Post a response:
|
I agree that aiming for an AoC of 12 as a hard end goal would be abandoning a lot of things. Not just LBLs, but also boys under 12 and the ideals of sexual liberation. However, I don't think pursuing an AoC of 12 as an interim goal is such. And I don't just mean that from a practical political standpoint. I also mean that moving the AoC to 12 would give us some time to see how that works in practice, and get more data on how best to further liberalise the AoC. I don't think it's going to be practical to expect a society that is used to using the age of consent as a line in the sand to move to something more nuanced overnight. I also stand by the claim that abolishing the age of consent entirely is an extreme position. I would like to see a world in which we don't take a hard "no never" approach to pre-pubescent sexuality. But I also do think that the best solution for that age range is going to still require a lot of additional protections and nuance. I've said this many times before, but I think the PIE proposal offers a good case study of what this might look like. I do think that the "abolish the age of consent entirely and treat them like adults" position is extreme. I also don't think that's inconsistent with the idea that we should try to find a solution to pre-pubescent sexuality that isn't just "no". |