UN Says Minors Can Consent to Sex!

Between two minors, or an adult and a minor?

 

Are you talking about minors having sex with EACHOTHER?

 

You're obviously referring to sex between two minors. Where does the UN report state this?

 

Most underage laws are written to prevent older people from taking advantage of younger people. It has far less to do with the ability to give consent. A 17-year-old can consent to have sex with another 17-year-old in most states and not have to go to jail. However, all states recognize the ability of a 17-year-old to rape another 17-year-old as well. So, whether the sex between two 17-year-olds is legal is based on whether they consented or not.

This obviously results in all the states recognizing 17-year-olds can consent. So why would a 40-year-old having sex with a 17-year-old be considered evil? Well, the first reaction might be Eeew! Generally speaking, social norms are what is being legislated. It is perfectly fine and Constitutional to legislate social norms - just look at all the laws regulating how grass has to be manicured. Is not cutting grass in your front lawn truly evil? Or is it a social norm? Obviously, it is a social norm which is legislated. Similarly, laws against 40-year-olds having sex with 17-year-olds is the regulation more of social norms than of consent.

Consider also that some places have an age of consent of 21. Desantis may want to murder me for having consensual sex with a 20-year-old, but do you? Obviously, some in the UN believe regulating this social norm is going too far. I don't think the U.N. is actually trying to ok sex with 9-year-olds although some of the Islamic countries like Iran might actually be for this.

 

Where does it not?

Do you believe that two 17-year-olds can consent to have sex with one another?

 

I quoted from the report, and that quote does NOT specify sex between two minors. Now it's your turn to quote from the report specifying sex between two minors. I look forward to your quote!

Yes, the same for any two people of the same age.

 

When gays were normalized they said we were crazy to suggest that transgenders would be allowed in womens bathrooms and locker rooms. Now that the transgenders are being normalized they say that we are crazy to think pedophilia will be normalized.

 

If the result of sex between minors is a child who is responsible for the medical bills associated with it -- the minors or the parents of the minors?

 

Hi, chris155au.

What's an 'eachother'? We don't seem to have them here on the east coast of the US. )

Incidentally, if the 'au' references Australia, I've felt that we Yanks are closer to you folks down under than we are to our Canadian neighbors. The Canadians regard us as teenagers who will be OK once we grow up. The Australians know better.

Regards, best to you and yours. [And yes, we do throw shrimp on the barbie.] j

 

As I said there were several cases where minors were prosecuted. You can google the issue of consensual sex between minors in the US and legal cases relating to it. I believe at least some were actually jailed then released after (in some cases lengthy) appeals.

 

Also suddenly everyone is now debating when underage sex is legal or not legal and whether mutual consent changes the legal standing of a matter where illegalities have technically occurred. i.e. exactly the issues the UN stated in its report that member nations needed to address when considering legislation relating to under age sex. While also not saying anything about letting adults have sex with children as claimed by that right wing rag. Fact checking is important!

 

Liberals love their victim incapable of being able to defend themselves..... Little kids can consent.... Cause crying face down in a pillow is consent...

 

Reading is fundamental. No where did the UN limit the language to suggest that underage sex is limited to others who are underage. So why try to be dishonest here?
From the text of the UN policy...
"The enforcement of criminal law should reflect the rights and capacity of persons under 18 years of age to make decisions about engaging in consensual sexual conduct and their right to be heard in matters concerning them," according to the report, authored by the International Committee of Jurists (ICJ) with support from UNAIDS and the U.N. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights. "Pursuant to their evolving capacities and progressive autonomy, persons under 18 years of age should participate in decisions affecting them, with due regard to their age, maturity, and best interests, and with specific attention to non-discrimination guarantees."

The language is vague on purpose so it can be claimed that an underage person can in fact engage in consensual sex with anyone, including adults. I suppose the AP might have wanted to obfuscate from this. Liberals love them some freshies....

 

No dishonesty. The entire document was addressing issues relating to the potential abuse of underage children including issues lie legislation that permits underage marry which can be used by adults as a means of abusing children. And none of the legal experts asked to discuss the document believed that the document was calling for underage sex with adults to be legalized. The section in question is deliberately being taken out of context to claim it was. Read the whole document.

 

that is a weird question as that was what the UN report was about

 

Just like so many other progressive policy, this isn't a "one off example" of how progressives intend on being legally able to abuse kids sexually. This "mystery of consent" that doesn't apply to any other standard besides sex, allows for folks under the legal age of consent to suddenly, legally, find the ability to do so, but only for sex. It wouldn't apply to any other civil rights, drinking, smoking, etc. But just for "consensual sex". Isn't that funny, and not funny ha ha, but funny weird like it's on purpose.

And then, folks like you, come rushing to the defense to claim what we can all see with our own eyes, isn't in fact the reality that was intended. So, if as you suggest the UN isn't making diddling little kids legal, you have to be able to able to demonstrate that the language cited is somehow otherwise mitigated by other language, which, from the policy, doesn't appear. So, your appeal to dissuade others languishes under the weight of your inability to show or demonstrate that the policy suggests otherwise, which it does not.

So, do you expect that folks are going to be honest here? If the legal folks are in fact covering, all their disheveling accomplishes is convincing folks, like you, that what it plainly in front of them isn't the circus of NAMBLA lust.

 

The poster you are quoting is spreading disinformation. The U.N. proposed bill, backed by a U.S. based NGO funded in part by Bill Gates not only wants to normalize and decriminalize sex with children as young as 10 but also wants to legalize "commercial sex work" and "educate" children about it starting at age 10. So it is a lie to claim the U.N
Bill does not promote sex between minors and adults unless you think 10 year old "commercial sex workers" will never have an adult client.

I do get tired of left wing "news" sites always lying. I encourage everyone to read original sources wherever possible so you can see through the lying B.S..

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.fo...ds-should-learn-about-commercial-sex-work.amp

 

I suppose Warren Jeffs has a chance of getting out of jail.

 

Er, I think your a bit fixated on sex, well child sex anyway, either that or your fixated on the UN. You claim the lawyers are lying (presumably to cover up the truth, all 'progressives' want the right to have sex with children without offering any proof, nor does the document anywhere state that it 'want's' children to be able to have sex with each other.

Instead it suggests that all member states should consider the legal and moral issue of mutual when minors are found to have breached laws relating to underage sex with each other, because technically in many states it is a crime due to the wording of the legislation.Not many western nationals but certainly elsewhere in the world, although , as I noted there have been cases where this was an issue (again in some states of the US). You also have the problem that the same document states that it should be illegal for adults to use laws laws permitting under age marriage (marriage below the otherwise legislated age of consent) as a means for adults to 'legally' engage in sex with children. This is a serious problem in many parts of the world and again was, I don't know if it still is in some southern US States. So you have a document that literally states this practice should be illegal that you then claim want's it to be OK for adults to have sex with children!. Which is the exact opposite position!

 

Sounds like the republican definition of marriage.

 

The U.N Bill did indeed say that. There were left wing radicals who openly lied and denied that fact. The bill also calls for 10 year old to to be "educated" about "commerical sex activities ". Meaning they want 10 year olds to work as "commerical sex workers". No, I categorically reject the idea that ten year olds should become "commerical sex workers".

 

How so?

 

OFGS!. Do kids in your area get taught about 'Stranger Danger' or not letting adults they may know not being allowed to touch them inappropriately? Do they get taught about the dangers of on-line grooming? Well do they?

Because using your (and I use this term loosely) 'logic' educating a child about such things must mean your preparing the child to accept they're legal/normal! In what Universe does education a child about child exploitation for money automatically mean your telling them it's OK? Point to anywhere in the document concerned where the UN is saying it should be lawful for that to happen. The same organization that pushes for a world wide crackdown on child trafficking.

The problem here is people are trying to twist a document written in political and legal jargon to make it say something it is not saying because doing so points to some sinister global 'movement' directed towards children. Go down this kind of rabbit hole far enough and you end up with idiots shooting up pizza parlors because they believe the place has trafficked children hidden in its basement!

 

Annoyingly there is no direct quote which talks about children as young as ten.

 

Context is everything.
First let’s examine the source

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-free-beacon/

It is very different if two, say 17 year olds have sex than if a 45 year old and a 17 year old have sex.

But putting that aside let us examine the article because it is loaded with “weasel words”. I will start with the shifting claim that this was “UN backed” or maybe just a report compiled by others who have “UN backing”

it does quote this from the report

it then goes on to allege this statement is connected to ostensibly “undesirable” organisations.
THIS is the report
Criminal Law Proscribing Conduct Associated with Sex, Reproduction, Drug Use, HIV, Homelessness and Poverty

https://icj2.wpenginepowered.com/wp...ciples-FINAL-printer-version-1-MARCH-2023.pdf
A bit different to what they are insinuating or even what the OP is insinuating