Fir :transspecies star: on Nostr: Sofia I'm just going to focus on the bottom two as this is expanding well beyond the ...
Sofia (npub1qxx…u6la) I'm just going to focus on the bottom two as this is expanding well beyond the scope of the original assertion made by maus.
I suppose our main disagreement comes down to whether the AOC is a denial of youth's rights as it prevents them from participating in sexual relationships at will, or whether it is a protection of youths rights as a preventative against adult control. IMO There is a certain level of limitations that must be put on individuals to protect the rights of others, an evening of the circumstances surrounding each being does not necessarily create equality for every being on an individual level. There are certain sexual liberties that I believe are important to youth liberation, such as improved sex education, access to masturbatory aides, access to pornography, ability to create pornography of themselves and possess it, (though I am against the legalization of solicitation of CP by adults) and right to sexual exploration.
Having overlap however does not make something an essential part, there are anti-youth liberation aspects to pro-c ideology as well, while these may not apply to all pro-cs (and, I'm certain not you) they are still aspects of pro-c ideology that exist for some. The main ones off the top of my head are:
-Advocacy for "non harmful" non-consensual actions
-Advocacy for ending prohibition on the commercialization of videos depicting rape of youths
-Advocacy for exploiting the current power imbalance between youths and adults.
-The idea that trauma is only a response to societal reaction to the loss of bodily autonomy and not the loss of autonomy itself.
Making the blanket statement of pro-c is inherent to youthlib, is antithetical to youthlib. It creates an exclusivity to youth liberation that doesn't exist, ties it to an ideology that has anti youthlib aspects, and is an attempt to co-opt youthlib to support pro-c interests.
I think pro-cs can be youth liberation allies, but to say it's inherent is an implication that being pro-c specifically puts you in allyship of youth liberation, and that youth liberation is impossible without all aspects of pro-c ideology. Bits of intersection do make something inherent, and this intersection is mostly leading from youthlib to pro-c, not the other way.
IMO the growth of this stems from contact discourse, and is an attempt to try to exclude anti-cs from youth liberation, which again is an anti-youthlib action. You could say "youth sexual liberation is inherent to youthlib" and you'd be right, but that is not an inherently pro-c position and what sexual liberation means is not fully fleshed out for youths, as I stated equality in rights does not necessarily equate to equality of treatment. Besides that, pro-c ideology is a focus on the rights of MAPs not youths.
There are anti-cs and non MYAPs who are supportive of the reduction of the age of consent as well, that is not a pro-c exclusive thing and neither is the idea that inherent harm doesn't exist or that youths cannot consent or dissent, this idea mostly comes from the attempt by some to change the c from contact to consent and muddy contact discourse.
Past this I won't be responding, there's not enough available research to make a factual determination and I'm an eepy catboy. There's no point in debating (there's no on the fence bystanders here to convince) and no point in arguing (we are both steadfast in our beliefs on this and are unlikely to be convinced without hard factual evidence) however I will read your reply if you make one, and attempt to answer any questions you ask in brief. Have a great day!
I suppose our main disagreement comes down to whether the AOC is a denial of youth's rights as it prevents them from participating in sexual relationships at will, or whether it is a protection of youths rights as a preventative against adult control. IMO There is a certain level of limitations that must be put on individuals to protect the rights of others, an evening of the circumstances surrounding each being does not necessarily create equality for every being on an individual level. There are certain sexual liberties that I believe are important to youth liberation, such as improved sex education, access to masturbatory aides, access to pornography, ability to create pornography of themselves and possess it, (though I am against the legalization of solicitation of CP by adults) and right to sexual exploration.
Having overlap however does not make something an essential part, there are anti-youth liberation aspects to pro-c ideology as well, while these may not apply to all pro-cs (and, I'm certain not you) they are still aspects of pro-c ideology that exist for some. The main ones off the top of my head are:
-Advocacy for "non harmful" non-consensual actions
-Advocacy for ending prohibition on the commercialization of videos depicting rape of youths
-Advocacy for exploiting the current power imbalance between youths and adults.
-The idea that trauma is only a response to societal reaction to the loss of bodily autonomy and not the loss of autonomy itself.
Making the blanket statement of pro-c is inherent to youthlib, is antithetical to youthlib. It creates an exclusivity to youth liberation that doesn't exist, ties it to an ideology that has anti youthlib aspects, and is an attempt to co-opt youthlib to support pro-c interests.
I think pro-cs can be youth liberation allies, but to say it's inherent is an implication that being pro-c specifically puts you in allyship of youth liberation, and that youth liberation is impossible without all aspects of pro-c ideology. Bits of intersection do make something inherent, and this intersection is mostly leading from youthlib to pro-c, not the other way.
IMO the growth of this stems from contact discourse, and is an attempt to try to exclude anti-cs from youth liberation, which again is an anti-youthlib action. You could say "youth sexual liberation is inherent to youthlib" and you'd be right, but that is not an inherently pro-c position and what sexual liberation means is not fully fleshed out for youths, as I stated equality in rights does not necessarily equate to equality of treatment. Besides that, pro-c ideology is a focus on the rights of MAPs not youths.
There are anti-cs and non MYAPs who are supportive of the reduction of the age of consent as well, that is not a pro-c exclusive thing and neither is the idea that inherent harm doesn't exist or that youths cannot consent or dissent, this idea mostly comes from the attempt by some to change the c from contact to consent and muddy contact discourse.
Past this I won't be responding, there's not enough available research to make a factual determination and I'm an eepy catboy. There's no point in debating (there's no on the fence bystanders here to convince) and no point in arguing (we are both steadfast in our beliefs on this and are unlikely to be convinced without hard factual evidence) however I will read your reply if you make one, and attempt to answer any questions you ask in brief. Have a great day!