2020-10-06 at 3:32 PM UTC
Obbe, you misunderstand consent in law, it is a legal contract and it is not a restriction on children, they can consent all day.
"Romeo" laws let kids consent to sex with each other. So whether or not kids can consent to or have sex does not seem to be the point when you allow the most aggressive 16yo boys open season on every 12-17yo. By the time the nerds turn 18, there isn't a virgin left anyway.
If it is a contract, the adult simply can't use that consent to enforce in court what the child consented to provide and the adult is screwed out of anything they provided.
When it comes to sex, the restriction is that the adult can't legally accept the child's consent.
It is the adult who can't consent to a kid and gets punished for doing so.
2020-10-06 at 3:34 PM UTC
The results of this poll aren't in yet just wait until the plurals have their say
2020-10-06 at 3:54 PM UTC
no children ever consented to be born.
and yet born they are.
2020-10-07 at 2:47 PM UTC
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2020-10-07 at 3:55 PM UTC
Originally posted by MexicanMasterRace
This is not remotely how the law works and you don't actually know what Romeo and Juliet laws are.
I am paraphrasing a successful public defender.
Consent is a contractual term. It means you cannot legally enforce the terms of a contract on a minor signed on their own behalf. It never prevented children from performing an agreement willingly on their own. Consent means willingness to submit to legal enforcement, which is simply not available against children and rightfully so.
Terms like consent and statutory rape are meaningless applied to sex in the absence of force because there is no rape and nothing to enforce.
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
2020-10-08 at 12:57 AM UTC
The following users say it would be alright if the author of this
post didn't die in a fire!
