stahntii thoughts

A child, at age 12, is understood as having sufficient mental capacity to know whether it wants to hunt. It is presumed to
A.) know whether it wants to shoot a gun or not,
B.) be capable of learning safe gun-handling and hunting habits,
C.) know whether it wants to kill an animal and eat it,
D.) know the risks,
E.) know how to handle any potential stress and/or negative side affects that may come from any aspect of the whole gun-shooting and hunting experience.

A child is presumed to know these things. Why then, is it not presumed that a child can know what pleases it, sexually, or what it is physically attracted to? Why?

Hunting, was just one of many examples where a child is presumed to be capable of knowing A through E.

Many say "a child is not yet mature, and cannot yet know what it wants, or how to be responsible with sexual things". But then how can it know that it wants, or how to be safe and responsible, with things such as, hunting,
or rafting,
or playing soccer,
or biking,
or wrestling,
or riding ATV's,
or baskerball,
or football,
or gymnastics,
or going into a school or public restroom by itself (where there are plenty of harmful germs)?

How???

all these I mentioned are examples where there are high levels of risk involved; risk of std, risk of bodily injury, risk of death, risk of emotional trauma, etc.

Why is a child seen as something that cannot consent to any form of sexual activity or exploration? And why is sexual contact seen as something that is automatically harmful to a child? Let's assume it's because of the flawed "a-child-is-simply-too-young-yet-to-know-what-it-wants" logic. Many people say "a child doesn't understand all the implications like an adult does". Or that "a child doesn't yet see things like an adult does, or receive the same brand of pleasure out of something that an adult might".

But these excuses are far from true justifications.

But is it really necessary for all beings who are receiving pleasure from one another, to understand (or look at) every situation in the same exact way? Is it also necessary that the persons' involved derive the same exact brand of satisfaction out of the contact?

Let's figure human life is made up of a series of stages/phases that a person (and their body and mind) passes through, every so many years. Granted; those in the beginning stages are gonna know less about all the in's and out's of life, as will people in their middle ages again begin doing as they decline with aging. But as for being able to know what they want or enjoy, how much general life-knowledge they have has NO bearing on whether any contact they may have be considered abusive or not. However, It should be the duty of the more knowledgeable one, to do all it can to look out for the emotional and physical safety of the less knowledgeable one.

But going with the current flawed logic regarding "when a child generally knows what it wants or what's good for it, sexually", we may as well ban adults with down syndrome (and various other mental illnesses) from ever having the right to sexual contact for the rest of their lives, since they too are generally at an intelligence disadvantage.

But does an "intelligence disadvantage" mean that a person
A.) should not have the right to sexual contact, or
B.) is not capable of knowing what it likes and wants?

I'll quit now, and let any who is reading this fill in the rest. I think I made my point.