Paieška

https://reason.com/2023/01/14/a-modern-history-of-groomer-politics/ Histories like this remind me of a self-coined aphorism. "Youth liberation" of the 1970s liberated "youth" as a symbolic totem and not actual young people. The retrenchments of the 1980s onward - higher drinking ages, smoking ages, higher ages of consent, curfew laws, etc. were all reminders that society was not willing to take young people seriously as people or to provide the material and sociocultural necessities of realizing anything approaching the sustainable realization of social equality. Little wonder that the likes of Reddit and Tumblr are preoccupied with the sexual "consent" of fictional adolescents in manga as some sort of exercise in progressive politics. The agency of young people - even their theoretical agency not respected as previously demonized groups gained theirs - has been so dismantled that it cannot even be imagined, let alone realized.

Regarding this academic paper (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0005789405800395): To me the OP study is common sense, but has become perhaps politically incorrect or taboo to acknowledge. Once children hit puberty, their bodies start to become able to reproduce and thus start to become attractive for reproduction. Presumably then the study is conflating postpubescent adolescents with prepubescent children and calling all of these “children” which it is “wrong” for adults to feel attracted to, except that basically our biology hasn’t changed while societal norms have shifted to tell people to wait to older ages to reproduce. Regarding attraction of prepubescent children in “normal” men, either this could be because the children are made to look like adults or thought to be like adults. This one I can’t wrap my head around as much and would need more information to be able to respond to the study. At least in my experience, I felt pretty “adult” at a young age once I hit puberty and was attracted to those my age and older who were in probably in their 20s and 30s of the opposite gender. Mostly the issue here is about having teens wait a bit to be able to become mature enough to sustain a family. I suspect “age of consent” discussions are a bit of a distraction, or a necessity for legal considerations, but I felt able to “consent” to certain actions at a young age but wouldn’t have been mature enough to take care of a family. Thus there is a gap between base biology and the skill of the intellect. Also society is literally degenerate and unable to bring up young people to be skilled and productive at young ages which complicates the discussion. There are some exceptional students graduating college as teens or preteens for example, which to me attests to the actual capabilities of teens or preteens. But society sometimes “infantilizes” adolescents in to adulthood, perhaps underestimating their capabilities, and this is spilling over in to thinking of teens up to age 18 as “innocent children”. At least when I was a teenager, I was pretty aware of a lot of bad things I could do. But lots of people mature at different rates, so we try to take averages to accommodate some people maturing at younger and older rates. Anyway, the OP study is a bit ambiguous on what they consider “children” to be and what they did to establish that “normal” people were attracted to “children”.

This post assumes that you are already familiar with Hige wo Soru. If you are not, then please review the story's main couple, Yoshida and Sayu. The main takeaway for this forum is if they had sex (and there are several plausible moments where that could have happened), Yoshida could have gone to jail and Sayu would have seen the man she loves hauled off to jail - a double tragedy and gross injustice. So to avoid that unacceptable outcome in real life, here is one version of a Yoshida and Sayu law. Someone can be convicted of violating an age of consent law if it is beyond a reasonable doubt that: # The defendant pursued the relationship solely because of the alleged victim's age, and, # The essential nature of the relationship caused the alleged victim to suffer provable harm to their pursuit of life, liberty, or property, or, # The defendant demonstrated callous and gross disregard for the alleged victim's evident welfare. # The pursuit and existence of a sexual relationship in itself will not be construed by the finders of fact as a priori harm to the pursuit of life, liberty, or property, nor will it be construed by the finders of fact as a priori callous and gross disregard for evident welfare. Now that I've given the forum a starting point, it's up to us to take what is written here and debate its merits in terms of good law, political considerations, and whether it fits the overall goal of keeping couples similar to Yoshida and Sayu under the law's good graces.