Re: about consent

Sexual activity isn't necessarily harmful to a child: demonstratably true.

Children are not devoid of any sexuality, and can, and do, display signs of arousel and/or a willingness for sex: demonstratably true.

In a sexual relationship with an adult, a child is extremely vulnerable to coercion and/or manipulation: generally understood to be true.

AoC laws should not be abolished completely. They should be lowered in some areas where they are unreasonably high. If I had to pick a number, I believe 12 is appropriate. (Yes, this is an arbitrary number. Law uses arbitrary numbers all the time; it's generally not a problem.)

However, we will achieve nothing as a group by advocating for a lower AoC or abolishment of the AoC.

We need to focus on the destigmatization of pedosexuality so that we are able to have open, rational discussions with most nons. (We have been making progress towards this.)

Given enough time, we could eventually establish the idea that under safe circumstances and with a loving, caring adult, sexual play can be a very positive, nurturing experience for most children.

However, there still exists the innate vulnerability of the child, which needs to be addressed.

Open pedosexuality will never (and should never) be allowed because of this vulnerability. Our best bet would be to propose a specific set of circumstances in which pedosexuality can be practised safely.

The legal AoC remains in place. Parental consent is necessary for those under the legal AoC.

Just as in any other activity with someone else's child, you must obtain permission from the parents before proceeding: not unreasonable.

In a hypothetical future where pedosexuals aren't considered evil rapists and child sexuality is fully acknowledged, it's not difficult at all to imagine a moderated form of pedosexuality being legal....

- Rainbow