in response to this post

The issue I have with this post is that for the purposes of who it’s appropriate for you to be dating you’re 30, not 17 ,always. To go ‘oooooh which is the age you should be judging the morality of my relationships by 30 or 17 it’s impossible to say!’ you’re implicitly telling people that there’s some ambiguity as to whether having headmates who are minors as an adult means your relationships should be judged as a minor’s relationships. There is not. This is the main point of this reblog and tbh it’s something you need to speak on. Arguing for age gaps between adults being okay shouldn’t be done in ways that could be used to justify child abuse, and that’s a responsibility you take on when you speak on the issue.

We have spoken on it. Repeatedly. And— no, you’re dangerously leaving out an important nuance there: A system member who is a minor, even in an adult body, is still a fucking minor and so probably should not “have their relationships judged as an adult” - they shouldn’t be entering into adult relationships at all. Yes, this leaves an awkward spot where there’s basically no ethical way for some system members to date at all. Again, we’ve spoken publicly on this very issue before, including in direct response to this post.

.You’re not allowed to ignore age completely whether you’re a singlet or not. The age of your body absolutely determines, at least, the minimum age of the people it is ethical for you to date and I don’t know why you continually dance around whether or not you agree with that because you have made it unclear.

.”mental age” is measured in a lot of different ways by a lot of different people, unlike chronological age which is objective and it’s often used to tell disabled people what they can and cannot do so I think it’s up to her to decide the age of the people she is comfortable dating, depending on what exactly she is using the very ambiguous term “mental age” to convey, and her chronological age.

.It’s actually pretty dangerous to a wide variety of people to respond to people saying “23 year olds and 30 year olds shouldn’t date” with but ‘I’m a system and therefore using age as a measure of the morality of a relationship is flawed.’ Like were the “antis” you’re discussing even talking about a relationship that involved systems in any way?

.Also “think carefully about your answer” look it’s so unsettling how you’re conducting this conversation like SEE IF YOU CAN SOLVE THIS PUZZLE I”VE CONCOCTED like people are trying to talk to you about how something you said had some really uncomfortable implications and you should at least try to treat our concerns in a way that’s honest and self-critical and not be trying to like get us to say something wrong so you “win”that’s not how this works.

What SM was arguing in the OP - what we have argued consistently - is that chronological age does not equal narrative age for multiples. SM split in a trauma event 17 years ago. So yes, it is 17 years old. But believe it or not, we aren’t born quite like you. It didn’t need to learn to walk and talk and use a toilet again. It came into existence as a teenager, in a teenage body. It continued to age in real time, so despite having existed for 17 years, it has a narrative age in the mid-30s.
This information has already been explicitly provided to you.
So— your argument is that a system member with a narrative age in the mid-30s, with a body in the mid-30s, is the victim of a gross predator— because she’s in a consensual relationship with someone younger. Because you are utterly fixated on dictating to multiples instead of listening to us about our experience and how your rules get really fucked up and ableist when you apply them to us unilaterally.
What’s even more fucked up is that you’re making this argument after repeatedly arguing that a system member with a narrative age of fourteen should be allowed to date adults because they happen to be in an older body.
Like. Do you have any idea how many different levels of fucked up you’re being here?
Re: mental age: If you know that, then maybe you know better than to apply it to other DD people without their consent? No? What a surprise, consideration for other people’s boundaries and differing situations is not your strong suit.

You seriously could have just said that you’re 30 and your girlfriend is 23 and it’s a healthy relationship without doing all this bullshit
.‘checkmate people who disapprove of relationships between 30 year olds and 23 year olds, I’m also 17’ is an inherently dangerous sentiment, deflecting criticism of your relationship based on the age of your body by bringing up your chronological age of your alter absolutely cosigns some pedophiles’ justifications.

2. Well, there’s the aspect that we’ve brought up repeatedly and you literally just acknowledged: Basing your decisions solely on the age of the body opens up two loopholes for the abuse of children.

I have never seen someone so determined to allow for the abuse of children in my life.

2.5. They weren’t just calling it “inherently predatory,” they were calling it “pedophilic.” That is the absurdity I was responding to. There is no, repeat no, way for a relationship between two adults to be pedophilic.

3. I could’ve done a lot of things. I chose to write a quick snarky post to vent some of my frustration. This is just tone-policing a mentally ill woman for not responding to ableism politely enough for you. Fuck off.

4. “Your expressed policies paint me as simultaneously predator and victim of the same person, this is absurd” is not an inherently dangerous statement. I wasn’t deflecting criticism of my relationship - I was responding to criticism of a fictional relationship and the fact that it leaves zero room for me to exist. And I wasn’t bringing up the age of a system mate. I was talking about myself. I am an adult who happens to have existed for 17 years. This is a thing that happens, and maybe if you could stop being an ableist fuck for like half a second you’d be able to understand that.

This is not cosigning anybody’s justification for the abuse of children. This is saying “Your rules have a blatant and ugly failure case; better rules are needed.” I have, repeatedly, offered better rules which - unlike yours - do not simultaneously paint someone as predator and victim or allow for the exploitation of children.

Seriously. I said “Hey, there’s a problem with your policies, here’s a policy that better protects children.” And you are trying to pretend I am cheerleading for child molesters, like the ones who fucking raped us, because I did so a bit snarkily (after already having been the target of multiple smear campaigns by antis for daring to actually listen to experts and evidence).

No part of this is honest disagreement. You are doing exactly what I have always objected to in the Anti Squad - reaching as hard as you fucking can for any excuse to portray anybody who disagrees with you as a supporter of child molesters. You are actively harming CSA survivors and mentally ill people and allowing child molesters to go unchallenged, and that is beyond disgusting. Get the fuck off our post with that shit.