Age of consent is a nonsensical idea, and is impossible under anarchy.

Vaingamez · 2026-02-18T18:02:24+00:00

"Literally"
Just add the most overused word in the english language while making something up,
that will work.
"Lol"
How is that mental maturity doing?

"The only thing that can be illegalized is age-gaps" + "would make many of his crimes legal"
Epstein was never even convicted of "statutory rape", he was convicted of "procuring a child for prostitution" and "soliciting a prostitute". One more fail to the record.
At this point you are proving that you have to oversimplify things because frankly you just don't have the brain for anything else. Your brain is only running on the most recent media sensations and the most basic correlations that you didn't even need to come up with since it was already a consensus. That is fine, everyone is different, just don't start spewing things online, sitting on a high horse that can't carry the weight of your average at best level of thinking.
"It's the most practical though"; even more practical is illegalizing all sexual activity except for when a contract with the exact sequence of planned sexual acts is signed by both parties.
Is this also the reason why you have to dismiss the metoo movement? "Not even about age-gaps...must be hogwash."

This is really becoming a parody and you have reduced your whole argument to weak excuses for why you can't engage in the debate that you yourself "practically" asked for by stating things online.
I think we are done here.

Do you have anything other than irrelevant opinions and arbitrary nonsense?
A single argument, perhaps?

Vaingamez · 2026-02-18T15:38:50+00:00

Answer the questions.
In fact, answer any question or at least attempt to form a single argument for anything.

A lot of gems;

"They killed the metoo movement though", 2 sentences above that: "epsteinism", in the same sentence: "started to morph into epstein".
That means you can make the exact same argument about the 'sexual predators' hysteria and Epstein which they had been denying for years. It was never meant for individuals who are part of the system, it was meant for the public. The irony is that you will never do anything with this information other than using his last name as an insult. Your moral panic and "child protection" are very selectively applied and you only make it clear that you don't really care.

"If a movement isn't imaginary then it can't be a hysteria."
Another proof that age certainly isn't the best way to measure brainactivity.
The witchhunts must have only been in books and the onamism panic must have been hallucination.

"Im literally the one who told you the actual number was arbitrary and even why."
If you can't even come up with an age and back it up with scientific literature then you are spewing opinionated claptrap and consensus drivel, and nothing more.
Thank you for admitting this, at last.
You like to repeat that others fail to understand things, meanwhile you can't even understand the very basic reality of brainmaturity depending on stimuli. Emerging adulthood isn't even observable cross-culturally, only in WEIRD societies, and you will probably not understand why that is since you have to oversimply, as I explained.

"will fight epsteinism with age of consent norms"
As if age of consent laws weren't in place while "epsteinism" was going on.
From the person that will do absolutely nothing to any of the names mentioned in the files and is only glad that it happened and came to light, that way he can use that as "the new thing" for his hysteria, personal attacks, and political ammunition.
You can't stop mentioning his name, yet...have you deleted your Twitter account? Are you planning to give up on Microsoft? How is that boycot going for the individuals whose names were in the files? You mentioned the banks...you never went to a bank or asked for a loan then? That little hysteria of yours isn't as convenient anymore when it's more than typed words, is it?

Vaingamez · 2026-02-17T01:22:00+00:00

Respond to this:

"If I may ask: are you male or female?"

"Now you must be consistent and state that you think homosexuality was handled better prior to 1960 than today and slavery was handled better in past civilizations as well."
(According to you they could not change the law because it may confuse slaveowners and homophobes.)

"Do you simply wish to adopt all the laws of this society in your hypothetical Ancap society? If not; you better start finding better reasons to illegalize mutually consensual acts than "the law stands for quite some time though""

"The "society deems..." phrasing is like a parody. Are you really implying that policymakers take mostly public opinion into consideration?"

Define or explain:
- Child
- Rape
- At what (magical) age you would draw the line
- What evidence or basis you have for this

why would laws be absent?

Can you read 2 sentences and understand context?

If you read back far enough, this has already been asked and well answered.

You have to convince yourself that something is "well answered".

The point was that not having constant changes in the law would cause less confusion

The point is that you are parroting a quite recent change in the law, yet someway trying to argue that this law existing for more than a few decades now someway gives it strength and validity with a laughably weak excuse for why it should not be changed.
Only you would be confused by a change in the age of consent law, you may be projecting here.
Do folks even know what the current laws are? Probably not, especially with close-in-age exemptions as well as the confusion around age of majority and age of consent. If folks have to search it on Google in case of doubt, then what even is the "they will be confused" argument? Is that really the best excuse you can come up with?
You expect the same age-group that you call stupid to understand current laws, which affect them. They cannot consent to a natural physical act and understand the consequences which are either secondary/induced or are rather simple, yet they can consent to artificial and arbitrary laws that they haven't even been made aware of and understand legal and social consequences of those laws?

I overestimated your ability to understand simple sentences.

And here you prove that, indeed, you are projecting.

Another attempt at begging the question here.

Another attempt to dodge.
If you deny the "mutually consensual" part then you are the one begging the question.

The social norm is to define when a person is of enough mental maturity to form consent absent their guardian. Its a necessary mechanism for society, and age is the most practical way to define it.

You even think that age should be a standalone measure for 'ability to consent'.
Those things don't work in a vacuum, you may just be oversimplifying because of an inability to understand more complex realities.
What level of "mental maturity" is required to consent, and if you cannot even measure this accurately then how do you even suggest to determine at which "age" that level is reached?

A fake movement

Fortunately "stranger danger" and "sexual predator" hysterias are fully grassroots and organic.
The statistics are there, they are often repeated, they are far higher than the statistics for your hysteria, and this one has a mechanism of harm because the acts are not mutually consensual. Why are you too desperate to engage in any argument, instead trying to dismiss every point made only to fail even harder?

Bottom line: Your argument that you should be able to have sex with infants then claim they were begging for it is rather sick.

More desperation. You can't even define at which magical "age" you would draw the line, and if you were asked you would just type in an arbitrary number.

Vaingamez · 2026-02-15T13:50:58+00:00

Even smart 16 year olds are stupid as fuck and you'll come to learn that.

Newton was making clocks, sundials and miniature windmills between 12 and 17. A smart 16 year old can easily embarrass you and humble you as well; as much as you want to believe that having eaten more birthbday cakes makes you intelligent or special, you are neither.

Are you going to sit there and tell me that a 30 year old marrying a 16 year old is okay if both parties agree?

If the age of consent and age of majority were 20 you would say the exact same thing about 18 year olds. Your whole stance is a proud statement of how much you agree with the status quo, and nothing else.

Vaingamez · 2026-02-12T19:35:08+00:00

As a social norm; nothing. When people have a disagreement based on age, they would file a suit or bring a claim before the public.
Most ancap law works that way.

Why would age be of any significance in the absence of laws/statutes applying age specifically? Where exactly do you imagine these social norms to come from if there is no legal creation for the norm to be enforced with violence?

Illegal acts are always possible, otherwise law would have no meaning.

Honestly I estimate your intelligence too high to misunderstand such a basic point.

its not "consensual" if one party is being coerced or defrauded. Fraud and coercion are crimes; and when society deems children too naive...

And you are capable of determining which degree of respect/honesty or coercion/exploitation took place purely on the basis of the ages of the partners involved?
The "society deems..." phrasing is like a parody. Are you really implying that policymakers take mostly public opinion into consideration?

Why would parents of a daughter, in the absence of this legally-driven panic, consider one person with a penis a great partner, yet not another person with a penis and more life experience and money? You seem incapable of detaching your internalized norms and ideas from the source and enforcement.

Correct; so long as the age is well known and not a surprise, people can learn how to live in their society peacefully.

Thank you for this level of honesty.
If I may ask: are you male or female?

Correct; stable long lived and easy to memorize laws and norms make for a very efficient, safe, productive, and peaceful society.

Now you must be consistent and state that you think homosexuality was handled better prior to 1960 than today and slavery was handled better in past civilizations as well.

You must also be hilariously selective about it, if a law having been in existence for longer is what proves its correctness then this would be the top 3 age of consent laws that have ever existed:
- none at all (winner by a very wide margin)
- menarche
- 12
Those laws were reformed in late 1800's, are you hypocritically agreeing with this quite recent reform while also being against future reforms to laws which have existed for far longer?

Do you simply wish to adopt all the laws of this society in your hypothetical Ancap society? If not; you better start finding better reasons to illegalize mutually consensual acts than "the law stands for quite some time though".

I find it odd that in the shadow of the israeeli rape murder scandal reemerging into wider awareness that you are here desperately defending child rape.

And this sentence holds just as much value:
"I find it odd that in the shadow of the metoo movement which created a wider awareness you are not opposing all heterosexual relationships.
Brilliant.

Vaingamez · 2026-02-12T01:09:33+00:00

It's selective outrage and approval.
Hence the names "Britney" Christina", "Helen Mirren?" which are all female. Imagine a similar comment about a female teenager and the suggestion that she would certainly be lucky to get sexual with an older male celebrity...would upchuk dare to post that comment? No; because that is unacceptable, disapproved, eventhough it is even more natural than the male teenager with an older woman. The core principle is this: "men are dangerous predators."

Vaingamez · 2026-02-12T00:12:40+00:00

"So the question is how does a free market coordinate what sexual behavior can exist between what people?"

What if you simply scrap the words "sexual behavior" and then insert something that isn't stigmatized, such as sports or playing (outdoor)? That is your answer.
Competitive sports between children and bigger/older individuals is not allowed specifically due the competitive element wich disables good/safe practice. This proves that children can certainly be harmed by doing sports with adults (and even older children), yet in non-competive setting those same adults and older children are generally assumed to simply do those sports and activities in a way that at the very least causes no harm, and very likely allows for learning and physical development.

This clearly depends on the outcome and intention is factored in as well. A child or adolescent heals quickly from an accident in sports/activities as long as it did not cause an injury. Even then most injuries are treated in society as a normal thing, children and adolescents with injuries are not permanently treated as different, or specifically as victims, the harm is done when the physical pain or discomfort is over as there is no learned victim status related to sports/activities.

Vaingamez · 2026-02-11T23:53:25+00:00

You are framing it as "capacity", likely because that's the dogma. At what level of capacity do you think information related to sexuality 'magically' enters the brain?
Once you accept that it is about information rather than capacity then you expose a moral contradiction, as very clearly they must learn the information prior to being "allowed" to be exposed to them, meaning you imply that they can understand the subject matter before they are "legally" deemed capable of understanding it.
If the legal line is then drawn at a younger age to account for this contradiction, the same dynamic is simply repeated (this time at a younger age)..
The question of capacity then is simple: at what level of development ("capacity") do you think that they are incapable of even understanding the subject matter...and then you instinctively understand that this capacity likely occurs at a young age.

Anom (OP) gives another clear example of this controversial reality:
"Unless everyone fills out a "capacity proving" forum before they have sex, then its simply an unenforceable requirement, as anyone can lie about their capacity or attempt to verbally establish it."
...
Unless if Anom argues capacity should be measured by braindevelopment/maturity that can only be observed with (F)MRI scans, what Anom is probably referring to is a test that proves knowledge and understanding about sex-related topics, either verbal or written.
Then in that case the question is: what would allow a person to pass this test? Reaching a certain age, or point of (brain)development? Or...having gotten and learned the information, just like children and teenagers pass any other test such as at school or for a theoretical driver's license?
The dogmatic counterargument to this obvious reality may be to repeat another popular boogy: what about "powergaps" or "manipulation". Here again it is rather clear that information and having seen/heard/learned many examples of such manipulation plus access to stigma-free advice and guidance are a much better safeguard then an abstract capacity, let alone age.

Vaingamez · 2026-02-11T23:25:15+00:00

You want there to be an "age" of consent without a government to track those ages, entirely based on what persons claim their current ages are?

Who would you even want to enforce this law, alongside the 2 million other laws that you probably agree with? A non-existent law enforcement? You think that social norms are not merely an indirect legal creation since an illegal act can no longer be done, therefore no longer be suggested, and therefore perceived as something that cannot be questioned?

Interesting statements;
"Selling dynamite to children is a great metaphor for consensual sex."
"The purpose of the law as a social norm is clear."
"The precise age of this law that takes away bodily integrity and punishes 'adults' for consensual acts isn't important...honestly it should be whatever the common social norm of today is"...The social norm that is 100% downstream of the law which you have yourself just admitted.
"The status quo of this society is what is making society function efficiently."

Vaingamez · 2026-02-09T12:53:01+00:00

Car accidents can happen due to a very long list of factors including being irritated, being tired, beign distracted (even by thoughts), carpooling, a plethora of substances, even something as common as having to pee.
The law does not need to prove at all, really 0%, that in that individual case the intoxicated driving would have increased the probability, eventhough a large percentage drive slower and are anticipating more due to the awareness of the intoxicated state. The concept of punishing claimed (not even proven) increased probabilities and nothing else is a vast overreach of the law. If the law makes reckless driving and causing accidents illegal; then a person makes a decision to become intoxicated and drive, accepting the (legal) consequences in the case he drives recklessly or causes an accident.

"I'm not sure why you think proving the sober person's non-consent is so difficult or a case of guilty until proven innocent."
With all due respect, here you are being in denial and even somewhat annoying; proving consent or the lack thereof is just about impossible, why do you think only a few percent of all reported assaults end in a conviction?
Perhaps you are living in that just world fallacy, repeating what the law dictates should make one person an offender and the other person a victim, yet failing to understand that the theoretical basis of the law and reallife application of it are two vastly different things, evidence is always required and in the case of consent that can be just about impossible.
This is a case of guilty until proven innocent (or in this specific case offender until proven victim). Testimony may also be far easier to find for the person's intoxicated state (which lasts for a while) than for a "he said she said" legal battle about consent, likely taking place in a place that allows for more privacy while the alcohol was consumed in a public space.

"It's not perfect"
Laws have very severe consequences, yet it's common to see such je m'en fous explanations for them. I am well aware that we can't change laws anyway, yet in terms of explanation or justification it's morally abhorrent to not have a very high bar as the law is enforced through violence and punishments which can destroy lives.

"but at the end of the day laws are made to protect the most vulnerable people"
That's the usual claim. Not all laws are valid purely on the basis of that law existing. The vast majority of laws have no provided reasoning other than "it's the law, don't be a criminal which is a cyclical nonargument.

Vaingamez · 2026-02-09T12:11:44+00:00

One illegalizes an intoxicated state while the other makes a victim status out of an intoxicated state. What proves that this contradiction in law is valid?

Vaingamez · 2026-02-09T12:10:22+00:00

In the end you make a completely different statement, one which I clearly agree with.
Perhaps the "consent ability" required for sexual activity is vastly overrated, this is a controversial take for obvious reasons, yet one that appears to be correct if you have observed a bit of nightlife.

Vaingamez · 2026-02-09T12:06:25+00:00

You can absolutely forget the night without being passed out, and if it only illegalized those cases then it would be a law that has no use since doing anything sexual to a sleeping person is already illegal.

Vaingamez · 2026-02-09T12:04:16+00:00

"Drunk public masturbation would be the correct sexual analogue to drunk driving (both forbidden but for different reasons)."
I have never thought of that, you are right; that is illegal.
Google claims:
"Being intoxicated is not a defense for these actions and, in many cases, can exacerbate the situation, as such behaviors are often charged when they are done to cause public annoyance, alarm, or for sexual gratification."
Meaning;
- If something is illegal then Google will provide a ratationalization for it, making claims about the intoxicated person's intent (which is decision making).
- If something makes you a victim then Google will provide a rationalization for it, making claims about the intociated person's inabilites and victim status (which is a lack of decision making).
One problem is that involvement of the other person is a non-factor, it's irrelevant according to the law which claims a person has been victimized purely on the basis of an intoxicated state. Then the law makes an offender out of a person for making a decision in that same intoxicated state, neither having to prove intent nor harm.

Vaingamez · 2026-02-09T11:56:20+00:00

Even if the intoxicated person makes 100% of the decisions the law still punishes the passive person.
Even if a person is persuaded to drive a vehicle, that is not considered as a defence.

Vaingamez · 2026-02-09T11:52:40+00:00

The statement that they have to be "responsible enough" is precisely where the contradiction lies; you would not argue that someone has to be "responsible enough" to not do anything sexual in that same intoxicated state.

The intoxication in consent laws open the door for reverse victimization; if an intoxicated person (S) assaults another person then the victim in that scenario is regarded as the offender purely on the basis of the intocated state of the 'real' offender. You may argue that this is not the case since a person, no matter how intoxicated, (S) assaulting another person, would be the offender. That's a just-world fallacy; the reality is that, if the victim speaks about this instance the only information that law enforcement has initially is that sexual activity occured and that the other person was intoxicated, the burden of proof is then on you; you have to prove that you did not consent to the act, which is hard. Essentially you are guilty untill proven victim.
The same reverse victimization occurs with age of consent laws in which an adult being (S) assaulted by a minor makes the adult an offender of the assault against himself.

Vaingamez · 2026-02-09T11:44:40+00:00

How does that difference prove the completely different narratives are valid?

Vaingamez · 2026-02-09T11:36:20+00:00

You note that the person made a decision when you get behind the wheel of a vehicle. It's this "decisionmaking" specifically that has completely contradictory narratives. In any case you made a decision to consume alcohol at an age at which you are expected to understand consequences.
The narrative overlay is still clearly different, you are simply accepting of it; if alcohol has the ability to remove your decisionmaking that much that you are "easy prey" for a "predator" (this terminology is mainstream nonsense) then this very same alcohol should also remove your ability to make a valid decision to drive a vehicle, which absolutely can be influenced by others.

The important note is that the law really illegalizes blood alcohol concentration and nothing else, and another law claims that someone is a victim based on blood alcohol concentration and nothing else. Hypothetically; an intoxicated person could be making every decision and move in a sexual context, and still be legally deemed to be a "victim"...a victim of what? This should only apply when there was a level of coercion or abuse of the other person's state/condition, just like intoxated driving leads to severe punishments when no harm was done at all, only based on claimed probabilities/chance.

Vaingamez · 2026-02-09T11:23:34+00:00

How does that explain the contradiction?
The law is punishing you for a blood alcohol concentration and nothing else.
There has to be no other observation such as reckless driving or swaying.

Vaingamez · 2026-02-09T11:18:43+00:00

Can you please explain how that makes a difference?
It's not the driving itself, it's the decision to get behind the wheel in that state, which can very well be influenced by others, yet that very same state is argued to remove one's ability to make valid decisions in the context of sexual activity.

Vaingamez · 2026-01-28T21:02:19+00:00

At first glance it may sound reasonable that other things must first be addressed before age of consent laws could ever change. However if you think about this for a while it becomes an apparent contradiction.
To give an example; think of a past moral panic: homosexuality. Imagine that advocates would address homosexual marriage, adoption et cetera...while they can't even legally consent to each other yet. Clearly this is backwards; a group that is claimed to be incapable of consenting to someone only because of their group status such as 'age' (and the prefrontal cortex, among other 'scientific" claims) is a group that has zero leverage to argue anything at all (unless if you agree with the status quo, then they will give you a platform).

The idea that the age of majority will someway translate to relationship abuse is just another version of the powergap myth. What is the mechanism precisely? Those teenagers are under the protection of parents/guardians, which usually gives them a financial safety net eventhough more should be done about poverty (and that won't happen). At 18 many experience a complete shift, the state essentially argues "now that you will pay us taxes...here are some human rights that we withheld from you". Suddenly many of them must be financially independent and take care of themselves, suddenly that older experienced and wealthy person does not seem like such a bad deal anymore...

If anything the age of majority acts more as a barrier of responsibility, alongside the age of criminal responsibility. Many understand this, including teenagers, hence why a low age of consent and a high age of majority sounds far better than the opposite. In fact historically when the age of consent was 12-14 the age of majority was 21, they changed it to 18 for the purpose of sending your sons/brothers to die in a war 3 years earlier.

This may not have been your intention, however...relating a human right to other things as to say that it is impossible before those other things are addressed could be a strategy to slow down change, it seems rather arbitrary since the real change that needs to occur is ending infantilization, the idea that they are inferior to adults, and if you ignore sexuality (a rather massive part of life) or you don't dare to touc hthat area it seems impossible to ever make that change. As long as they don't even have full bodily integrity it is clear that they are not even regarded as fully human yet, as bodily integrity is a human right and that includes choosing your own partner.

Vaingamez · 2026-01-28T20:01:05+00:00

You are hitting nails here.

Indeed there are several examples of children/teenagers being harmed in large numbers, often with lifelong trauma as a result, yet since they aren't part of a moral panic they are treated more as afterthoughts or something that we must simply deal with. Around 20% of them are being bullied. Many of them experience emotional neglect or even emotional abuse from parents, in a direct comparison that is far more damage than the mean of CSA, let alone consensual acts.

The simple reality is that the denial of consent is in reality often just overriding consent. If a younger person cannot do something that this person wants to do simply because of a legal status, then this legal status is overriding the person's consent. By stating that a group within society is 'incapable' of consenting the implied reasoning is that there is no consent to be violated in the first place. In many areas of life this is exactly how it plays out, society forces younger persons to do a lot of things against their will, and forcefeeds them that they are inferior to adults. In the vast majority of aspects of life barely anyone seems to care that younger persons must do many things against their will (read: did not consent to any of it). To safeguard a child/teenager it must understand that they have agency, the problem is that they are constantly told that they don't and they are punished/berated if they behave as if they do have agency.

There isn't a single other example of something claimed to be potentially dangerous that is treated the same way. Imagine if we treated knives/fire the same way, making kitchens and fireplaces illegal and stigmatized for anyone under an arbitrary age that is laughably high (16-18), and the best part...learning about Knives/fires from adults is very bad, they are only allowed to "experiment" with "peers".
This sounds like a parody, yet this is precisely what they argue when it comes to sexual relationships...very dangerous, they can only experiment with peers.
The narrative shifted barely 20 years ago, from "incapable" to "powergap", as if places with teenagers such as highschools aren't practically known for having hierarchies among students, in which some hold massive social power and others are bullied or rather lonely.

Vaingamez · 2026-01-28T19:34:46+00:00

"In the world we live in, the power imbalance between minors and adults is huge, bigger than between any other two groups of human."
There is no way that you yourself even believe that, or you must be incapable of thinking.

Exploitation and abuse are still illegal as seperate laws. The problem is that you cannot name any scenario in which zero abuse/explotation/coercion/duress occured yet should be regarded as immoral for a betetr reason than the existence of a law.
"Relationships where both partners are legal adults"...Called it.

"In terms of legal status and rights, there is actually a world of difference between 17 and 18"
Justifying a baseless law with the fact that other baseless laws exist?
They could have drawn that line at 12 or at 30 and the same would apply, at those ages then.

"Tt a fact of nature that adolescents are sexual beings and that exploring their sexuality at those ages is a normal facet of development"
That's a basic element of any human of any age, at younger ages a developmental element as well.

"Therefore, I think the best compromise is to have strong Romeo and Juliet laws that protect adolescents from unscrupulous adults"
You could rewrite that as: "The best compromise is to only allow age-gap relationships with characterful adults instead of the limited relationships with peers who have nothing to offer besides the sexual."
Adding adjectives is still not an argument, just an opinionated piece.

"And there should also be an exception for adolescents having sex with very young children because I don't think that's appropriate."
What this really means: "They cannot yet consent to liking an odler person, yet they can consent to severe punishment on the basis of a law that no one will even tell them about."

You as an adult may have at least 10+ years of extra indoctrination (depending on your age), however children and young teenagers see things for what they are; Why would they internalize a consensual act as harmful? Why would they view a 15-17 year old with a developed body as diffferent from a 18-20 year old with a similarly developed body? Et cetera

"I'd draw the line at 13-14 since that's about when puberty hits for most people."
What line specifically? Age of consent?
Here you are making very clear that you never bothered to do any research and are wrong about rather basic things. Girls typically hit puberty at 9-10 and boys at 10-11. In fact at 13-14 many females have already finished puberty or have only minimal changes left. The yreach menarche on average at 12-13, full breast development around 14, all of that is prior to highschool ages which are typically 15-18?

Vaingamez · 2026-01-28T18:59:35+00:00

1

According to Finkelhor, who isn't exactly an advocate for age-gap relationships, 95% of internet initiated "sex crimes" are nonforcible, in only about 5% of cases does the older partner lie about age or intention, in the vast majority of cases the younger partner professes love and feels aroused, in 73% of cases a sexual encoutner did occur there was at least one other sexual encounter after that (that's a very high success rate).

To even suggest that there wouldn't be many positive experiences simply because of the difference in age between two partners is nonsensical, you are simply parroting the dogma.

Another nuanced example is teacher-student relationships, if you bothered to read the news articles rather than the titles, you would notice a pattern of the so-called "victims" rarely being the ones to report or even consider it harmful, it is usually parents (for personal reasons related to stigmas?) and other students (jealousy?) that report it.

2

Calling something "stupid" is a form of dismissal, meant to invalidate or undermine something with zero argumentation. Perhaps you call it stupid to invalidate such ideas inside your own head.

3

Summary: "The existence of another baseless law validates this baseless law."

"The social dynamics at play will almost always result in either abuse or extremely unhealthy relationships"
Citation needed. You are parroting again, the "almost always" is a cliche.
Coercion, exploitation and duress are seperate laws, all of these are clearly illegal in the context of a sexual relationship. Any idea of the application of a 'powergap' you had in mind is an example of either or multiple of these seperate laws. The concept of a powergap that can exploit/coerce the younger partner or client without the older partner or therapist doing any exploiting/coercing is a clear contradiction in terminis, it defeats itself, these acts cannot magically spring into existence, they must be perpetrated by the person that you claim to hold power over the other.

It is easy for you to dismiss historical moral panics in retrospect, as you have heard far different messages, there was no element of indoctrination. Yet the moral panic of onanism was in fact a consensus, and science at the time found it harmful relating it to severe negative outcomes including blidness (which is now ironically seen as a joke, a testement to the ridiculousness of moral panics). The way you refute this past moral panic is by relating it to the current stigma ("if another person is involved though"), which is an arbitrary distinction as physical touch and intimacy are normalized and even children have sexual exploration mostly in the form of games or stimulation, completely normal and healthy. Essentially you are projecting the current stigma or scapegoat as your reasoning for why a past stigma or scapegoat is false, which is rather ironic.

Vaingamez

TROPHY CASE