Sofia (clippynickel)
fae9e5b090f6c87ecdb1939ab503a3b80cf79217c8acd31446b499ecd2952580
Sofia (19MtF), social psychology advocate, programmer, and all-around nerd. Information Systems student at UFSM.
Ally to MAPs[1], anti-c fundamentalists[2] are antis and should be treated as such.
Youthlib advocate (yes, the above is a nonnegotiable part of that).
Occasional regressor?
I also do freelance programming, feel free to message me.
100% sub/bottom, bi but straight leaning, taken 🥰
1. Contact stance details:
In current society, I believe even relationships I would see no problem with once society improves should only happen with extreme caution, but they are still possible to do safely. However, unwanted interventions are strictly immoral, due to actively contributing to iatrogenic harm.
In an ideal society, if a moral age of consent should exist (a legal one should not, since even in cases where it may be a problem, criminalization just makes the problem worse) at all (unsure, requires more consideration), it should be no higher than ~8, and there should be case by case exceptions under that.
Age gaps are not relevant if the younger person is old enough to begin with.
2. Defined as someone who believes child-adult sex is inherently (i.e., regardless of the sociocultural/legal context) wrong, or engages in any kind of unwanted intervention against it (as those are part of the problem).
XMR: 84vPpH21mmWSmnPwveqYWkVNs3zcaoQoyXsWpUfMD7E267GfL2psYjGX9KAGUXv3ABhBCCahf5pSB4ATWypUHMxi2GcBdrq
if arguing makes you feel bad, you have two valid courses of action:
1. do it anyway
2. don't hold any beliefs about anything you don't want to argue about
people are morally obligated to engage in arguments about subjects they have positions in, to prevent dogmatism (something that person clearly didn't get the memo of lol)
it doesn't mean they have to actively look for arguments, but it does mean they can't actively avoid arguments
