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?

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 ↩︎

  • Helix 🧬@feddit.deB
    3·
    2 years ago

    How is it baseless and incorrect? Without puberty, humans would never become able to sexually reproduce safely and also develop into adults.

    There’s more kinds of damage than physical damage. Your wording is awful.

    • Amicese@lemmy.mlOP
      12·
      2 years ago

      I thought that was implied through the general term damage, that’s why I used the general term damage and not just physical. Sorry if it came off that way.

      (Technically, all damage (physical, emotion, neurological, etc.) is physical as it affects the human body, but that shouldn’t and hopefully doesn’t downplay their effects and importance of recognition.)

      • Helix 🧬@feddit.deB
        1·
        2 years ago

        I’d rather use the word “harm” than “damage”, since “damage” removes the perpetrator from the equation. However, fewer words are not optimal in that case. I’m glad you clarified all that :)