an individual's cognitive capacity and capabilities are what determines whether they can consent to something or not. The only thing that could possibly have any relevance to consent when it pertains to this type of interaction, is if the person with more power/ability uses that to coerce or unjustly manipulate someone into the relationship or into something else. Obviously, that compromises someone mentally and makes it impossible for THEM to give actual consent to the relationship. That is an issue that has to do with certain types of individuals, it is not inherent or automatically the case in these types of interactions or relationships, even though certain severely retarded people like to assume it is without any evidence of the older party acting in a coercive or as they often put it ''predatory'' manner.
THE BRAIN DEVELOPMENT ARGUMENT
''They can't consent because their brain isn't fully developed'' This is usually how this argument is made and I have already touched on this in the previous sections but I'm going to go into further detail in order to fully expose the ridiculousness of this argument. When people talk about someone's brain not being fully developed they are usually referring to a specific part of the brain called the pre-frontal cortex, which is the part of the brain that is responsible for supporting things like high impulse control and good decision making. The one thing people should understand is that something like IQ or overall intellect is largely separate from this and that someone can still be highly intellectual/intelligent, even more so than an older fully developed person, and still have an underdeveloped pre-frontal cortex.
Another thing that is important to understand is that just because someone's pre-frontal cortex isn't fully developed, doesn't mean that they are completely incapable or don't have the capacity to make good choices or that they can't control their negative or unwise urges. This seems to be a common myth among certain people that love to make this argument but it's obviously false once you realize that if that were true there would be chaos everywhere by everyone under the ages of 23-25. Human behavior and psychology are obviously far more complicated than this, especially when you look at the overall output of behavior from people in their 30's, 40's, and even older. Many of these people act far more irresponsible, impulsively, and immaturely than people in their early 20's and even a lot of teenagers (probably most).
Why do they act that way if their brain is supposedly fully developed? The details are complicated and even unknown in a lot of cases but when you look and learn about the environments these types of people grow up in and often stay in through their whole life, it's pretty obvious. Growing up in an environment that is both poor economically and morally speaking, contains violence both in the household and the neighborhood, contains hard street drugs, has street gangs roaming around nearby, and has the majority of the population in that community behaving just as poorly as the individual will when they grow up in an environment like this, will more than likely produce a completely dysfunctional person that will miss out on the positive effects of a fully developed brain either because of brain damage, arrested brain developed, or the effects being overriden by social conditioning from their environment.
Now that that's out of the way, now we can get into the actual argument. So can someone with an underdeveloped brain consent to sex or anything else? Well, if you haven't figured it out yet, the most important thing to look at when trying to determine that, are the actual practical effects or consequences (or lack-there-of) that are presented through someone's overall behavior and actions. Obviously, this is the important thing here and just spewing out incomplete arguments like ''their brain isn't fully developed'' gets us nowhere and requires another premise that is about the actual consequences of that condition.
So, let's say we have someone who isn't going to have a fully developed brain until 25 but they are an average 24-year-old who comes from a healthy environment right now. If we take that person and then take an average 25-year-old who also comes from a healthy environment and is fully developed, and observe their overall behavior in terms of their choices and actions, are we going to see any major differences? Well, I'm not sure since there haven't been any studies on this, but according to the geniuses that make the aforesaid argument, the 24-year-old can't consent but they need evidence to back this up and saying ''their brain isn't fully developed'' isn't evidence of their lack of ability to consent it is evidence their brain matter isn't as large as the 25-year-old.
In terms of the quality of the evidence or proof that is needed, deductively speaking, it's impossible to prove that ANYONE can or cannot due to the fact that technology in the field of neuroscience isn't even close to being at the point where it can provide a detailed analyzes of someone's brain and definitively prove what a person can or can't comprehend on a cognitive/intellectual level. In terms of inductive evidence, which is what we have to go with, it obviously needs to be as strong as it possibly can, which means accurately ascertaining the quality of people's behavior is paramount. The second thing that is paramount after that is understanding the logical consequences of making the judgment that certain individuals can't consent.
For example, saying that it's reasonable to assume that someone can't consent because they immature or are making poor choices in their life on a financial and personal level, will mean that many people (not just young underdeveloped people) will have to have their freedom taken away if we wish to be logically consistent. This obviously doesn't just apply to young people who aren't fully developed but will also apply to the types of people I wrote about near the beginning of this section and probably many other people in the general population. From a voluntaryist perspective, this is total absurdity, a deplorable position to hold, and not an argument we want to standby.
I could go on from here but I need to save some stuff for the article I'm going to write about my own arguments and solutions for this issue, but you can see what I just wrote as a teaser. Before I end this, I would like to go back to the hypothetical I gave about the 24 and 25-year-olds so I can finish refuting the original argument. If it is true or at least reasonable to assume that someone can't consent if their brain isn't fully developed, then the overall behavior of someone who isn't fully developed and someone who is should be drastically and noticeably different. Has there ever been any strong evidence towards that of any kind? No, and linking studies that are done about the pre-frontal cortex not being fully developed aren't evidence because those studies aren't about the practical consequences of having an underdeveloped brain or whether or not someone can still consent to certain activities or not. They don't even have the word ''consent'' in them.
Yes, I realize that brain development and human development overall is a continuum, but the reason I'm only going one year below the fully developed mark is because that is all that it takes to refute an absolutist argument like that. I have actually addressed other ages below that when I was rambling about earlier about people being brought up in certain environments and the logical consequences of saying people who are immature and make bad life choices, but that was indirectly and not fully addressing it like I plan to do in the future.