Here are 10 key points/memes to memorize and spread as far and widely as possible regarding the age of consent, and in particular, the validity of discussion of the age of consent, both within and outside the men’s rights movement :
1 / If the discussion of sex laws had always been taboo/forbidden, then homosexuality would still be illegal. Homosexuality is illegal in many countries, and being criminalized in several others. If we disallow discussion of (changing) sex laws in the West, we will be in a poor position to prevent similar attempts to suppress even discussion of the rights of homosexuals in countries where homosexuality is illegal. We criticize Russia for making it illegal to ‘promote’ homosexuality to children, yet those same ‘liberal’ progressives want to make it illegal to ‘promote’ (i.e discuss rationally) lowering the age of consent or to criticize any laws ostensibly protecting children. If discussing ‘child protection’ laws had always been off limits, Alan Turing would still be considered a child abusing pervert (he had illegal sex with a boy under the age of majority at the time).
This post fits into the Thilo Sarrazin discussion, because it deals with taboo speech that makes it impossible to engage in rational discussion and scientific search for truth. I recommend reading my Sarrazin reviews, especially the ones still due to be published. See also Robert Kurzban.
2(and relating to 1)/ The age of consent in the UK was set at 16 (raised from 12/13) in a backward Victorian criminal amendment act (1885) that also criminalized homosexuality, punishable by death. The same law that Alan Turing was prosecuted under. Ironically, it is now effectively taboo to criticize one half of that backward 1885 bill (the age of consent of 16) and yet taboo, and even illegal, to support the other half of that same backward Victorian bill (the criminalization of homosexuality).
3/ The age of consent was set at 16 by puritanical feminists (suffragettes) in the UK, and that same bill (and age of 16) was a model for similar rises in the age of consent in the USA and elsewhere (also lobbied for by feminists/suffragettes). This is an important point to stress within the context of men’s rights.
4/ The social situation in the UK when the age of consent was raised to 16 was very different to today, and in fact, the ostensible justifications for raising the age of consent from 12/13 to 16 at the time do not even remotely apply in today’s world. For example, girls began puberty at around 16/17 in the Victorian era, whereas the average today is between 9 and 10. In the Victorian era, pre-marital sex was still heavily frowned upon, and the average age of marriage was significantly lower than today, so the the age of consent of 16 was effectively an attempt by puritanical feminists to criminalize pre-marital sex. Teenagers today are better educated (arguably) and far more sexually knowledgeable. In 1885, only a small percentage of the population had the vote, whereas today the trend is to give 16 year old boys and girls the vote. There was little or no effective contraception, abortion was illegal and dangerous, there was no welfare state or safety net for girls who got pregnant and abandoned, no mandatory child support payments from absent fathers. Furthermore, the age of consent was raised in the midst of a hysterical moral panic involving ‘white slavery’ – the supposed epidemic of children being bought and sold as sex slaves in London. This moral panic has largely been debunked as merely an effort to sell Victorian tabloid newspapers.
5 (and relating to 4)/ The historical and evolutionary reasons for protecting the virginity of young girls no longer apply. Not only is virginity no longer prized while ‘sluthood’ is officially championed, the reasons stated above (contraception, abortion etc) have both loosened sex from reproduction and reduced the potential harm to the girl resulting from the likelihood of pregnancy.
6/ As the age of consent will always be arbitrary, unless defined by a biological marker (such as most obviously the onset of puberty), it is imperative that rational discussion on where the line is set should be allowed. If it is so obvious that a 15 year old, one year below the line, cannot possibly consent to sex, to make even discussion of the question immoral or illegal, then the age of consent should be significantly higher than 15. But then one must agree that questioning of the higher end of the new age of consent must be valid, otherwise one would have to hold that the age of consent should be raised again…ad absurdum. In other words, one cannot hold that the current age of consent is manifestly and unquestionably right without slipping into absurdity.
7/ The age of consent is not some neutral ‘speed limit’. The labeling of young people (or anyone) as ‘victims’ is itself harmful and damaging to them. Only rational discussion can determine whether the harm caused is justified by preventing or correcting even greater harm. Those who wish to make discussion of the age of consent/child abuse laws illegal, are thus themselves child abusers damaging children with no rational justification.
Sex laws traumatize adolescents. Responsible sex doesn’t.
Sex laws are abusive. We normally require proof of harm before we severely punish acts. Otherwise we would have to outlaw cars who maim and kill tens of thousands, alcohol who kills and mutilates thousands. We don’t even outlaw drinking, smoking, drug taking during pregnancy which is proven to cause permanent damage in the fetus. We don’t outlaw child food porn, cunning propaganda that instills bad eating and life style habits into children. This condemns over 30% of our children to a life of obese ugliness and unhealthiness. Yes, many prejudiced people lack "fat acceptance". (Human-Stupidity Disclaimer)
8/ To suggest that those who argue for a lower age of consent are ‘self-rationalizing paedophiles’ is not only an ad hominen argument, it is also an absurdity. Surely it is the people who want rational discussion of a law forbidden who are ‘self-rationalizing’, and suffering from ‘cognitive distortions’, rather than those who want open, fair, and rational discussion based upon logic, science, and evidence? It also pre-supposes falsely that only one side in the debate (those arguing in favour of a lower age of consent) have ‘an interest’ in achieving their aim, and ignores the obvious fact that those arguing for a higher age of consent (invariably hags and paedocrites) certainly have a selfish interest in doing so. Furthermore, not only does it rely on the feminist lie that males attracted to teenage girls are ‘paedophiles’, it would also follow that homosexuals could not objectively think or reason about the ethics of homosexuality, including in countries in which homosexuals are persecuted.
9/ To remain silent on these issues is far more suspicious than to speak out on them, especially in relation to men’s rights activism. The persecution of elderly celebrities currently taking place in the UK, for example, is so obviously a men’s rights issue if anything is, that it would be suspicious to remain silent on it rather than speak out against it. These are feminist laws that result in the persecution of thousands of men, and more pertinently, this persecution and witch hunting is becoming worse and more hysterical with every passing year. History may judge those of us who fail to speak out.
10/ Feminist age of consent and ‘paedophile’ laws, forever widening in their scope and definition, are an attack on normal male sexuality. It is the desire to eliminate sexual competition, or at least provide an outlet for the jealousy and sexual bitterness of older women, as well as persecute and demonize ordinary male sexuality and to shame the natural male preference for younger fertile females. Men are hard wired to find adolescent girls sexually attractive, and not only does this demonstrate the evilness of the feminist inflation and exploitation of the term ‘paedophile’, it also highlights the manifest absurdity of believing that any intrinsic harm could result from consensual sex with an adolescent (if it did, none of us would be here today).