I have noticed that when I looked at some discussions on age-of-consent that the arguments are often built on metaphysics. (For example, the idea that sexual development (or puberty) has definite, exact stages; and start or end dates.)

However, the dialectical materialist conception opposes metaphysics; so this would mean that if the age-of-consent is built on metaphysics; then it will not correspond to material reality.

This would include the start and end of sexual development in people; some people self-initate or end puberty much earlier (like at 8 or 9 years age) than what is traditionally expected (12 to 13 years age); and the rate of puberty onset has changed with the material conditions[1] (as dialectical materialism predicts).

So, if a person ends puberty (sexual development) much earlier than the age-of-consent and has gotten clear sex education; then should they still be not allowed to have sex until that age? What about adults having late puberty? What about people who never went through puberty, like some people with Kallmann Syndrome?

Since the conclusion of sexual development allows a person to have sex without sustaining damage, with good and proper sex education (as is education that doesn’t lead to rape), that would mean the person would be able to safely have sex, even if they have late puberty or end puberty earlier than expected. This is the opinion I’ve developed from my rethinking on this topic.

  1. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006 Nov; 60(11): 910–911. doi: 10.1136/jech.2006.049379 PMCID: PMC2465479 PMID: 17053275 ↩︎

  • nutomic@lemmy.ml
    41·
    2 years ago

    To attempt answering your question, I dont think its solely a matter of sexual development of the body. Mental development is much more important, especially the ability to manage human relationships and set boundaries.

    Age of consent is also not simply a binary question of yes or no. One approach I know about is that relationships between young teenagers are only legal up to an age difference of 2 years or so, not with adults. And the older relationship partner holds much higher legal responsibility if any abuse happens. I think that makes a lot of sense. It also makes sense that parents should be able to decide if their child can enter in a relationship with a specific person, after all they know their child best.

    • Ada@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      3·
      2 years ago

      Parents sell their underage children in to arranged marriages all the time.

      Parents discretion isn’t sufficient

      • nutomic@lemmy.ml
        21·
        2 years ago

        I never suggested that it would be sufficient. Did you also read the rest of my comment?

    • Amicese@lemmy.mlOP
      1·
      2 years ago

      To attempt answering your question, I dont think its solely a matter of sexual development of the body. Mental development is much more important, especially the ability to manage human relationships and set boundaries.

      I didnt think about brain development until now. Yes, that is important.

      Age of consent is also not simply a binary question of yes or no

      Yes. through dialectical materialism, sexual coercion can’t be simplified into merely use of physical force; there is also economic coercion (through capital), and they all influence consent.

      One approach I know about is that relationships between young teenagers are only legal up to an age difference of 2 years or so, not with adults.

      OK.

      It also makes sense that parents should be able to decide if their child can enter in a relationship with a specific person, after all they know their child best.

      It’s also said that the child knows best; and I think that children should learn what makes for a good relationship (no damage of all types).