Pornography(18+)

[Amelius]

I'm curious as to what Stef's views are on pornography.In a recent podcast, Stef mentioned how he's perceived as a Victorian(puritan), and how some of his conclusions(like dating between people with vast age gaps, especially when one partner is below 18) might seem to be too conservative.He recently stated that he will be doing a podcast on sexuality. I hope he tackles the issue of pornography.Also, in the above mentioned podcast, Stef seemed to have no ethical issues with masturbation; yet I would like to know what he thinks of pornography, as most masturbatory practices involve some consumption of pornographic material, I would assume.What are your thoughts on the subject of pornography? It does not violate the NAP; so, what's your take on it? 

[vze57564]

I think he was ok with it so long as you dont use it as a crutch for a deeper emotional issue or as a proxy for a real relationship with another person. There is a tradeoff between working yourself and being in a relationship and being too much into one weakens your abilities with the other.

 

The Victorian thing was a joke when the guy cursed.

 

As for the age gap, that is necessarily the determinant for understanding consequences and the meaning of your actions. Such that Paul Walker was with underage (16) year olds, it was determined she does not understand fully what she is doing in that relationship. As her mind still needs to mature, while she has all the hardware to do it, the software in terms of maturity is not there and thus making Paul to be the bad guy, since he is using his status to manipulate the child. She was responding to a biological urge without reference to what any of it meant outside of thst context, which is a problem.

[MysterionMuffles]

I would love to hear his thoughts on it too in a more elaborate podcast about it in particular.

 

I personally think that it's not immoral to watch porn because you are watching two or 10 consensual adults engaging in sex acts. Yes it preys on people with troubled childhoods and that's how they get them into it, and just be concious that that's the market you're supporting when it comes to consuming porn.

 

The level of trauma is very apparent when you can contrast between girls who only masturbate or sometimes scissor with other girls, in comparison to hardcore artists that are into spanking and being choked (and not just with hands!)

 

As for masturbation, before high speed internet, I always had my own imagination and natural urges so I dont think porn is really neccessary. Especially if you're a teenage boy with that stuff on your mind all the time, you dont need an external visual to get you off if you've got the imaginative capacities. In that case no one in reality is getting hurt, except for you of course because you're gonna end up with hairy palms!

[vze57564]

You might get blind or lose an eye too.

[PatrickC]

10 consensual adults engaging in sex acts.

 

My God MM!! Where?

[Kevin Beal]

Stef actually goes into this in the Xmas eve call in show. He thinks it's interesting and doesn't have any particular problem with it generally speaking.

 

2568 – The Truth is a Bomb - Christmas Eve Call In Show December 24th, 2013

http://cdn.media.freedomainradio.com/feed/FDR_2568_Christmas_Eve_Show_24_Dec_2013.mp3

[vze57564]

My God MM!! Where?

My God MM!! Where?

He must be into that hardcore shit.

[dsayers]

As for the age gap, that is necessarily the determinant for understanding consequences and the meaning of your actions. Such that Paul Walker was with underage (16) year olds, it was determined she does not understand fully what she is doing in that relationship. As her mind still needs to mature, while she has all the hardware to do it, the software in terms of maturity is not there and thus making Paul to be the bad guy, since he is using his status to manipulate the child. She was responding to a biological urge without reference to what any of it meant outside of thst context, which is a problem.

How do you know? I'm not arguing that there's not a point in somebody's life before which to engage them sexually would be taking advantage of them. How do you know that it's 16? It seems to me that if the natural world has us developing in this manner in our early teens, but our perception of sexual maturity is in our late teens, that our perceptions must give way to reality.If we are propagandized into believing that taxation is not theft, we are likely to perpetuate this lie to the point of it being accepted by most as immune to scrutiny. A self-fulfilling prophecy if you will. Similarly, if we are propagandized into thinking that sex is something we are not ready for until years after our bodies are ready, we will perpetuate this to the point of no longer even thinking about it.Predation stems from abuse. I would argue that to deny somebody else the use of their body to satisfy the needs that they have is abuse. Prohibition is not an effective alternative to education and understanding. If you teach your child consequences of actions, a lesson they are amenable to at a VERY young age, they won't stuff their faces with just cake. They won't make a habit of sexual activity outside of a meaningful relationship. And they'll take the necessary precautions when they do.In regards to the topic itself, there can be tons of misuses of porn that are invisible even to the consumer. But it is not inherently immoral. Like any other guilty pleasure we might have, self-knowledge and moderation are the key ingredients.I remember when I was a young teen, I used pornography for the purpose of objectifying women. Present day, my preferences tend more towards the more "romantic" content that portrays people enjoying a shared experience that happens to include their bodies. Oddly enough (or maybe it's not so odd), self-knowledge has dramatically changed what appeals to me whether it's in music, movies, and even porn.

[Pepin]

It certainly isn't a matter of ethics, which is to say you cannot use force against someone for involving themselves with pornography or the porn industry. I really don't know where I stand on this issue, there is a lot of complexity. At the moment, I think my opinion is similar to my stance on drugs in that it isn't necessarily unhealthy, but that it can be. 

[vze57564]

DSayers:

 

The deal with age of consent is very tough.  I have heard it argued that some girls do know the consequences of their actions at a younger age than the age of consent, defined as between 16-18 depending on which states you go to.  It has been a very contentious issue in the manosphere over some cases where for example a man who was legally retarded was still hit with a statutory charge, after being seduced by a teenager, despite him being 20 years old.  Who's is to say she did not know what she is doing?

 

Still we can look to common law and community standards and realize that there is an age that is too young to go and have sexual relationships with.  There also has to be an accounting for the age gap, regarding life experience and maturity.  What kind of life can one build together if the man is 30 and the woman is still in high school?  I can't necessarily think of any conclusive test I can apply that says at a certain age, one is mature enough to realize what their actions are.  Another thing I can think of though is that brain development does not stop until 25 and you cannot legally enter into contracts until you're 18 or so.  Perhaps age of consent is outdated or may need some changing, still, there has to be some kind of boundary else you will have folks trolling day cares or something like that.  

 

As for objectifying women, that is part of feminist vocabulary, whereas the criticism is leveled that because men ogle women in a sexual manner that they are an object.  Women are not objects, they are partners.  We look to them to make love or to have companionship with, but feminists have poisoned male sexuality such that they make it appear shameful or lesser than female sexuality.  Look at any romance novel and see the different fantastical depictions of men as one can see in pop culture and media fantastical depictions of women.  It is meant to be enticing and a natural part of life to be attracted to the opposite sex (or the same if you go that way).  When they use objectifying that is merely to play into the victim mentality that Feminists like to pander to because they have not moved past a state of infantilization and like to be able to eschew adult responsibility when it suits their needs, while saying they are strong and independent women.  Long story short, you are not objectifying women when you look at porn, you are merely engaging your male sexuality in a healthy outlet.  Short of wanting to have absolute control over a woman's life, as one would if she were an actual object, you are not in any way objectifying a woman.

[MysterionMuffles]

My God MM!! Where?

 

I swear, aren't you using the internet to post here?

[dsayers]

What kind of life can one build together if the man is 30 and the woman is still in high school?

 

I don't think building a life is what's being discussed. While the potential for pregnancy is a great reason to make sexual decisions carefully, there's nothing that says all sexual interaction must be tantamount to a lifelong partnering.

 

With all due respect, you're approaching the subject as if it needs to be inflicted. As if there's an objective line to be drawn. I brought up physical maturity, but I accept that this is not the entire picture. If there is no objective line, it would have to be case by case.

 

The responsibility lies with the parents. The responsibility to educate. The responsibility to nurture to avoid creating somebody who is desperate for pleasure/physical contact. The responsibility of not abandoning their children.

[vze57564]

Fair enough, while not necessarily always leading to lifetime partnering, it can certainly become that way through a pregnancy, and then you will have to factor that in.

 

Could you define when you say I am approaching the subject as if it needs to be inflicted?  How would a case by case basis be superior? While I accept there may be certain cases where someone may be capable of understanding their actions at younger ages, and sometimes older than the age of maturity, that's not the case in a majority of issues.  While someone older may find someone in their mid or early teens attractive, by social standards it is frowned upon, since the assumption is that the younger person still has to grow up and learn more about the world before shacking up with another person in a relationship.

 

As for the parent's responsibility, I agree, the parents play a role in developing the child, and making sure that it is not codependent or seeking a relationship, sexual or otherwise, that is deleterious to it.

[dsayers]

Could you define when you say I am approaching the subject as if it needs to be inflicted?  How would a case by case basis be superior?

 

Well, you're speaking as if it's something we have to decide and apply to others. And who knows, maybe it is. I just thought it seemed like you were closed to the idea of laissez-faire or leaving it to the individual/parents.

 

I think case by case is more appropriate because it's a subjective solution to a subjective consideration. Age isn't synonymous with maturity. Not even in ballparks when you consider our innate empathy. Based on Stef's stories of his daughter, she's more mature as a 5 yo than my most potent abuser is at the age of 61.

[vze57564]

While she may be more mentally mature based on Stef's parenting style, what do you think is the likely consequence if one were to motion for a sexual relationship?

 

While age may not be synonymous with maturity, I think its the best barometer we have for making these kinds of decisions, barring some other measure of someone's mental maturity. I agree there are cases where the demarcation is not as clear cut, but that's what we got to work with.

[dsayers]

While she may be more mentally mature based on Stef's parenting style, what do you think is the likely consequence if one were to motion for a sexual relationship?

 

When? Where? Do you think that Stef would ever leave her in the care of somebody he didn't know? That he didn't talk to? That by way of his own self-knowledge, he'd be able to identify if the person was trustworthy or not? By time she's old enough for this to be a relevant conversation, she'll already have spent more than half her life being an emotionally developed, rational individual who has only been exposed to peaceful, loving, win-win negotiation based human interaction. At this point, she'll be better prepared to responsibly make decisions on the subject than people three times her age. Why would we bar her from self-ownership with arbitrary standards? Inversely, why would we base arbitrary standards on her to be imposed to other people that didn't fit the criteria yet?

 

In answer to your earlier question, notice the words you're choosing: "best barometer we have" "what we got to work with." You're speaking from the standpoint that it's ours to inflict onto others. I don't want to hand people 2+2=4. I'd rather hand them a 2 and a 2 and them be able to conclude 4 on their own. For moral consistency's sake.

[aFireInside]

This is what i think stef will say . 

--------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't think there is a moral case to make on this .  Its 

voluntary of course. 

 

But i would really question the persons need or want , 

to watch this. 

 

Do they not have negotiation skills to get a real women ? 

Do they prefer porn to a real women ? 

 

All these are important questions. 

--------------------------------------------------------------

[vze57564]

When? Where? Do you think that Stef would ever leave her in the care of somebody he didn't know? That he didn't talk to? That by way of his own self-knowledge, he'd be able to identify if the person was trustworthy or not? By time she's old enough for this to be a relevant conversation, she'll already have spent more than half her life being an emotionally developed, rational individual who has only been exposed to peaceful, loving, win-win negotiation based human interaction. At this point, she'll be better prepared to responsibly make decisions on the subject than people three times her age. Why would we bar her from self-ownership with arbitrary standards? Inversely, why would we base arbitrary standards on her to be imposed to other people that didn't fit the criteria yet?

 

In answer to your earlier question, notice the words you're choosing: "best barometer we have" "what we got to work with." You're speaking from the standpoint that it's ours to inflict onto others. I don't want to hand people 2+2=4. I'd rather hand them a 2 and a 2 and them be able to conclude 4 on their own. For moral consistency's sake.

Even with that, I doubt even Stef would let her on her own until she was at least 18 or so.  Ultimately, it is that person's choice whether they have a relationship and to take it to that level, but still, there has to be said something for taking that plunge when you're older and have more life experience under your belt.  Look at the problem teenage pregnancy has become.  It is looked down upon if a woman enters into a sexual relationship before a certain age, and especially if it results in a child.  There is an age and a time when people are best suited to have kids and get into sexual relationships, and I think it is better to err on the side of one being older than younger.  There are certain classes of people, like young children, that need guidance.  While you can give them the tools to do so, it is not without enough time being trained and guided that they can actually make something with them and be ready for the consequences of what that entails.  

[dsayers]

there has to be said something for taking that plunge when you're older and have more life experience under your belt.

 

This is a conclusion. I don't feel you've yet explained how you know that 1) this is a valid conclusion and 2) somebody who is capable of logic, reason, and accepting evidence would not arrive at a valid conclusion.

[vze57564]

First, I am not seeing how your second point needs explaining.  Why should I point out that?  What value does it add to the discussion if I explain how I know if someone capable of logic, reason and accepting evidence would not arrive at a valid conclusion?

 

Second, I have elucidated my reasons why the premise as to underage sex has been covered by both myself and the greater society around us.  There is already established by law an age of consent and an age of majority, where it can be reasonably assumed that a person knows their actions and can accept the consequences.  Barring extraordinary circumstances, we cannot expect children to understand what a sexual relationship is, or what that even entails.  Society is replete with examples whereas older people have been punished or at least shamed for engaging in sexual acts with younger people, thus making a demarcation line where such acts are tolerated or shunned.  

[dsayers]

You are promoting restriction over education. In order to do this (assuming you accept self-ownership and its universalization), you must believe that the conclusion that the restriction is based upon is valid AND that education would not lead one to a valid conclusion without restriction. In an attempt to make the discussion following the disagreement more efficient, I've challenged you to substantiate these.

 

There is already established by law an age of consent and an age of majority, where it can be reasonably assumed that a person knows their actions and can accept the consequences.

 

You mean that there are commands backed by threats of violence. This is begging the question as to whether or not the violence is necessary, my primary point of contention. Nor would I call them "established," since they vary by region, which actually proves their whimsical nature. The people who said these sort of things would also say that the world appears flat as they look over the horizon. But when our senses conflict with reality, our senses must give way.

 

The reality is that children can reason at a very young age. MUCH younger than puberty, which occurs younger than those commands you referenced would point to. If you teach your child to reason and you model egalitarian, peaceful negotiation to them, they will be primed against predation of all stripes, including sexual. Then when they're old enough for it to be relevant, you explain pregnancy and disease, the ramifications, the long-term impact, and they will arrive at whatever the best conclusion for their life is. If that is to be abstinent until 16, 17, 18, or 25, that's their decision to make.

[vze57564]

The restriction is necessary in the case of children due to them not knowing what the dangers are.  It would be negligent of the parent if they did not step in and intervene and teach the child that there is an appropriate time for sexual relationships.  I do accept and know about self-ownership and universalization.  I also realize that parents have a positive moral obligation to raise and shape their child. Some of that entails setting boundaries, boundaries also include in whether or not that child should enter into sexual relationships.  I certainly agree education is part of this, but you also need to be able to restrict the child if such an action was deemed deleterious to their development.  That is part of being a good parent; until such time the child can do this for themselves, it is then parent's job to do this.  This is necessary in spite of what was explained to the child, as they may still go out and pursue a sexual relationship, before they are fully matured enough mentally to make that kind of choice.

 

As for the law, it is important here to realize the purport behind the law.  It is recognized by society, the same premise I am arguing here, that there is a certain time in a person's life where it is generally accepted that they are capable of doing things that were restricted to them as children.  Understandably, you may not like law, as I also do tend to see that most of the time it is a tool applied unequally.  I am certainly against the violent aspect that the law has to it, however, the spirit of the law itself follows along the line that society values the protection of children from certain decisions since it recognizes that a certain level of maturity must be reached before letting that person off the leash, so to speak.  And yes, from time to time, society will change its values, however, there is still a general belief that there is an age that is too young to enter into sexual relationships.

[dsayers]

It is recognized by society

 

What if society was wrong? How would you know? This was the first thing I asked. I've tried to provoke thought, I've tried to promote studies, I've tried to point to the real world. I keep seeing conclusions with no explanation other than "everybody else says so."

 

I think if you were to make a timeline as to when a baby can reason, when a parent can model communication, rationality, and win-win negotiation, when a child might be allowed out of the direct supervision of the parent, when the adolescent develops, and when a less than scrupulous individual might try to take advantage or pressure, you'd find there's almost no risk. You haven't even considered the fact that somebody who is raised in this way wouldn't associate with the predatory type. Except to say, "yeah, but..." which isn't even acknowledging it.

 

I'm only interested in the truth. If I'm off base, I'm open to the possibility. But mass hysteria and historical and biological inaccuracy won't sway me.

 

I mean, you haven't even talked about how abused teens who are forbidden to do things are more compelled to do them despite this being the conclusion you've allowed others to arrive at for you.

[vze57564]

Now I think you're taking my quotes out of context.

 

There certainly is a possibility society is wrong. It certainly does hold that society was and is wrong about a lot of things and there is certainly a possibility it could be wrong about this. So let me put this question on you; what is a better objective solution to resolve whether or not a child is mentally ready that would be universally applicable and not involve the so called violence in the conclusions I have tendered? This is bearing in mind that neither an objective age of consent nor the subjective society decides it conclusion clearly is not valid according to what I understand.

 

Even with peaceful parenting, there is still to account the pressures coming from media and peers that could still have an effect on the child. Besides, learning win-win negotiation and so forth takes time, its not an overnight process. Until that is done and the child can function independently there is some measure of protection incumbent upon the parent to provide, which may entail prohibition of sexual relationships until a suitable age. There is still an obligation for the parent to protect the child, hence the boundaries.

 

I dont see how making a compendium of tangential arguments takes credence away from my case.

[dsayers]

Even with peaceful parenting, there is still to account the pressures coming from media and peers that could still have an effect on the child. 

 

This is projection. It is something that would be easy for you and me to say since we were NOT taught how to think by our caregivers. To a child who has been taught to reason from the beginning, they're literally immune to "pressure" when it is irrational, which all pressure is, lest it be described as counterpoint.

 

I hate to talk about Stef's child since all I know of it is bits and pieces and he's not here to clarify. But near as I can tell, she was able to make rational nutrition decisions at approximately the age of three. The idea that when such a person is X (where X is before physical maturation) and is taught what sex is, the benefits of it, the consequences of it, etc that they will not make rational decisions regarding it, is in itself not very rational.

 

I extend a second time my invitation for you to sit down and work out a timeline as to when (approximately) you'd plot the points I mentioned. If you would do this, I think you would find that this is a non-issue and certainly one that cannot be categorized as rightly inflicted upon others.

[nathanm]

Here's what I'd like to know about porn:

 

Person A pays person B to have sex

ILLEGAL!!! GO DIRECTLY TO JAIL!!!

 

Person C pays person A and person B to have sex with each other, videotape it, and sell it to the public

MULTI-BILLION DOLLAR TOTALLY LEGAL INDUSTRY! yay!

 

Why is prostitution illegal, shady, frowned upon, socially unacceptable and pornography is something most everyday people consume and may just be embarrassed about using?  If uncle Jim pays for a prostitute he's a scumbag, but if he's got Playboys in his drawer and dirty movies in the closet, hey no big deal.  Apparently adding a third party to a paid sexual transaction is MAGICAL! Or is the recording of it magical?  I might understand if all porn was fake like regular movies are fake, but no, that's actual sex they're having and getting paid for it.  It makes no sense to me, but I must be missing something obvious.  Perhaps because a pornographer can be taxed but two people in an alley cannot?

[vze57564]

DSayers,

 

As I understand it, projection is where I am unconsciously rejecting negative attributes about myself and ascribing it to others. Is it truly denial that people are not affected by the media in some way? In a perfect world, we could all think rationally about what is said in the TV and media, however, kids especially are very impressionable by what they see. It takes time to inoculate them against that, barring some self contained sensory deprivation module or something. The human being is a product partly of its biology and partly of its tribe. The parents are there hopefully to guide the child until its maturity.

 

Stef's child is a poor example to use as there is not much to ascribe here. Even so, at 3, Stef is still empowered and expected to make decisions on her behalf. That is part of what is expected as a parent. Sometimes it involves having to unilaterally exercise power over another person in that manner.

 

Pressure is not necessarily all bad or irrational. Take for example the pressure from a deadline. I would argue that provided it was s reasonable one, it sets someone up to achieve a goal by a certain time. As you approach it, the pressure increases until such time you finish or it passes.

 

The psychologizing is getting a bit off topic, as is the baffle them with BS strategy. Barring any solution you have yet to provide I am not seeing really anything we can apply to this other that ascribing some kind of age of consent to which it can be reasonably assumed that a person is mentally mature enough for a sexual relationship.

[dsayers]

Stef's child is a poor example to use

 

Barring any solution you have yet to provide

 

You are promoting restriction over education. In order to do this (assuming you accept self-ownership and its universalization), you must believe that the conclusion that the restriction is based upon is valid AND that education would not lead one to a valid conclusion without restriction.

 

You have yet to provide either, but I'm going to focus on the latter. When I point out the power of education, you indulged me at first only to now denounce Izzy as an example AND claim that I have yet to provide a solution. This isn't honest nor is it the words of somebody interested in the truth. Thank you for your time.

[vze57564]

I will quote the following:

 

Why Izzy was a bad example:

 

"I hate to talk about Stef's child since all I know of it is bits and pieces and he's not here to clarify."

 

Purport of my statement here is that you are not knowledgeable of the child.

 

Whether or not I am providing answer:

 

"I keep seeing conclusions with no explanation other than "everybody else says so."

 

​Purport of this statement is that I am recognized to be providing an answer, albeit deemed inadequate by the counter party.

 

As for education, I certainly do not denounce it.  She may very well be light years ahead of others in mental development even at 3.  Still there is a reasonable age that will be decided for someone to be empowered to act on their own as they develop from child to adult.

 

Sorry we could not work it out.

[dsayers]

Izzy aside, the science behind WHY she is intelligent and rational can be applied to every single child that isn't born with certain brain defects. I refer you to the work of Alison Gopnik.

[TDB]

[...]To a child who has been taught to reason from the beginning, they're literally immune to "pressure" when it is irrational

This is an hypothesis, not a known certainty, especially in the absolute form you have put it. At another point you mention the research of Alison Glopnick, is she examining this specific hypothesis, or is this a speculation you've picked up from Stef? My wild guess is that both parents and children will need some training to make this a reality, and even then it may not be perfect. I admire Stef's ability in this area, but I think he is a bit unusual both in basic ability and his determination to focus and work on this area. Speaking as a parent that experienced a lot of failure, I think this is a bigger problem than your statement seems to say. In fact, I think it would be a hell of an entrepreneurial opportuni if someone could figure out how to teach these skills effectively.

[...]Stef's child is a poor example to use as there is not much to ascribe here. Even so, at 3, Stef is still empowered and expected to make decisions on her behalf. That is part of what is expected as a parent. Sometimes it involves having to unilaterally exercise power over another person in that manner.Pressure is not necessarily all bad or irrational. [...]Barring any solution you have yet to provide I am not seeing really anything we can apply to this other that ascribing some kind of age of consent to which it can be reasonably assumed that a person is mentally mature enough for a sexual relationship.

I'd be very curious to know Stef's response about "power over." I think he would probably flatly disagree.An alternative to "age of consent" would be some sort of "rite of passage," where a young person could demonstrate her/his eligibility and maturity, with age not factoring into it (though presumably, it would disqualify young women who have never menstruated or men who have never ejaculated). I have no idea how such a thing could get started or what it might look like, or how parents or other onlookers should respond in cases where the norm was not followed. But I can imagine that forming a bright line between "unusual but sincere" and "unusual and creepy." Obviously, the only ambiguity disappears if both parties do not consent. In some sense, the rite of passage would be a claim on the part of the young person to be entitled to consent. I'm actually fairly ignorant of the anthropology involved, but I'm not going to let that stop me. Many such rituals from traditional societies have religious aspects, but I imagine that secular versions could be devised and could fulfill useful purposes to pseudo-objectivize things that otherwise seem arbitrary.

[june]

If you consider yourself a voluntarist then there is no sweeping "age of consent"; The time at which a person may engage in sexual activity is the time at which they voluntary choose to do so. I don't see any room for debate here.

[Holo Cene]

I am living proof that too much masturbation causes blindness.

[vze57564]

If it doesn't cause blindness, why wear shades, lol?

This is an hypothesis, not a known certainty, especially in the absolute form you have put it. At another point you mention the research of Alison Glopnick, is she examining this specific hypothesis, or is this a speculation you've picked up from Stef?My wild guess is that both parents and children will need some training to make this a reality, and even then it may not be perfect. I admire Stef's ability in this area, but I think he is a bit unusual both in basic ability and his determination to focus and work on this area. Speaking as a parent that experienced a lot of failure, I think this is a bigger problem than your statement seems to say. In fact, I think it would be a hell of an entrepreneurial opportuni if someone could figure out how to teach these skills effectively.I'd be very curious to know Stef's response about "power over." I think he would probably flatly disagree.An alternative to "age of consent" would be some sort of "rite of passage," where a young person could demonstrate her/his eligibility and maturity, with age not factoring into it (though presumably, it would disqualify young women who have never menstruated or men who have never ejaculated). I have no idea how such a thing could get started or what it might look like, or how parents or other onlookers should respond in cases where the norm was not followed. But I can imagine that forming a bright line between "unusual but sincere" and "unusual and creepy." Obviously, the only ambiguity disappears if both parties do not consent. In some sense, the rite of passage would be a claim on the part of the young person to be entitled to consent.I'm actually fairly ignorant of the anthropology involved, but I'm not going to let that stop me. Many such rituals from traditional societies have religious aspects, but I imagine that secular versions could be devised and could fulfill useful purposes to pseudo-objectivize things that otherwise seem arbitrary.

The "power over" statement involves the obligation the parent has over the care of the child.  Especially at younger ages, the parent is generally exercising power over the child (making decisions for them) until such time it is ready to decide for itself.  It may not fit into the whole voluntarist bit that everyone argues here, but young children sometimes have to have an adult decide for them until they get older.  That is what is meant by my statements.

 

I thank you for that solution.  A rite of passage ceremony could be a good proxy for an age of consent.  I could see it serving as a test of sorts to demonstrate one's maturity in such a way as to show others you are empowered to decide things on your own with minimal or no unilateral parental intervention.  I would imagine that the child should be developed physically and mentally enough to enter that rite and be ready for the consequences after.

[dsayers]

This is an hypothesis, not a known certainty

 

How is "a person who is never exposed to French cannot speak French" at all assailable?

 

I think it would be a hell of an entrepreneurial opportuni if someone could figure out how to teach these skills effectively.

 

On what basis? To accept this approach, almost everybody would have to accept the evil and sadism of their caregivers or other childhood "authority figures," up to and including the very people that claim to own and protect us as adults. So many people reject the possibility on the basis of this (dis)comfort alone. Look at this thread, where it is, and how laden with presupposition it is. This is where such a topic should receive the most rational treatment.