I'll speak more about this since you enjoyed reading my post so much that you quoted it on your thread (Thanks for that)
If you want total sexual debauchery (an r-selective society that prioritizes sexual dimorphism and short term chaotic mate search instead of a truly patriarchal k-selective one) , total female socio-sexual freedom, complete female supremacy, which has been granted to women (women can decide who reproduces and who doesn't) ,then what's the point of the age of consent laws?
It would only make sense if there was a society that enforced monogamy, but even then, it doesn't make sense to base it on an arbitrary number, so it shouldn't be a thing, especially because there would be plenty of people that have the capability to be penetrated or penetrate before that set age, thus invalidating the whole point of 'consent'. If the normie agecucks (not the types of agecucks on here but the normal NPC hiveminded populace that believes in total female sexual liberation) want women to have a free sexual choice, isn't it misogyny if these women. How's it 'meant' to protect them if at the same time, you feel like they should have sex with anyone they want to, as per 'my body my choice'? Purely hypocritical, plain cognitive dissonance.
Sex is not a thing to be personified about, it is not a medium of manipulation (it is an act), only the person is (for sexual intercourse to happen, both people have to be aroused by each other), and there is no such thing as being 'taken advantage' of or being 'manipulated' just because a person was older than a certain age, which tends to only happen if it's a male, somehow.
The act of sex is just sticking your genitalia into one another, the age of the penis does not and will not affect and is not different to a penis of that female's agemates who she is already 'experimenting' with in her 'adolescent' years.
One more loop hole I found, the fact that there is an age of consent only for sexual intercourse proves that there is probably nothing more important than sexual intercourse (Normies that say sex isn't important btfoed). There is no age of consent for eating food or drinking water, which is considered to be more important to normies. Infants usually have their parents decide for them until they are capable enough of satisfying their bodily needs in terms of eating and drinking, so why does there have to be an arbitrary number for having sexual intercourse? Logic 404. There's plenty of things that are determined for us, that we can't consent to, like having our education chosen by our parents when we are not even infants yet.
We can be taken advantage of by whatever the state wants us to learn, especially if it is started at infancy with nursery/kindergarten. A single sovereign state has the capacity to 'groom' millions of genuine innocent children, but somehow, a man sleeping with a woman a few years under the age of consent is somehow more of a capable 'groomer' than the state, even if the female willingly allowed the man to sleep with her, which contrasts in direct polarity.
A 3 year old boy hasn't chosen to 'consent' to learning the education material provided by the state, yet he is still considered 'mature' enough to learn all types of things the state or his parents want him to, compared to a pubescent female who starts to 'experiment' around, and then in this 'experimentation', which is just her indulging in socio-sexual gratification, the female
WILLINGLY sleeps with a rich normie man who's 35 or so , the man is automatically considered to be 'taken advantage of her' and it's more harmful than millions of 3 year olds in the west being allowed to read tranny or faggot shit or drag queens coming into school telling them to question their 'sexuality' and consider getting sex reassignment surgery, but of course, to society, the globohomo promoting states and their agendas will be seen less harmful as that sole man, even though one has an immeasurable amount of difference compared to the other. There is just no point of arguing with these borderline retarded sheeple who base their logic on current societal norms, completely ignoring the concepts of the Overton Window.
If the children of parents are able to demonstrably eat or drink whatever they want without their parents choosing for them, then why should there be an arbitrary number for having sexual intercourse without the permission of their parents? This means there should be no age of consent, as their parents can easily be able to decide when they have the required adult sexual hormones to be able to have sexual intercourse, and this shouldn't be decided by a sole age which unnaturally gatekeeps them from doing the same thing with a person over that age but not with their own agemates even though there is no difference between doing the activity with a much older person.
Everything is pre-determined in a way. If these agecucks were living as elite patrician/noble classes in the Roman Empire, they would be married off in their 20s to women 10 years earlier than them then average, even though, if you remove the high infant mortality rates, the upper roman classes lived until their late 60s on average, yet they married earlier than the time the plebeian classes did. Why was that?
View attachment 978397
For thousands of years, we had no laws addressing this in many successful civilizations, yet we could discern someone who is capable enough to reproduce from one who cannot. Age has never had anything to do with this, only development. And it doesn't matter, because women always have the maturity of a child. They can only think short term, never long-term. This is why all successful civilizations married women sometimes even before they hit pubescence. The man often served as a second father figure, teaching them how to housekeep and cook and clean, doing the mundane roles suited to them, because women can't invent or innovate., and never have they done so.
