Saw this today and it made me wonder what some people would make of (2)
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB18
""The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. (a) The Legislature finds and declares that all children and youth, regardless of gender, class, race, ethnicity, national origin, culture, religion, immigration status, sexual orientation, or ability, have inherent rights that entitle them to protection, special care, and assistance, including, but not limited to, the following:
(1) The right to parents, guardians, or caregivers who act in their best interest.
(2) The right to form healthy attachments with adults responsible for their care and well-being.
(3) The right to live in a safe and healthy environment.
(4) The right to social and emotional well-being.
(5) The right to opportunities to attain optimal cognitive, physical, and social development.
(6) The right to appropriate, quality education and life skills leading to self-sufficiency in adulthood.
(7) The right to appropriate, quality health care."
It could be read as a green-light for adult/child relationships if the child 'consents'.
The whole point of age laws for children is because they are not considered capable of informed consent and therefore protected by said law.
view the rest of the comments →
Bookey ago
Are you questioning item two? I read healthy attachment to a caregiver as a positive. My mother was incredibly abusive, we did not have a healthy attachment which would be more easily seen as the abuse it was if this was some of the criteria instead of how it used to be, when I was growing up.
I can see your worry, though, because "healthy" as determined by a society seems to be changing a great deal. There is a troubling element of people who we can see as trying to normalize child/adult relationships. I do think they are a small minority to the rest of us. The scary thing is that elements power and wealth. This investigation has absolutely solidified for me that we as a society need to limit the power of this wealthy immoral group trying to influence laws that were written to protect people to their sick advantage.
norobotono ago
Yes (2) is the one I was referring to. I know it's general meaning is a good one but it is how it could be interpreted by a certain element, who thankfully are in the minority but that could change given the current lax attitude to csa.
I do think we as a society need to take csa and the law regarding it more seriously than at present because I am sick to the core of hearing child abusers getting off with it, as is reported in so many cases nowadays.