@rainignterror1080p @Lox @WorldMAP@anime.website @whyyes @Xeraser @weissrespecter
1. define what you actually need to be developed and understand the "choices", then explain why that's actually needed. People that have looked at this kind of thing have found you don't need to be very smart to understand this.
https://web.archive.org/web/20190401193459/https://tomocarroll.wordpress.com/2013/10/06/a-less-impaired-vision-of-sexuality/
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1300/J151v01n03_02
“Assessing competency to consent to sexual activity in the cognitively impaired population”, by a certain Carrie Hill Kennedy. A “Sexual Consent and Education Assessment” instrument was used, with two dimensions, “sexual knowledge” and “safety practices”, indicating the ability to make safe decisions. Those judged competent had, on average, an IQ of 65 and an adaptive behaviour age of 9.4 years. Those judged incompetent had average IQ 46 and adaptive behaviour age 6.7 years. This would suggest, at an intermediate position, that competence is achieved at around 8.2 years, and IQ 55.

2. doesn't really relate to anything. Sterile people can have meaningful relationships, but with a child it's even more meaningful since they will be fertile in the future. You're preparing a much stronger family unit to make everyone happier.

3. Wrong. Why would there be a magic self destruct switch evolved into the brain for something kids do to themselves regularly as young as five? It's a made up thing which positive experiences *prove* aren't inherent. Studies that separate between consent and non-consent (which researchers are reluctant to do (for some reason)) show there is no long term harm, and the harm that exists there is tied to whether it's revealed and how much people make the child feel ashamed and guilty of it.The fact it was also tolerated in history shows this, as people wouldn't traumatise their own children for nothing.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9670820/
However, this poorer adjustment could not be attributed to CSA because family environment (FE) was consistently confounded with CSA, FE explained considerably more adjustment variance than CSA, and CSA-adjustment relations generally became nonsignificant when studies controlled for FE. Self-reported reactions to and effects from CSA indicated that negative effects were neither pervasive nor typically intense, and that men reacted much less negatively than women. The college data were completely consistent with data from national samples. Basic beliefs about CSA in the general population were not supported.