New UN-backed legal recommendations normalize sex with minors, outraged critics say

Wut said:
Principle 16 seems very badly thought out as it opens the door to sexual grooming. Plenty of sickos out there would try to convince minors that they are mature enough to make decisions and try to use that as a defense later.
Click to expand...
Or, you know, purposely drafted as such... surely the developments the past couples years at this point just too sequenced to be coincidence, unintended...
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Wut
Why is the world so interested in the sexual activities of minors or otherwise exposing them to sexualised activities?
 
Well, I suppose if they can legally change their sex without adult/parental approval, then they should be able to consent to actually having it as well..
 
Last edited:
grok said:
Well, I suppose if they can change their sex without parental approval, then they should be able to consent to actually having it as well..
Click to expand...
Exactly the game being played and intended result. Human history littered with examples of societal collapses of just this.
 
rvZA said:
www.foxnews.com

New UN-backed legal recommendations normalize sex with minors, outraged critics say

A report by the Geneva-based International Commission of Jurists with the UN's backing recommends decriminalizing the age of sexual consent, opening the floodgates for sex with minors, say critics.
www.foxnews.com www.foxnews.com
Click to expand...
Amazing how the reference links in a fox article always point back to fox - in this case, never a link back to the actual source or publication.
Probably one of the worst news sources out there - America's own RT.

But as they themselves have said, they feed the insatiable appetite of their dim and unquestioning audience
 
Grant said:
Amazing how the reference links in a fox article always point back to fox - in this case, never a link back to the actual source or publication.
Probably one of the worst news sources out there - America's own RT.

But as they themselves have said, they feed the insatiable appetite of their dim and unquestioning audience
Click to expand...

The problem with the article is that it is not a 'news' article per se, but that it is a tabloid-styled article under "Lifestyle". In their defence they did hotlink the Tweet of Ian Miles Cheong who did quote the source,

New legal principles launched on International Women’s Day to advance decriminalization efforts

The International Committee of Jurists (ICJ) along with UNAIDS and the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) officially launched a new set of expert jurist legal principles to guide the application of international human rights law to criminal law.
www.unaids.org www.unaids.org
 
Wut said:
Principle 16 seems very badly thought out as it opens the door to sexual grooming. Plenty of sickos out there would try to convince minors that they are mature enough to make decisions and try to use that as a defense later.
Click to expand...
What are you saying exactly?
 
MuterOfWorlds said:
Exactly the game being played and intended result. Human history littered with examples of societal collapses of just this.
Click to expand...
Unintended consequences maybe, either way people think they have too much of a say in what other people do with their lives.

If you allow then to decide to have ops to chop their sex organs at that age, then why aren't they autonomous enough to decide whom to smash too?
 
Last edited:
grok said:
Unintended consequences maybe, either way people think they have too much of a say in what other people do with their lives.

If you allow then to decide to have ops to chop their sex organs at that age, then why aren't they autonomous enough to decide whom to smash too?
Click to expand...
Its by design. The game already started in the 1960s, Law n Order TV series way way back even had an episode based on it.

Googled/aware of John Money for example?

Gender/trans studies extraordonaire.
 
Last edited:
Polymathic said:
What are you saying exactly?
Click to expand...
Exactly as @Brian_G said. A sick society getting sicker.

Principle 16, as it's listed, seems to do away with statutory rape and rather focuses on the minor's "evolving capacity" and "progressive autonomy". Which, to me, seems that if a minor is convinced that they made the choice themselves, then there is no case against the adult.

That opens the door for local pedos to start grooming kids to the point that the child feels convinced that they are making the choice themselves, but it's really the adult pulling the strings and manipulating them. Law enforcement's hands would be tied if, for example, the child says that they love the adult and knew what they were doing, etc.

Very badly thought out, especially at a time when there are more sickos popping up out of every nook and cranny.
 
Grant said:
Amazing how the reference links in a fox article always point back to fox - in this case, never a link back to the actual source or publication.
Probably one of the worst news sources out there - America's own RT.

But as they themselves have said, they feed the insatiable appetite of their dim and unquestioning audience
Click to expand...
Most mainstream news sources never link back to the actual source or publication. It makes one sympathetic with the notion of putting journalists in the gulag.
CNN for example does exactly the same thing as you can see here which I just plucked with a Google search for CNN+De Santis. Tell me how long it takes for you to find the text of the bill in question using only the links CNN provide
https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/27/politics/desantis-disney-reedy-creek/index.html

The article in this thread was the worst offender I have seen in a while. It was almost impossible to figure out what they were talking about because the syndicated article was so badly written.
I put my findings in the thread:
Post in thread 'New ocean could form in Africa as continent continues to split apart'

Twitter is better for this type of thing IMO. People usually link the source first with a headline, then they give the commentary.
 
Last edited:
G'Wobblez said:
Well if they are allowed to give consent to be castrated having sex shouldn't be so different
Click to expand...
It's the whole balance that's of concern - the lack of consideration for maturity and experience vs an exaggerated and perhaps not yet earned level of free will. Neither sexual allowance is reasonable.

Part of the problem seems to be what moral fiber is based on these days - if we're all nothing more than accidental robot types of some sort then we make our rules based on mere convenience (and who's is also questionable here).
But if we're of a higher more meaningful origin, as largely believed before, we're then accountable to such higher ethics.
 
ShaunSA said:
They are saying someone under-aged can give consent and this should be taken into consideration?

I'm confused as to whether they are taking about both persons being under-age which I have no issue with. Or one legal age and one under-age :unsure:
Click to expand...

It only makes sense if they are talking about both people being under age, since those laws are already mostly not enforced as it is.

Basically they want to protect two 13 year olds from becoming criminals if they decide to have sex.

They are definitely not trying to protect adults who coerce 13 year olds into having sex.

It's the UN ffs. This is just the usual republican outrage BS.
 
Would make sense to us, who knows what makes sense to them these days. Again, they're all too vague on the subject to be legit and there's the tranny example. Certainly the UN is far from a shinning light, even the WHO meddles in politics now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X