Age of consent?

19 year olds in jail for having a 17 year old girlfriend thats crazy. I had sex with with a 13 year old girl when I was 17 which wasn't a great idea but we were both in highschool so I didn't feel bad

also when I was in highschool a kid a year younger than me date raped a girl his age and she told all her friends and had bruises, but she never told her parents or called the cops and nothing ever happened to him. That bothered me. And this was in a very nice little NY suburb with only about 15k people and is known as one of the best public high schools in the US

 

Actually, legal protection for victims of abuse should be available to the victims not because the victims are a certain age, but because they actually were on the receiving end of abuse.

My point exactly; number one, you are jumping to the conclusion that, just because one wants to have sex with a minor, one is somehow scarring somebody. Can we say, "thought crime"? Number two, you're jumping to the conclusion that such age differences must always result in one party's becoming victimized. Of course they become victimized, however, not necessarily by the other party but by society(a third party, an outside party) which turns them into victims even in situations where no one is otherwise harmed.

Again, you are jumping to all kinds of conclusions without really paying much attention to what I've actually said. Number one, what I'm essentially saying is that age should not be the indicator that one of the parties involved is always harmed.

Of course I'm aware of how "society" works. Society wants to rely on a set-standard rather than to perceive things via case-by-case basis. But that is one of the major flaws of the age of consent laws; this set-standard varies in each country. In some countries the AoC is 13, whereas it's 21 in some countries. So which one is "right"? And who but the people actually involved really have the right to decide whether or not they indeed have been harmed? Alright, parents definitely have a say as far as expressing their concerns and obvious need to protect their children. I respect that, and essentially expect it. But how exactly would you conclude that a minor has been abused if there were no indication whatsoever of it ever having taken place? Simply because the other party was an adult? Because the "signs" will appear later since these things are "not psychologically comprehensive to minors and therefore they must, with out exceptions whatsoever, become traumatized by the events sooner or later"?

I don't perceive myself as stupid, and I certainly am positive I'm not a would-be-molester. This might come as a surprise to you, but believe it or not I'm strongly against child abuse. However, some of the things I've done in the past, which were perfectly legal where I was, may be completely illegal in another country. Like I said, that's one of the main flaws of AoC; anyone can be a "molester" depending on where you are. And while on the subject of this regional differences, you might also keep in mind that the "15-year-old and 30-year-old" combination example is perfectly legal in some countries, and thus I for one know better than to automatically conclude it's a "criminal activity".

I personally don't see the age of consent law protecting the older individual, save for the possibility that it's keeping people from actually pursuing what the law states is "unlawful", thus keeping them out of "trouble". Hmm..... *scratches head*

 

In Australia (where I am) the legal age is 16, as long as both parties are under 18 (and 16+. I think thats how it works) I think its reasonable.

 

I don't know.
How does a society know someone is mature enough just by chronological age alone.
I know some 16 year old's that are mentally more mature than their parents.

 

True. I have spoken to many very level headed mature 16 year olds. Where I have a problem is where countries have a age of consent set at 12/13. At that age, I believe, a person isn't mentally ready, has the sufficient ability to understand the enormity of the act, maturity to of mind to say no if coerced or recover from the damage if hurt (emotionally).

Obviously many would disagree with me but this is only my opinion.

 

Age doesn't mean much and law shouldn't be based around it.

There should be some way to figure out if person is mature enough and based on that, make futher decisions.


It is all bollocks anyway. It is just invention of our society. If you are really interested in all of that, look up how other societies managed it and how it influenced people.

 

You seem to be the one making assumptions about me.

If you percieve everything on a case by case basis, you have no protection. If the sheriff doesn't like you, you're abusing. If you're related to someone important, you can have an army of sex slaves in your basement, and in the eyes of the law it's consensual.

The way you would conclude that a minor has been abused is if they are under the age of consent, AND the parent wants to report that they where raped. If you're banging super underaged kids, you at least better be nice, and have their family like you. It's not just one or the other, it's both. Not only do you have to bang underaged people, you have to be substantially over-aged and creepy. Most people won't use the law to interfere with their kids consensual relationships with people of similar age.

If you don't have codified laws, there is no protection for anyone from the law. If you have strictly codified laws with compassionate and reasonable enforcement, there is recourse, if there is a situation where a kid hates their parents, an many think they do, and decides they'll bang that 25 year old who's so sweet and gets them drunk, all they want to.

I'll tell you, in that situation an age of consent law would save me from a premeditated murder conviction. If there's no legal recourse, I'll take my own recourse against someone praying on my child. But if there's a reasonable consensual relationship that simply technically violates a law by a year when one is fifteen and the other's sixteen or whatever, I would obviously have a totally different approach.

So, again, you think that some places 30 year olds banging 15 year olds is fine. Well, that's fine, but I don't live those places, and if I did, those places would have to find my mutilation of said 30 year old for coming around my 15 year old, to be fine, too.

Are you also against other rape laws? I mean, maybe the victim really DID want it, and WAS provocative, how do you quantify how much the victim asked for it? Maybe we could be like afghanistan, where the local tribal judge decides exactly how badly the victim asked for it, on a case by case basis.:2thumbsup:

I support legal reform, but in YOUR case, the solution is quit bitching, and don't fuck people who are too young. There's not much reason to be, unless you're their age. If you have a meaningful relationship with them and also fuck them, that would be, on a developmental level, sort of like how if have a really meaningful emotional relationship with my dog..... if I also fucked my dog. Even advanced high school kids are NOT mature or on an adult level and so, not desirable on that level. So I must conclude that you're pretty much just a pedo.

 

Actually, I'm not. I'm merely responding to your reply. You, however, definitely seems to be making assumptions about me. But we'll get to that later.

Really? Then why do innocent people become convicted everyday? Why do many parents abuse their kids and get away with it? Don't you think that, if the legal system paid more attention to individual cases and investigated them more thoroughly, rather than being distracted by the "set code", less innocent people would be behind bars and more abusers would be punished? And I must apologize but I was unable to quite relate your analogy of "sheriff and someone being important and having sex slaves" to this topic. Where did THAT come from exactly?

This is exactly what I'm talking about. What if the parents decided they wanted to have their 14-year-old daughter's 28-year-old boyfriend prosecuted saying he was raping her, despite the contrary fact that kissing was the farthest the couple had gone(because maybe he was a gentleman and was more than happy to wait till she was ready)? What if the same parents WERE the abusers while trying to act as though they were the perfect parents trying to "protect" their daughter? The innocent going to jail while the real abuser remain in contact with the abused, all because the system failed to deeply investigate the matter on a case-by-case basis and, instead, paid attention only to the fact that the daughter was 14, her boyfriend was 28, and her parents claimed the man was "raping" her and that they wanted so desperately to "protect" her from this "monster". This might not be a likely scenario to you, but it DOES happen in this world due to the flawed system.

Actually, I'd think that one had better be a genuine, honest, kind-hearted human being regardless of one's partner's age. Similarly, regardless of one's partner's age, being liked by their parents should be something one must at least hope to achieve. And this isn't even about sex because sex is only one aspect of a bigger picture called a relationship. Or, if "relationship" sounds too exclusive and binding, then how about "companionship"? But if you were that wonderful person who your partner's parents like, would they find you creepy?

I'm confused... Which one's taking advantage of which in that scenario?

Aahh, I understand now. You, just like myself with my own set of morals, have been speaking based on yours, not necessarily based on the law. If you truly believed in this concept called "age of consent", then you would not question what other countries would do with their laws. Instead, you are willing to stick your nose into someone else's business, someone else's culture, and are essentially willing to shove your own moral code down other perfectly happy people's throats by... What did you call it?

"I don't live those places, and if I did, those places would have to find my mutilation of said 30 year old for coming around my 15 year old, to be fine, too."

Oh yes, that's what you said, right? And you keep using a crude word like "bang" every time you want to mention an interaction between two people, but what if there was no "banging" involved? Would you still mutilate someone who hadn't even "banged" your 15-year-old daughter, simply based on the fact that he was 15 years older than her? I'm sure she would be devastated to know her father had been prosecuted for...assault? Attempted murder? Not to mention the kind of example(an extremely poor one at that) that you'd be setting: "kids, attack first, think later."

You must have missed the section where I said I was against abuse. The last time I checked, rape definitely was abuse. More importantly, I never said I was against the rape law...well, as long as it actually functioned. But let's not forget some people cry rape to hurt others, too. Once again, the innocent gets punished while the real evil walks free. That's why I personally believe everything should be dealt with on a case-by-cases. At any rate, we're not talking about rape here. We're talking about the age of consent law.

Actually no, I'm not bitching. I merely replied to a thread about the age of consent expressing my own view. Maybe my reply acted as a bait, though I didn't intend for it to, and I guess a couple people, including yourself, bit. And frankly, I don't need you, or anyone, to tell me not to "fuck people who are too young". I don't fuck anyone too young. In fact, as I'm still a virgin, I've never fucked anyone, period.

I'm going to let slide the fact that you made an assumption, rather falsely, that I'm a pedo. However, and I don't mean this as an insult to dogs because they are some of the best friends one could have(in a platonic sense), I find your comparison to be a blatant insult to young people. I was just talking to my 18-year-old friend who just broke up with her 38-year-old boyfriend. Guess which one was the immature one in the end who practically kicked and screamed and whined like a little kid who couldn't get his way. Yep, the 38-year-old. If you ask me, HE wasn't ready to handle a relationship of any kind, and he's older than you and me. But I know, the girl's 18 so she's legal in most countries... But my point is that one of the most mature and sensible people I know is actually my 16-year-old friend who was already MORE mature than the aforementioned 38-year-old schmuck when she was 13. This 16-year-old sometimes makes ME feel like I'm being childish and irrational. She'd definitely keep you on your toes where your maturity is concerned.

Oh, you mean if SEX was also involved... Well, would it be any different to you? Just asking a question there, not making any assumption...in case you misinterpreted it.

 

I'll answer the last line. I have no intention in reading that, I skimmed several parts, and it's a giant wall of you pretending that you're too stupid to understand what I'm saying.

To the last line: yes, we are talking about the age of consent for sexual activity. So, we are inherently talking about if sex was involved. And yes, if I felt that my kid was being taken advantage of, and my instruction for the older individual to stay away was ignored, they'd eat the curb, if I could get no legal recourse. No thirty year old who would not respect the wishes of a fifteen year old's parent in this situation, is worth half a fuck.

There is supposed to be an elaborate method of dealing with things on a case by case basis, that also allows legal recourse in the event that whoever is dealing with your case is simply not fair. We know that nasty people gravitate towards positions of power, there is no reason to give them unilateral power to handle what case they see fit, how they see fit. The system that we have is not perfect and it does see abuse. That means we need to improve it, not throw it out for a hair-brained system of the individual and unilateral (the only way what you're suggesting could particularly work) power of judge/LEO like characters.

Stop trying to make it sound like we're talking about friends who just HAPPEN to be twice someone's age. I have friends who are twice (or three times) my age, and friends who are half my age. The problems you see are imaginary. There are problems with run-away prosecutors, but they're not the problems you see.

*edit* it also jumped out at me that you say you're against abuse. Well sure, that's fine, but you're also for a flaky system that can't be trusted to do anything, or to not be used in a malicious way, any more than the current system. The difference will be no predictable law or precedents. If they don't like how you look, you're going to the big-house, moreso than right now.

 

That's too bad. I thought I made many good points in my previous post. But I will admit it was a pretty long post. It was just that I felt this was a debate between two mature people, and thus it was important for each of us to be able to come up with a good argument. So it's kind of disappointing to learn that you think I'm merely pretending to be something when, in fact, I spent a lot of my time and energy into countering your opinion.

Alright... Is that any sexual activity? Or the actual sexual intercourse specifically? How about kissing that results in both parties' becoming sexually aroused? Tends to happen, doesn't it?

Now, I have underlined something you said there. What if your 15-year-old child genuinely disagree with you on the judgement you made about this fellow? Have you thought about the possibility that, just maybe, this man actually cared about your child? How could you be 100% sure that such an instance couldn't be true? That you were right and the kid was wrong? Merely because the man's twice as old as your kid? You wouldn't even hear your own child out, let alone the man who just might be willing to talk to you peacefully? The first thing I personally would do is to talk to my child AND the fellow. I'd listen to BOTH of them and try to understand where they are coming from. My respect for my kid would be too great NOT TO do that.

I agree completely there. That's exactly what I'm talking about when I say things must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

I see what you're saying now. And yes, I agree with you...generally speaking. However, I'm not actually suggesting handing legal power over to those "nasty people". And if you failed to derive that from my previous posts, then in this case it's my fault for not being clear enough. I'm merely talking about an ideal legal system where individual cases were handled by a team of honest people with excellent resources, insight, and pure intentions. I understand it's just an ideal, and you might think it's rather unrealistic. But without an ideal, how could one make a positive change in this world? And THAT was what I was talking about. I hope this clarifies.

The whole friendship analogy/example was just that: an example. I was curious as to whether or not you would separate that and something that was more romantic. Reason being, some people have a hard time doing that.
And that's the problem I see right there, what you just said, the attitude you just displayed: you're simply dismissing my hypothesis and my claim, based on what I've seen in the past on the news and on websites supporting the wrongfully accused, as "imaginary". This isn't just my problem, or your problem. It's EVERYBODY's problem because we're NOT doing ANYTHING to fix it right now.

See the fifth paragraph I wrote in this post.

 

Of the choices given, I chose 16. I was 12 when I first had sex with a woman who was approx 40 but I started experimenting homosexually at the age of 8. I was not tricked, touched etc by some adult. I just started playing with my anus with sexual thoughts with other males. I was in a room with a fella of a family friend when he was about 14 after he finished drying himself after his bath, I invited myself to his cock as I wanted it. I just did and I loved it. So for the next few months, he and I were having sex. I sucking him off and he using my anus to pump.

I guess it also comes down to maturity levels of each person.

When you look at your childhood, we all pretty much saw and experienced kids of the same young age showing each other our genitals. Some of us allowing each other to touch.

Any adult who touches a young child like that deserves to be cut open though.

 

Of course I agree that we need legal matters handled by teams of compitent, compassionate, reasonable and responsible people. But the problem is not the people you put on the team, it's the next people on the team. That's what the "checks and balances" idea is all about, it's sacraficing some legal effectiveness in exchange for protection from the misuse of the legal system. The US system is out of control, so we can see that it doesn't always work, but hey, it's taken 200 years to get this out of control, so we need to look at what's gone wrong, and fix it.

As for the hypothetical 15yo/30yo relationship, I would hear my kid out, but I would have a serious problem with any such relationship that was not strictly platonic. If there is something serious, there is no reason or excuse for not saving it a few years. It's pretty dramatic to say that some adult loves a child, and so must have sex with them.... or whatever. I think if there's something serious, they'll wait until they see what kind of a person they even are, because no matter how mature a kid is, they're a kid, and will change a lot. For instance, whet I was 14 I was substantially more mature than many of my "authority" figures, in many ways.... and immature in hidden ways. But I was still a different person all the time, from one year to the next I could feel major differences in mindset and worldview, and all that sort of thing. And at that age, would I have had sex with older people? In a heartbeat..... but the thought of a "loving" relationship with someone substantially older is just creepy, and would even have been there. Basically, like being in a sexual relationship with a parental type figure. And I would trust that my parents would have done something if I had tried to do such a thing. In fact, much as I would have resented it, if I had been in ANY sexual relationship that they knew about, they would have tried to deter it, and if it had been with someone much older, they would have outright banned it. And I was in some lame high school sexual relationships, and it was all well and fine.... because I had the brains to keep it to myself, it would change the nature of the relationship if it was such a big deal it was coming into my parents house or attention.

So yes, the kid would be self-rightious about it..... I'm not that far from being that age, I remember it. And I remember all the girls with their creepy older boyfriends who they would have defended to the death, but who everyone else could see was really creepy and manipulative, and screwing up these girls brains and worldview using the chemistry of sex, and often alcohol and money, all wrapped up in a big stockholm syndrome package. And if females that old where interested in me, I totally would have gone for it, but would NOT have viewed it like that.... if someone forbid me from seeing them, I would have been angry, because I would be losing sex and excitement and such, not a deep soulmate relationship of true "love", in a strange almost parental situation.

I think that people need to be able to handle these situations, and the law should not be the first thing that comes into it. I don't think it matters if the law is broken if nobody is hurt and all parties agree to this, but if somebody is, the law's there. I'm generally libertarian, and my test of legality/morality is, is it consensual and is anybody hurt. But this is a matter of consent, and regardless of maturity, changing opinions and feelings and everything else, no matter how mature somebody is they will continue to change greatly at that age.

I realize I only sort of answered your post.... but I could write all day if I went point-for-point (and I get the same idea about you)

 

I actually really appreciated your last reply, RooR. And you're right, it would be really time consuming if we focused on every detail. I've been there before, I would know, lol.

I understand I'm a minority when it comes to this issue. It's just one of those widely accepted things where I can't help but question. My idea of "creepy" just might even be different from yours. I have no control over that. The more I think about it, the more I become convinced that there are so many people who over-sophisticate this thing called "love".

I just recently stumbled across a program on TV about a research done on "love" how we fall in love and whatnot. If I remember correctly, this research is being done in New York somewhere, though, I'm not 100% as I did not record the TV program. At any rate, it has been commonly perceived that "love" is something complex. Because of this, it has also been commonly perceived/speculated that, when one falls in love, the part of one's brain that processes it must be the area responsible for processing complex matters. But the research has revealed that, on the contrary, the part of the brain that becomes active when one falls in love is in fact the same area responsible for processing the most PRIMAL needs, such as eating and quenching thirst for example. I thought that was pretty interesting, and yet, I also thought it made a lot of sense to me.

I've always been a firm believer that falling in love in itself is harmless, even if one party is a minor and the other an adult. If there ever was any harm done to either party, then I strongly believe that was the result of mistreatment rather than something directly related to their age difference.

 

I agree that falling in love, in and of itself, is totally harmless.

But first of all, I think very few relationships with a large age gradient involving a minor, are based on love on the part of the older individual. They tend to be based on manipulation and sex, without having to act their age, and for the younger person, on infatuation, which can really screw them up, and screw up how they approach other relationships and life in general.

Generally, at best, they're based on physical attraction on both parts, which should be reasonably harmless, I think. But it's one of those things, if it's harmless but could spiral into all sorts of trouble, why risk it?

If there's legitimate love, I would see no PARTICULAR problem, but I would still not be okay with a sexual relationship, if anything, I would be less okay with it. The younger person tends to lose out on a lot of life's experience, and in the end, get burned. An older person who is in love with a kid is NOT going to be particularly mature or developed, and will probably be in love with the simplicity of everything and being able to live in their past, while being in a situation of great control, even though the younger person feels totally free, because of the different expectations of those ages.

I'd tent to think I was very "mature" as a kid, and could have EITHER played the part or actually felt in love like that. But there is SO MUCH change, that it's not a measure of "maturity", but of difference between that, and being just a few years older. Everything about a person changes. And it's not fair to have it change, or not change properly but instead in a twisted/arrested way, while in a relationship like that, and meanwhile they are expected to be grown up, but never had the chance to grow up, even as the window that allows that change closed on them. That's something else I've noticed with people in relationships with older people, I grew up, and they never did. We where equal when we where 15 and I had my 15 year old girlfriend and they had their 20 year old boyfriend, but when I was 18, I was totally different and saw the world in a new way, and they had no self control or ability to handle themselves, because they thought they rebelled from their parents, but basically gave up all that to someone else.... who in turn left when they grew up a bit and where fucked up, and wanted some control of their own.

And from the point of view of the older person (and I know I said something like this before) I really love my dog..... she's very important to me. But dating her would be quite mentally unhealthy, (putting aside her for a moment) for me. I would be seeing "love" in a strange one-sided way, that she can't possibly return. I would also be missing complexity or really, very much personality to love. And basically, if you take the manipulation and danger out of it, that's what it is, it's like someone dating a dog. And I wouldn't want someone dating my kid like a dog, keeping them in a fucked up subordinate situation, and screwing up their development.



I'm not saying that EVERY SINGLE case is like this, but it's generally pretty fair to assume that they are, because just about every case IS like this.

And at any rate, age of consent is usually 14 or 16. I would liberalize that a bit myself, I've described the sort of model I'd use. And of course it would be arbitrary, but if there's real love, A, there should be no talk of the law and thus, no legal problems, and B, they should have no problem waiting around for a few years as platonic friends.

Because recall, we are talking about the age of consent for sex. I think the parent's right is very important, and yeah, I really don't care if 14 year olds can legally consent to have sex with older people, but I think that parents need to be able to legally lay their foot down and, maybe through some simple (as in, not like a restraining order, much easier to obtain) writ, change the age of consent with respect to one particular individual, and their child.

Yes, people have sex, young people too. But serious relationships with people who need to be growing up and changing, with people in different age groups, are NOT healthy. I'm arguing for tools to help parents prevent that sort of situation.

We can go on all day about how SOME PEOPLE are ready for whatever... and sure, maybe, some, theorhetically, are just going to be shallow, and are all grown up when they're ten.... just like on paper, communism or anarchism or the free market all sound great. But they all ignore reality and human nature. I wish we didn't need money or laws and than evil didn't exist, but that's not how it is, and sometimes compromises and arbitrary (as long as it's the right amount of arbitrary in the right situations) laws are necessary. We're not living in caves and dying at 24, and it follows that we do need some systems to keep things working smoothly in our complex world.

And if we did live in caves and die at 24, I would say fuck age of consent laws, gotta get out there and make babies. But we don't, instead that's where we really start comming into our own, because it's basically like being old and wise, back in the day, but we have so much time AFTER that now. So we do need laws that take into account how our modern lives work.

 

I think the age of consent should be 16, and for the most part it is in the USA but that varies state by state, and in some states like California the age is 18.

Age of Consent laws are outdated and need revising. Even if one removes oral, anal, and vaginal intercourse from the scenario, even sexting can land someone with the label of a sex offender. Lawsuits where cases like that happen are wasting taxpayer dollars, and hurting the lives of minors who were more foolish than a real threat to society.

And I have mixed feelings on allowing parents to have super broad authority to interfere with their kid's relationship sole on the basis of age. There was this couple I went to high school with who were very close in age like 10 months apart or something, and when he crossed the line from being 17 to 18 and he had sex with his girlfriend, her parents got involved and the law didn't protect him despite the fact they had been going out for 3 years prior.
RooR is right, that a lot of legal court bullying shenanigans happens in cases like this that are politically charged with the message of "protect the children". The lawyers you get representing both sides can sway the verdict as well.



---

I'd also like to broaden the topic of conversation here to point out that it is interesting to see how other cultures, and the people in those cultures view the "right/proper" age to start having sex.

In Mangaia for instance, their culture's view about sex is to promote it as young as 13 years old (boys and girls are encouraged), and the society is poly. The girls and women there don't seem to traumatized or victimized it's just the way things are and the females in that society have a very high rate of reaching orgasm to the point where it's been documented.

Now compare that to our more developed society, and even super conservative cultures like Inis Beag, Ireland, who still pretty much lives in the shame about all things sexual, including the existence of the female orgasm being a myth and if real deviant, sex ed is non-existent, only certain sexual positions allowed even in married couples.

Thoughts?

 

Personally, I'm for abolishing the age of consent concept all together, it is an unessacary law that mostly just inconviences 16-20 year olds.~

We already have laws in place that say that rape and assault are criminal things punishable by law.~ We don't need to add unessacary types of rape.~

This would make so-called 'crimes' more defined as each case would have to prove something was done against their will on an individual case basis.~

 

I disagree but I see what you're saying. You're basically saying streamline the penal code on this issue.

Problem is sometimes like if the victim is really young (super young kid age less than one to age 14 even) they might not be able to verbalize and endure cross-examination testimony in court. Criminal defense lawyers would rip into them so hard (no pun intended) that prosecution to get real dangerous people off the streets would be hampered.

Not to mention in the case of girls and women, sometimes by the time case comes to trial, evidence needed to prove without a shadow of a doubt rape occured between the plaintiff and defendant might be lost.

The defense: Was their semen in her vagina present upon examination of the plaintiff?

Witness for prosecution (prob a Dr. or cop): There was no semen at the time I examined the victim no, the alleged sexual activity occurred months ago before I examined the witness. (NOTE: Rape can still occur with a condom)

The defense: Then how can we know such an assault took place?

Witness for prosecution: ....

---

^That's a core premise of why we have age of consent laws. For like really young naive victims, and some teens are still really naive so they fall in this category. However I still believe that age 16 is old enough to learn how to endure the adult world, and take the witness stand if needed, much younger children in other countries endure far greater hardships mentally.


Basically I think the mass culture has to be comfortable about talking about sexual issues from parent/guardian to young children so that they know what to do IF someone touches them in a bad way, and that the sensations (which could be pleasure) doesn't make it good.

I know very few parents who are willing to tell their 4-9 year old kid that pleasure is ok from touching that area, but that the fact that it's wanted or unwanted by both parties is what primarily makes it bad.

 

"You can't legislate morality." Only a majority agreed upon and debated upon consensus to form a more definitive and effective system at addressing certain issues legally.~

 

But legislating morality, is not even the premise of why the of consent laws exist. Based on your argumentation why should we have laws against murder then, because having anti-murder laws doesn't change the morality of the individuals who do that crime/act anyway?

Jail time doesn't make someone more moral, but it gets them off the streets, while they present a danger to the public.

Either extreme is just as bad; on the left you have the idea of completely getting rid of the entire concept of age of consent laws and on the right you have the concept of having super strict enforcement and passage of age of consent laws.

Both extremes are bad, but I think a fair middle ground just needs to be tweaked and hashed out and enforced, like close-in-age peers exceptions.

And honestly if an older party like a 22 year old had an interest in someone younger, and it was genuine love. I think sex could wait until he or she was legal. And if they go ahead and do the risky route, they know the risks and can choose to get the authorities involved or not, but both parties have to know not to blab in those cases.

 

My point was not to change morality, but to simply show you one thing: your morality. In order to obtain a better definitive and more effective system of addressing this issue you must disregard your own personal morality system. I agree that problem lies within the issue of dealing with persons of prepubescent age delicately, definitively, and yet effectively.~ Still I'd rather advocate a case by case basis, rather than a blanket method.~