Okay, so for age of consent, here is a possible logical argument.
The purpose of sexual intercourse is procreation.
Humans are able to procreate successfully at the onset of puberty for males or a few years later for females.
Therefore, the puberty or a few years later is the appropriate age to begin engaging in sexual intercourse.
Thoughts?
Other urls found in this thread:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
twitter.com
Boy the way Glen Miller played
Songs that made the hit parade.
Guys like us we had it made,
Those were the days.
And you knew who you were then,
Girls were girls and men were men,
Mister we could use a man
Like Herbert Hoover again.
Didn't need no welfare state,
Everybody pulled his weight.
Gee our old LaSalle ran great.
Those were the days.
Checked and good taste
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Here's a list of birth complications by age group.
It seems as though the 20's are ideal for childbirth, late teens and early 30's decent, early teens and late 30's fairly difficult, and 40's are rife with complications.
You're retarded.
Like, severely mentally retarded.
Well........ Is this place not a haven for those who wish to discuss controversial things in a logical manner?
Can't we make it a meme?
Except you're missing a critical point. That is babies cannot survive on their own. Human babies require an immense amount of care and resources to make it past adulthood, where theoretically they become independent.
If a human procreated at such a young age without knowledge, responsibility, or financial resources to sustain and nurture the child properly, then the act and purpose of creating the baby would be contradicted.
Pic related
>The purpose of sexual intercourse is procreation.
in dogs. not in apes. in apes it's a side effect. honestly, do people in your neighborhood fuck out of a sense of duty to create offspring? where is this, that I can avoid it?
My thoughts are that even though people may be physically capable of having kids shortly after puberty, they are still exceptionally vulnerable to manipulation by adults due to their innocence.
>The purpose of sexual intercourse is procreation
Autistic permavirgin confirmed
That's true. Very true. So our societal structure then supplements the biological model which will create different rules depending on where one lives?
If sex isn't to procreate, then why have any age restrictions at all?
see
I was subject to that very thing as a kid, and sex was the tool for manipulation. This is all hypothetical, for a "perfect world" where people aren't shitty.
I'm not arguing anything.
Thoughts were asked for. I think if someone couldn't think of the many and significant issues with 'puberty = ready for sex and babies" they're too retarded to bother having any form of discussion with.
Answered
>If sex isn't to procreate, then why have any age restrictions at all?
this sounds to you like the coupling of two related sentences? as, for exapmle "how do you explain the interest rates if the moon is really made of cheese?"
aoc has absolutely nothing to do with the "purpose" of sex. aoc is there because
a) sex can be physically damaging to kids, including but by far not restricted to pregnancy, and
b) all sorts of interest groups, such as religiotards and ugly females want to restrict the availability of sex, which leads to absurd aoc like 18 in the states. aoc here in Hungary is 14 (12 if the other partner is under 18) and there are no ill effects from it, proving 18 to be a farce.
Then please present a small list of these many and significant issues.
When I was underage I thought the age of consent was stupid as well. Being an adult has shown me just how easy it is to influence those younger than me and it would be ridiculously easy to bang a bunch of teenage girls and toss them aside because well, they're teenagers.
Yes, there are many dysfunctions associated with sex, and it's damaging to adults too. For instance, some sweet young thing walks away with half your savings and income by using it as a tool to con you into marrying her. It happens that way in the US by the way.
Yeah, but you're an adult and are responsible for your own actions. The same doesn't go for minors.
The collective argument seems to be that the age of consent is established to compensate for:
A) The shitty behavior of adults.
B) The tremendous resource burden that human children are.
Don't forget C) Children are easily influenced and manipulated.
Juvenile hall is a place where minors who commit crimes go. Young children get leniency, teenagers are generally held responsible for what they do, as are the parents.
...
Covered by A) but not important.
Yeah, and young people are generally charged 'as minors' because of their youth.
Hollywood agrees.
The point is they don't get off scot-free for murdering people when they're 14.
So? They are still responsible for themselves, if they decide to let a stranger use them that's their business. It's all just emotional pain anyways, they'll get over it and hopefully learn not to be a moron. Trying to protect teens from their choices is how we ended up with so many morons in the first place
But they typically won't be punished as harshly for it either.
16 is fine. Once your 30 you don't want a 16 year old anyway unless you are mentally stunted yourself.
>It's all just emotional pain anyways, they'll get over it and hopefully learn not to be a moron.
This is false. Many people who are abused as teens have emotional problems for the rest of their lives.
Teenage minors are responsible for most of their actions. They get more leniency, but are still held accountable for their actions. Americans let 16 year olds drive cars but consider them incapable of deciding who to fuck if the partner is more than 2 years older than them. Its ridiculous
Abuse =/= sex. If you are abusing a teen they may be fucked up for the rest of their life, but smash and dash does not entail abuse. Nor does an ordinary relationship that doesnt work out. Of course in all these cases the teen is still responsible for protecting themself
What are the ingredients for a proper romantic relationship and do teenagers not possess them?
That's beside the point. They are still held as being responsible for their actions, so why cant they reasonably decide who to fuck?
This guy gets it
Smash and dash isn't abuse unless something more is implied deceptively.
Still not abuse. It makes you a piece of shit, but it still isnt abuse to mislead someone. Abuse normally requires a certain element of continuity, except in extreme cases such as rape or assault
Yeah, but most teenagers don't have sex with the idea of "smash and dash." The teen isn't responsible for protecting themselves, that's why they go to school and live with their parents because they're still learning how to function in the real world. The reason why this isn't the teenagers fault is because you can't expect a teenager to know any better; the same can't be said about adults.
Misleading someone is mistreatment.
Kinda out there, but in tribal cultures the age of consent is generally younger than ours. And most of them aren't monogamous. The tribe raises the children so no single person bears the entire load.
Thread died. OP leaving. Goodnight.
Yes, but not abuse. Being an asshole is not criminal
How do you think teens learn to be competent adults if they arent responsible for their actions? Parents are there to help, they live with them to lessen the stakes of failure. But they dont live consequence free: teens are not children and should not be treated as children. Treat them as competent adults and they will grow into that role
In fact it is ESSENTIAL to expect the teen to know better, at least in the context of learning how to be an adult. Living consequence free will just set them up to be hurt a few years later when they have less support. People dont magically learn how to cope with mistreatment. They only learn through experiencing it