17 year old "children"? United Nations confesses political manipulation of "child" definition

The United Nations manipulated the definition of "child" on purpose! So child protection laws could be extended to adolescent youth without need to be voted again. Human-Stupidity.com found the smoking gun. Proof is on the United Nations web site.

Q – What does the UN mean by "youth," and
how does this definition differ from that given to children?

The United Nations, for statistical purposes, defines ‘youth’, as those persons between the ages of 15 and 24 years,[…]  By that definition, therefore, children are those persons under the age of 14.
It is, however, worth noting that Article 1 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines ‘children’ as persons up to the age of 18. This was intentional, as it was hoped that the Convention would provide protection and rights to as large an age-group as possible and because there was no similar United Nations Convention on the Rights of Youth. (www.UN.org)

The United Nations web site confesses, expressis verbis, that the language confusion was created so that childhood laws could be transferred to adolescents, without undergoing scrutiny and without needing to be voted for. The United Nations, on their own website, admit that this age definition was made for manipulative purposes, and in contradiction of  their own age definitions elsewhere.

"Seduction of an adolescent" or "unlawful sex with a 17-year-old" does not sound dramatic enough. It is easier to get harsh laws against "child rapists". Equally, it is easier to convict for "child pornography" then for possession of tasteful "nude photos of a 17 year old".  Just manipulate the language to manipulate the masses! And government, press, judges, jury.

For the past 2000 years, before feminists took over the United Nations,

  • a child was a person under 12 or 14 years of age
  • pornography was depiction explicit sexual activity
  • rape was violent forceful sexual penetration against a resisting victim
  • consent was, well, consent. Saying yes. Independent of age.

Is it not strange that all these terms were diluted to create confusion?

We will focus on how the United Nations manipulated the definition of "Child" in order to force the world to ratify child protection laws for adolescent youths.

"If you look under 35 years of age, show ID to buy alcohol"

"If you look under 35 years of age, show ID to buy alcohol" read the sign at the supermarket checkout. For the supermarket cashier, it is "Better be safe then sorry."

Nobody goes to jail for 15 years for selling alcohol to someone slightly underage.  So to be safe,

"If S/he looks under 35 years of age, don’t propose sex, nor kissing, nor possess nude photos of her/him

Most people are unaware: Age of consent  laws and "child" porn laws don’t just scare people away from "underage" persons.

To be on the safe side, one should not possess porn with anyone that looks under 25 or 30, and not try to get involved romantically with anyone that looks under 30.

"Eschew obfuscation"  (avoid being unclear)!

Legal argument and laws about "child pornography" and "child abuse" severely violate this basic rule from from college writing classes English 101. Science and law also try to get clear and concise definitions.

To foster the political goal of curbing adolescent sexuality and erotic depictions, the United Nations leads the world into obfuscation.

Due to United Nations influence,
our language lost the capacity to differentiate between totally different situations

,,,people assume that a person labeled with possession of CP [child p ornography] automatically is looking at pictures of 4 yr olds having sex with adults etc…when the law actually is worded to where you could have a clothed picture of a 16yr old female and have it be considered CP…  prisontalk.com


The following are all the same now.

2 year olds, 7 year olds, 11 year old children


15 y or 17 year old adolescent youth.


All above are "Children"



As a result of United Nations language manipulation, the following are the same:

Indecently fondling a 17 year old 
fully dressed long term girlfriend, with her consent

= forceful non-consenting violent injury causing rape of a kidnapped 4 year old
Both above are "child rape". "Non-consensual" sex.
And the depictions of both are the same. Child Pornography.

We think this is demagogic. unscientific. Purposeful misleading.  Disgusting.

You did not understand that this is the same? click on "more" below and we will show you why, step by step

Furthermore we will also use medical science and developmental psychology to scientifically define "child" and the phases of childhood.  In a subsequent post, later, we will critique the Copine and Sap scales for failing to differentiate between infants and adolescents, between consent and non-consent.

The following are all the same now. Child rape. Non-consensual sex.

Consensual sex with 15 year old girlfriend

= Dragging a 15 year old into the woods and violently raping her at gunpoint.

As you know, the 15 year old cannot consent to sex. So the consent is invalid. So you might as well have dragged her into the woods. It is the same. Linguistically. Legally. In press reports. In jury instructions.

And the same for your cell mates in jail that will brutally rape child rapist (and violent felon cell mates probably will not understand the fine distinction that you were the tender lover of an adolescent)


Indecently fondling a 15 year old 
fully dressed long term girlfriend

= Having sex with your 15 year old girlfriend


It is so unbelievable:
our language cannot differentiate any more between
  • merely fondling of consenting, non-nude 17 year olds
  • actual consensual sex with a 17 year old in a long term relationship
  • forceful non-consenting violent injury causing rape of kidnapped 4 year olds

Nowadays, all these very different acts are the same.  Child rape.


These very very different acts are described by the same term
  1. "child rape" for the act and
  2. "child porn" for the depiction.


What is a child? Defining childhood!

There is not one "childhood" from 0-18 years of age.

It is totally incorrect from a developmental or legal standpoint to mix up and confuse 3 month olds, 3 year olds, 8 year olds, 14 year olds and 17 year olds.  They are very different in terms of

  • intellectual maturity
  • capacity to understand physical, social, biological facts
  • capacity to consent
  • sexual maturity
  • individual maturity

(all graphs from Wikipedia)




So for the purpose of sexual consent, of capacity to engage in sexual activities (playing doctor, …), for psychological consequences of such actions, there must be at least a differentiation in  2-4 age groups before adulthood.

  1. Childhood from 0-13
  2. Youth or adolescence from 14 years on

Look, how funny. Did we not have this differentiation until the United Nations started manipulating our langugage in order to ram through laws without needing to vote for them

To be a bit more scientific, one would have to add

  1. the limit between childhood and adolescence/youth is fluid, individual and unclear. Maybe between 10 and 15 years of age. Depends on the culture, the individual maturity of the child
  2. Childhood has very distinct phases, as shown in the graphics.

Correct developmental stages are
Infancy, Childhood, Adolescence, Adulthood 

Or even finer grained: Infancy, (Toddlerhood), Childhood,(Pre-adolescence,) Adolescence, Adulthood

The child pornography debates suffers from language abuse.


In a subsequent post we will critique the Copine and Sap scales for failing to differentiate between infants and adolescents, between consent and non-consent:  Levels of severity of child porn. Copine and Sap Scales reviewed


Rape of our language for the purpose of demagoguery and to incite the masses

We have shown that the precision, power, conciseness of our language has been seriously compromised by a concerted manipulatie action geared towards "protecting" adolescents with laws geared towards small prepubescent children.

Confusing adolescent lovers with child rapists 

Men are now terrorized by threats of extreme jail sentences,  to the point of suicide, by laws that make it a heinous crime to have even remote sexual interest in post-pubescent sexually mature and developed adolescents. Any lover of adolescents or their pictures is, demagogically labeled child rapist or child pornographer.


Confusing sexual interest in adolescents with sexual interest in infants

Perversely, by the same confusion, the average men now get suspected as potential rapists of toddlers. The fairly true fact that many men get attracted by 15 year old Brooke Shields, demagogically got extended to sexual interest in 11 year old Brooke Shields and 2 year old toddlers.  Eek! A Male! Pedophile hysteria hurts and kills children

15 year old Brooke Shields 10 year old Brooke Shields 2 year old infant

15y: Many men are attracted to 15 year old Brooke Shields

10y: Very few men would be sexually interested 10 year old pre-pubescent Brooke Shields.

A few decades ago this picture was harmless artistic photography. Nowadays, it got removed from Tate Modern Museum by Police 

Human-Stupidity felt compelled to add the censorship bar to avoid charges of child pornography.

2y: And only a minute number of pathologically sick men is sexually interested in 2 year olds, and even fewer would act on that interest

But, somehow, demagogic language confusion has instilled into the conscience of law makers, journalists and the general population, the perverse idea that a significant number of men is interesting in raping toddlers or getting sexually excited by toddler photos.

In another photo officers writes “The next photo is of the girls in the bathtub, the middle daughter appears to by lying on her back …her younger sister is on top of her also on her back…the youngest girls vagina is exposed to the camera.”

This harmless commercial ad from the 1950ies nowaday could, by the perverted modern child porn witch hunt mentality, qualify as Child Porn of the highest possible Copine level 10:

Pictures where an animal is involved in some form of sexual behaviour with a child



Demagoguery, incitement of the masses:
The United Nations war on adolescent youth sexuality 

The same purposeful political manipulation of meaning as for "child" seems to have happened to "porn", "rape", "consent".

All obfuscation on purpose, all to prepare witch hunts against men: probably 95% of the persecution victims are men with maybe 5% women as collataral damage of the war on male sexuality.


"Child" definition
  • So "child" was, on purpose, for manipulatory purposes, redefined from its old meaning of under 14, to mean a person up to the age of 18 years. And, as the UN admits, they wanted to extend this to an age group as large as possible. It is quite possible that childhood will be re-defined as 21 years. For the sake of child porn, in Australia and Europe, child is anyone looking under 18, even if s/he is 23 years old.
  • Instead of correctly making youth laws, they sneakily extended the child laws to youths
  • maybe they were aware they did not have the political clout for laws restriction youth sexual behavior and depictions of adolescents, and therefore resorted to such "dirty tricks"


"Porn" definition
  • Instead of making laws about nude erotic photos, they just re-defined erotica as porn. An easy way to get high penaties for light crimes (or non-crimes)
"Rape" definition

Equally, rape was, sneakily, re-defined.

Instead making laws that increase punishment for "indecent acts with a minor", "unlawful sex with an adolescent", they simply called all this "rape". Thus, with not much effort, they could increase the penalties with not much oppositon.

Maybe some people would object to 6 year jail terms for kissing a pubescent minor (see Once Fallen" Derek Logue about sex offender registration). But it is easy to find support for jailing a "child rapist".

"Consent" definition
Instead of saying "consensual but unlawful sex with a minor", consensual sex with a minor was re-defined as "non-consensual".
So it does not matter if the 15 year old agrees to sex, or if you put a knife to her throat and force her to have sex against her express will. In both cases, she did not "consent". What perverse language!


"Abuse obfuscation"  (manipulate by being unclear)!

Legal argument and laws about "child pornography" and "child abuse" severely violate this basic rule from from college writing classes.  "Eschew obfuscation" or "avoid being unclear"!  The exact opposite has happened. Language has been abused and raped into absolute utter confusion, in order to manipulatively pass absurd laws. 

The meanings of the words

  1. "child",
  2. "pornography",
  3. "rape", and
  4. "consent"

have been manipulatively re-defined in overly broad ways, as to confuse and manipulate not just the average person, but the entire legal, journalistic system.

Nowadays we have utterly confusing terminology

  • A child can be 2, 8, 12, 17 years old, (or 22 if s/he looks like 17, according to Australian and European law)
  • Pornography nowadays can be anything from
    • fully dressed adolescent girls dancing seductively,
    • tasteful nude beach photos,
    • solo masturbation
    • naturalistic necking with their boyfriends,
    • hard core sex


In a subsequent post we will critique the Copine and Sap scales for failing to differentiate between infants and adolescents, between consent and non-consent:  Levels of severity of child porn. Copine and Sap Scales reviewed

28 thoughts on “17 year old "children"? United Nations confesses political manipulation of "child" definition”

  1. As far as dating and marriage, teenage relationships should be taken much, much more seriously than they are. I would be much more freaked out if my [17 year old] daughter actually liked guys her age than I would be for her to bring home a dude in his mid to late 20′s. I’ve even started scouting out guys in that age range.

    Being married or in a committed relationship doesn’t hold anyone back. In fact, it makes life much easier for them to be stable and stay that way. I think most of the problems young women have looking for love now is because they’re told not to look for guys more than a couple of years older than them, and the guys are treated like perverts when they’re just being naturally timely.
    comment by Nicole at the antifeminist site

  2. Gee, maybe this can explain why Rob Taylor has trouble comprehending the English language. I guess drinking the legislative kool-aid has that effect. I wonder if some of the pornography he consumes (and occasionally post on his blog) is of women who are at least age 18. After all, there is no way to know for sure that tattooed redhead on his blog is of age.

  3. That bit where it says “15y: Many men are attracted to 15 year old Brooke Shields”, why don’t you change it to “15y: What man isn’t attracted to 15 year old Brooke Shields?”.

Leave a Reply. We appreciate a discussion: if you disagree, your comment still is welcome.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.