I was wondering for a minute there if he was talking about the difference between children and teenagers and adults, because of course there are big differences, as the varying ages of consent can attest to. Honestly I found the points he was trying to make to be really confusing. But then I saw the lines "When is a person “old enough” t…
I was wondering for a minute there if he was talking about the difference between children and teenagers and adults, because of course there are big differences, as the varying ages of consent can attest to. Honestly I found the points he was trying to make to be really confusing. But then I saw the lines "When is a person “old enough” to chose when they are trans? If they are old enough at 10, aren’t they old enough then to consent to sex?" and suddenly his perspective was... clarified. 😬
"because of course there are big differences, as the varying ages of consent can attest to."
Yeah, pedophilia apologists often try to muddy the waters with teenage edge cases to give their arguments a veneer of respectability. But in most cases, the law already protects close-age underage sexual relationships. I think pretty much everybody would agree that teenagers shouldn't go to jail for having sex with each other. That's very different from his argument that age of consent laws are meaningless.
I think his arguments were confusing simply because they were geared towards pretending there's no need to legally protect children from predators. It's very hard to be coherent when the target you're trying to hit is, "It's mean to 'cancel' people just because they have sex with kids."
I was wondering for a minute there if he was talking about the difference between children and teenagers and adults, because of course there are big differences, as the varying ages of consent can attest to. Honestly I found the points he was trying to make to be really confusing. But then I saw the lines "When is a person “old enough” to chose when they are trans? If they are old enough at 10, aren’t they old enough then to consent to sex?" and suddenly his perspective was... clarified. 😬
"because of course there are big differences, as the varying ages of consent can attest to."
Yeah, pedophilia apologists often try to muddy the waters with teenage edge cases to give their arguments a veneer of respectability. But in most cases, the law already protects close-age underage sexual relationships. I think pretty much everybody would agree that teenagers shouldn't go to jail for having sex with each other. That's very different from his argument that age of consent laws are meaningless.
I think his arguments were confusing simply because they were geared towards pretending there's no need to legally protect children from predators. It's very hard to be coherent when the target you're trying to hit is, "It's mean to 'cancel' people just because they have sex with kids."
Rogue sounds like a pederast, not a pedophile. I doubt he craves prepubescent children but he definitely resents being limited to over eighteen.
Dave linked a blog post with a pile of new words with fine distinctions but I can get by in this case with "creep."