Sofia on Nostr: Fir :transspecies star: m o μ s e >Sexual liberation doesn't necessarily mean having ...
Fir :transspecies star: (npub1yyl…y9hl) m o μ s e (npub19kn…0fes)
>Sexual liberation doesn't necessarily mean having sex with whomever you wish
it doesn't *mean* that, but it *includes* that, every previous movement regarding sexual rights included it, most obviously homosexuality
>physiological/psychological differences become the issue
physiological differences may matter for specific kinds of sex (e.g. vaginal penetration), but not sex itself
and psychological differences may matter (my uncertainty regarding them is why i'm neutral to whether the aoc should be abolished or simply lowered), but even then they wouldn't be relevant after a few years into the "middle childhood" developmental stage (which i usually express as "it should be no higher than ~8 (~2 years after the start of it)")
>abolition of the AOC would be beneficial to youths
*any* restrictions on someone that exist without a good reason are intrinsically harmful, and by extension such baseless restrictions no longer existing is an inherent good
>Your view of youth liberation is very AAM/MAP centric
that is an assumption you are making, i explicitly said it's only one of the many members in that set
>if you'd not mind I'd like to take you into an abstraction for a moment, imagine a world without AAMs, in what way would removal of the AOC be beneficial to youths in the way that other parts of what you consider to be youth liberation be?
partially it would be the same as what i said two quotes before this one, but that is also simply irrelevant since that world is not our world, you could use that same thinking to say "not being tied to your parents isn't part of youth liberation, because you could imagine a world where no one wants to be away from their parents!", which is of course nonsensical
>Consider the negatives on youths?
for example?
>Sexual liberation doesn't necessarily mean having sex with whomever you wish
it doesn't *mean* that, but it *includes* that, every previous movement regarding sexual rights included it, most obviously homosexuality
>physiological/psychological differences become the issue
physiological differences may matter for specific kinds of sex (e.g. vaginal penetration), but not sex itself
and psychological differences may matter (my uncertainty regarding them is why i'm neutral to whether the aoc should be abolished or simply lowered), but even then they wouldn't be relevant after a few years into the "middle childhood" developmental stage (which i usually express as "it should be no higher than ~8 (~2 years after the start of it)")
>abolition of the AOC would be beneficial to youths
*any* restrictions on someone that exist without a good reason are intrinsically harmful, and by extension such baseless restrictions no longer existing is an inherent good
>Your view of youth liberation is very AAM/MAP centric
that is an assumption you are making, i explicitly said it's only one of the many members in that set
>if you'd not mind I'd like to take you into an abstraction for a moment, imagine a world without AAMs, in what way would removal of the AOC be beneficial to youths in the way that other parts of what you consider to be youth liberation be?
partially it would be the same as what i said two quotes before this one, but that is also simply irrelevant since that world is not our world, you could use that same thinking to say "not being tied to your parents isn't part of youth liberation, because you could imagine a world where no one wants to be away from their parents!", which is of course nonsensical
>Consider the negatives on youths?
for example?