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
[https://medlineplus.gov/genetics/condition/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
[https://sci-hub.se/10.1136/jech.2006.049379] ↩︎
Amicese is famously known for getting banned from Stalingrad for suggesting incest is okay iirc