In starting this blog, I’ve got to make absolutely clear what I intend it to be used for. This has been done in part, via private e.mails, but let’s now make a public demonstration of it.

I will re-post one of my own pieces from my old website. It relates to the rights of children, and my extreme liberationist take on the issue; which I have sometimes been criticised for. This should demonstrate that Uncommon Sense posters are allowed to write on a variety of related topics and may also disagree with each other.

Consider this: 1. Any person under the age of eighteen is defined as a ‘child’ by the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) – a body that establishes universal standards for the safeguarding of children. Formal governmental restrictions based on age range into the twenties, whilst other measures such as minimum wages are often set at lower levels for young workers (e.g. in the UK).

2. In the year 2000, 35% of the world’s population was under eighteen.

3. By extension, well over 35% of the world’s population are not even allowed the chance of participating as citizens in the fullest sense. They are viewed as ‘children’ or ‘juniors’ and are given differing ‘rights’, intertwined with, or veiling restrictions.

Is this not the unfair and discriminatory denial of civil rights on one of the grandest scales ever seen? By setting ‘children’ apart as a ‘special case’, do we not reinforce the long – standing divisions, which we are trying to resolve?

I am asking whether we should see the truly needy as the special case. For a category such as ‘the needy’ includes ‘children’, as opposed to lumping their globally diverse experiences into some kind of generalising, essentialist category that calls for broad sweeping and restrictive measures.

A leading question that most certainly contains my answer.

It is my belief that anyone, regardless of their age should be entitled to act in whatever way they so wish to, with any other willing person. It is also my belief that the legalisation and normalisation of intergenerational love does not require such an ethical system. It is still totally possible within our current parental authority model. To suggest otherwise would be to imply that sexual behaviours require some kind of emancipation or “knowing” from their partakers to be made ethical. This in itself would be to overcomplicate such behaviours, and some would say – to make a self – fulfilling social prophecy.