Good article. I'm still against lowering ages, but I think describing myself as "defending the status quo" was a mistake on my part, as I agree that current age of consent laws are extremely inconsistent and ludicrously complicated for something that is considered a very serious matter. A nationwide age of consent anywhere from 17 to 19 would be more desirable, with a national standard for romeo-and-juliet laws protecting relationships within maybe 4 years of age. And, obviously, if you prove in court that you were misled about someone's age, you shouldn't be charged for it.
I would probably be OK using the intelligence argument to also justify the prohibition of mixed-intelligence marriages, or miscegenation between groups with large intelligence differences. However, I think the justification for that is fundamentally different from using intelligence gaps to justify the age of consent gaps. The reason we prohibit young people from doing things which require a great deal of judgment is that we recognize people in development to be in an impeded state. Their actions as youths don't represent their merit in adulthood, so we try to protect people from the consequences of those actions. Someone who is just plain stupid is dull by their nature, and will probably always be about that dull, so there's not much use or justice in babying them.
I don't think that being unable to drink alcohol (to the extent people follow this law) is as important as being unable to own property, being restricted from certain types of work, being unable to participate in politics, and being unable to drive. The reason I focus so much on large age gaps is because I feel the opposite about who is promoting this debate online. It may have originally been guys in their late teens, but it's increasingly becoming a discussion promoted by people in their mid to late 20s. You correctly point out that a lot of the people concerned about this debate aren't actually the ones getting in trouble, because a lot of people concerned about this debate don't actually have sex.
I'll look into that thing about Tacitus just fabricating that in order to encourage piety
> A nationwide age of consent anywhere from 17 to 19 would be more desirable, with a national standard for romeo-and-juliet laws protecting relationships within maybe 4 years of age.
4 years is too small, it bans relationships that people actually evolved to want. It needs to be a 7 to 10 year Romeo and Juliet range under this scheme. Or otherwise a martial exemption with such an allowance needs to be included. I am not sure where people got it in their heads that 5 years is a big age gap. Nobody thought this until 20 years ago and it's quite baseless.
>The reason we prohibit young people from doing things which require a great deal of judgment is that we recognize people in development to be in an impeded state. Their actions as youths don't represent their merit in adulthood
This is wrong, your actions at 16 absolutely correlate very highly with your adult merits. Intelligent people are always responsible adults by 16, unintelligent people always require babying.
>don't think that being unable to drink alcohol (to the extent people follow this law) is as important as being unable to own property, being restricted from certain types of work, being unable to participate in politics, and being unable to drive.
Only driving and alcohol are relevant to real couples on a daily basis. Nobody is sitting around thinking, "oh, she's only 17, that means she can't come to the polls with me and vote next week, darn. She also can't have a mortgage in her own name. Total deal breaker. And on top of that she can't drive a large truck professionally! Ew!". They're thinking about if she can go out to the bar and drive herself there. And all of this is predicated on those laws being just, which I'm skeptical of. I think it ought to be easy for a smart 15 year old to do all of these things if they want.
>but it's increasingly becoming a discussion promoted by people in their mid to late 20s.
Looking at the statistics they're likely in their late teens and early 20s. By the time you are 25 you have a 7 year age gap with an 18 year old so most of these men are not likely to be obsessed with dating 15 year olds and under since people don't actually like age gaps over 9 or 10 years. It's 19 and 20 year olds who find it awkward to date girls over 18, because they are within 3 years of age, but the they're told they're pedos if they try to date 15-16 year olds. This is very very disturbing to their natural romantic strategy and leads to romantic failure until they are older and become attractive to 20 something women.
I don’t see the issue with a 4 year lenience period. High school lasts 4 years, meaning no one is gonna get arrested for dating a classmate, and boys are definitely not more than 4 years behind girls developmentally. It’s not a large age gap in the grand scheme of things, but it is when you’re talking about people who were very unambiguously children 4 years prior.
Most people are responsible adults by 16, but like I mentioned in my post it is standard practice to be exceedingly cautious when making laws meant for public safety. Plus, I presume someone who would be getting married at 16 isn’t just experiencing this out of the blue. This could be the product of several years of courting. The house/job/car thing matters because if you can’t do those things, you are intrinsically dependent on your spouse for those things rather than being on equal footing. I will say, this problem is mitigated by requiring parental consent for such marriages, but I really just don’t think that would ever be a very common thing for parents to approve of for U16s. Rising preferences for marriage age have happened pretty independently of increasing minimum ages of marriage/consent, because there just isn’t much of an incentive to marry very early nowadays. I can’t really relate to your experience of knowing a lot of happy campers who married before 18, I’ve met none. Usually when I hear about it happening it’s a shotgun wedding type scenario. Same with the AoC skeptics being 19 year olds. I’m sure real life offenders are mostly 19 year olds, but I’m talking about the internet pundits who really care about this issue and bring it up often. Usually kinda “oldfag” demographics like amarnites, scientific blackpillers, and the more edgy side of HBD.
>I don’t see the issue with a 4 year lenience period. High school lasts 4 years, meaning no one is gonna get arrested for dating a classmate
The issue is it bans natural loving relationships outside of the high school. I am saying that biology and history show age gaps up to 10 years are normal and desired, but you seem to never address this claim directly. Banning half of romantic relationships (all of the 4-8 year age gap ones) among young people is terrible for obvious reasons: it's anti-liberty, anti-romance, and anti-fertility, to name a few. Meanwhile, there is no positive upside.
>it is standard practice to be exceedingly cautious when making laws meant for public safety
Standard practice where? When? for whom? Age of consent laws are a public safety threat for sexually attractive young men. Did anyone consider their safety from tyranny? Why aren't you? I mean this argument is a drop of distilled water in the ocean of history. The salt remains. (the salt is the fact that relationships between 15 and 20 year olds are normal, loving, and good).
>The house/job/car thing matters because if you can’t do those things, you are intrinsically dependent on your spouse for those things rather than being on equal footing
Spouses should not be equal atoms teetering on the brink of divorce, they should rather be interdependent lovers. That's how it is with my wife and I. Also wives should obey their husbands. Turns out we don't ban reproduction because children are powerless, we just regulate parents. Likewise you should not ban real marriage because wives are subordinate, you should just regulate husbands against being abusive, which is already done through family courts and domestic violence laws. It is already done, because abuse barely correlates with age gap anyway, so all of the same age marriages have abuse at the roughly same rate as age gap marriages.
>I will say, this problem is mitigated by requiring parental consent for such marriages, but I really just don’t think that would ever be a very common thing for parents to approve of for U16s.
Great, give people the freedom to choose then.
>Rising preferences for marriage age have happened pretty independently of increasing minimum ages of marriage/consent, because there just isn’t much of an incentive to marry very early nowadays.
What about love? I think romantic souls shouldn't be lorded over by unloving types who need incentives to marry besides love for one another.
Comparing HS girls not going for same aged boys in this lowered AOC scenario to "tyranny of the old over the young" really left a bad taste in my mouth.
I think many in our sphere really need to mentally decouple the thought of teen love and youthfulness from the prison that is public school before using such BAP-esque anti gerontocrat attacks in counterintuitive ways.
If you lived during any other time period in history the concept of 15 yos only ever going after other 15 yos wouldn't even cross your mind. What one would really want is people marrying young, regardless of technical age.
Evolution already gave us the means to broadly differentiate the ages.
The implementation of scientifically grounded laws like the ones proposed in this article would be more than enough to ensure a bio-culture of youth and vitality, without having to leave the important task of reproduction to irresponsible "teenage" males, who by your own admission are "quite devilish in their attitudes".
Men their age should be focusing on breadwinning, education and leisure regardless, and the virtuous, future oriented among them would do so anyway, knowing that they'll be able to romantically court a girl in their 20s without schizophrenic totalitarian laws working against them.
Very interesting as always. I enjoyed the autistic (in a good way) exploration of this topic. All in all, though, it comes down to common sense: human males are evolved to be attracted to women as young and fertile as possible. If we were to use evolution as a guideline to make laws, hebephilia would be legal, and possibly pedophilia in some 3rd world countries.
Also, normies would never get behind something like "progressive age gap laws". They wouldn't get them in the first place. They take what the soyentists tell them and run with it. Most die-hard AoC moralists don't even know why 18 is their magic number.
I also find it really suspicious that the U.S. is the only Western country to so aggressively prosecute these (should be) minor offenses. It's almost like the prison-industrial and bureocratic complexes push to have as many people incarcerated or filed into registers as possible. It clearly shows the perverse incentives of our capitalist dystopia.
A voice of reason and practicality. Good article👍🏻
Good article. I'm still against lowering ages, but I think describing myself as "defending the status quo" was a mistake on my part, as I agree that current age of consent laws are extremely inconsistent and ludicrously complicated for something that is considered a very serious matter. A nationwide age of consent anywhere from 17 to 19 would be more desirable, with a national standard for romeo-and-juliet laws protecting relationships within maybe 4 years of age. And, obviously, if you prove in court that you were misled about someone's age, you shouldn't be charged for it.
I would probably be OK using the intelligence argument to also justify the prohibition of mixed-intelligence marriages, or miscegenation between groups with large intelligence differences. However, I think the justification for that is fundamentally different from using intelligence gaps to justify the age of consent gaps. The reason we prohibit young people from doing things which require a great deal of judgment is that we recognize people in development to be in an impeded state. Their actions as youths don't represent their merit in adulthood, so we try to protect people from the consequences of those actions. Someone who is just plain stupid is dull by their nature, and will probably always be about that dull, so there's not much use or justice in babying them.
I don't think that being unable to drink alcohol (to the extent people follow this law) is as important as being unable to own property, being restricted from certain types of work, being unable to participate in politics, and being unable to drive. The reason I focus so much on large age gaps is because I feel the opposite about who is promoting this debate online. It may have originally been guys in their late teens, but it's increasingly becoming a discussion promoted by people in their mid to late 20s. You correctly point out that a lot of the people concerned about this debate aren't actually the ones getting in trouble, because a lot of people concerned about this debate don't actually have sex.
I'll look into that thing about Tacitus just fabricating that in order to encourage piety
> A nationwide age of consent anywhere from 17 to 19 would be more desirable, with a national standard for romeo-and-juliet laws protecting relationships within maybe 4 years of age.
4 years is too small, it bans relationships that people actually evolved to want. It needs to be a 7 to 10 year Romeo and Juliet range under this scheme. Or otherwise a martial exemption with such an allowance needs to be included. I am not sure where people got it in their heads that 5 years is a big age gap. Nobody thought this until 20 years ago and it's quite baseless.
>The reason we prohibit young people from doing things which require a great deal of judgment is that we recognize people in development to be in an impeded state. Their actions as youths don't represent their merit in adulthood
This is wrong, your actions at 16 absolutely correlate very highly with your adult merits. Intelligent people are always responsible adults by 16, unintelligent people always require babying.
>don't think that being unable to drink alcohol (to the extent people follow this law) is as important as being unable to own property, being restricted from certain types of work, being unable to participate in politics, and being unable to drive.
Only driving and alcohol are relevant to real couples on a daily basis. Nobody is sitting around thinking, "oh, she's only 17, that means she can't come to the polls with me and vote next week, darn. She also can't have a mortgage in her own name. Total deal breaker. And on top of that she can't drive a large truck professionally! Ew!". They're thinking about if she can go out to the bar and drive herself there. And all of this is predicated on those laws being just, which I'm skeptical of. I think it ought to be easy for a smart 15 year old to do all of these things if they want.
>but it's increasingly becoming a discussion promoted by people in their mid to late 20s.
Looking at the statistics they're likely in their late teens and early 20s. By the time you are 25 you have a 7 year age gap with an 18 year old so most of these men are not likely to be obsessed with dating 15 year olds and under since people don't actually like age gaps over 9 or 10 years. It's 19 and 20 year olds who find it awkward to date girls over 18, because they are within 3 years of age, but the they're told they're pedos if they try to date 15-16 year olds. This is very very disturbing to their natural romantic strategy and leads to romantic failure until they are older and become attractive to 20 something women.
You sound like a Nonce.
I don’t see the issue with a 4 year lenience period. High school lasts 4 years, meaning no one is gonna get arrested for dating a classmate, and boys are definitely not more than 4 years behind girls developmentally. It’s not a large age gap in the grand scheme of things, but it is when you’re talking about people who were very unambiguously children 4 years prior.
Most people are responsible adults by 16, but like I mentioned in my post it is standard practice to be exceedingly cautious when making laws meant for public safety. Plus, I presume someone who would be getting married at 16 isn’t just experiencing this out of the blue. This could be the product of several years of courting. The house/job/car thing matters because if you can’t do those things, you are intrinsically dependent on your spouse for those things rather than being on equal footing. I will say, this problem is mitigated by requiring parental consent for such marriages, but I really just don’t think that would ever be a very common thing for parents to approve of for U16s. Rising preferences for marriage age have happened pretty independently of increasing minimum ages of marriage/consent, because there just isn’t much of an incentive to marry very early nowadays. I can’t really relate to your experience of knowing a lot of happy campers who married before 18, I’ve met none. Usually when I hear about it happening it’s a shotgun wedding type scenario. Same with the AoC skeptics being 19 year olds. I’m sure real life offenders are mostly 19 year olds, but I’m talking about the internet pundits who really care about this issue and bring it up often. Usually kinda “oldfag” demographics like amarnites, scientific blackpillers, and the more edgy side of HBD.
>I don’t see the issue with a 4 year lenience period. High school lasts 4 years, meaning no one is gonna get arrested for dating a classmate
The issue is it bans natural loving relationships outside of the high school. I am saying that biology and history show age gaps up to 10 years are normal and desired, but you seem to never address this claim directly. Banning half of romantic relationships (all of the 4-8 year age gap ones) among young people is terrible for obvious reasons: it's anti-liberty, anti-romance, and anti-fertility, to name a few. Meanwhile, there is no positive upside.
>it is standard practice to be exceedingly cautious when making laws meant for public safety
Standard practice where? When? for whom? Age of consent laws are a public safety threat for sexually attractive young men. Did anyone consider their safety from tyranny? Why aren't you? I mean this argument is a drop of distilled water in the ocean of history. The salt remains. (the salt is the fact that relationships between 15 and 20 year olds are normal, loving, and good).
>The house/job/car thing matters because if you can’t do those things, you are intrinsically dependent on your spouse for those things rather than being on equal footing
Spouses should not be equal atoms teetering on the brink of divorce, they should rather be interdependent lovers. That's how it is with my wife and I. Also wives should obey their husbands. Turns out we don't ban reproduction because children are powerless, we just regulate parents. Likewise you should not ban real marriage because wives are subordinate, you should just regulate husbands against being abusive, which is already done through family courts and domestic violence laws. It is already done, because abuse barely correlates with age gap anyway, so all of the same age marriages have abuse at the roughly same rate as age gap marriages.
>I will say, this problem is mitigated by requiring parental consent for such marriages, but I really just don’t think that would ever be a very common thing for parents to approve of for U16s.
Great, give people the freedom to choose then.
>Rising preferences for marriage age have happened pretty independently of increasing minimum ages of marriage/consent, because there just isn’t much of an incentive to marry very early nowadays.
What about love? I think romantic souls shouldn't be lorded over by unloving types who need incentives to marry besides love for one another.
You’re A Nonce. Kill Every Pederast. Death To The Sex Havers.
Age of consent should be set by the clan & not unduly enforced by the state unless pre-pubescent.
Non-western opinion though
Brezhnen, you’re fucking Brown. Why the fuck are you on this side of the fucking internet at all?
Death To Every Amarnite.
WAIT… Isn’t the Templism guy from Amarna? Spare him…
Comparing HS girls not going for same aged boys in this lowered AOC scenario to "tyranny of the old over the young" really left a bad taste in my mouth.
I think many in our sphere really need to mentally decouple the thought of teen love and youthfulness from the prison that is public school before using such BAP-esque anti gerontocrat attacks in counterintuitive ways.
If you lived during any other time period in history the concept of 15 yos only ever going after other 15 yos wouldn't even cross your mind. What one would really want is people marrying young, regardless of technical age.
Evolution already gave us the means to broadly differentiate the ages.
The implementation of scientifically grounded laws like the ones proposed in this article would be more than enough to ensure a bio-culture of youth and vitality, without having to leave the important task of reproduction to irresponsible "teenage" males, who by your own admission are "quite devilish in their attitudes".
Men their age should be focusing on breadwinning, education and leisure regardless, and the virtuous, future oriented among them would do so anyway, knowing that they'll be able to romantically court a girl in their 20s without schizophrenic totalitarian laws working against them.
If it bleeds it breeds.
45, Or even later. Ban Sex. Death To The Sex Havers. Titanium Burkhas you fucking Pederast Gooner.
Very interesting as always. I enjoyed the autistic (in a good way) exploration of this topic. All in all, though, it comes down to common sense: human males are evolved to be attracted to women as young and fertile as possible. If we were to use evolution as a guideline to make laws, hebephilia would be legal, and possibly pedophilia in some 3rd world countries.
Also, normies would never get behind something like "progressive age gap laws". They wouldn't get them in the first place. They take what the soyentists tell them and run with it. Most die-hard AoC moralists don't even know why 18 is their magic number.
I also find it really suspicious that the U.S. is the only Western country to so aggressively prosecute these (should be) minor offenses. It's almost like the prison-industrial and bureocratic complexes push to have as many people incarcerated or filed into registers as possible. It clearly shows the perverse incentives of our capitalist dystopia.
Inb4 Bronski's divorce to a Frenchthot