Those sexually predatory 12 year old girls!

[Coito ergo sum]

I agree, Lak. And, when the drinking age was 18, that kind of age-fraud was easier, I think. Now that bars in the US are generally limited to 21 and over, a 13 year old would be much harder pressed to look of age, and they are far more strict on identification than they were 25-30 years ago. When I was in college, there were still folks who had drivers licenses with no photo on it. I remember using one to buy a keg of beer.

I really don't get too outraged over the idea of a guy who is 41 not getting to fuck a 17 or 16 or 15 year old, whatever the age cutoff is. I think there is something wrong with a man that age looking to go after a highschool girl or younger. I mean, what do they have in common? To me, the likelihood of any common interests, thoughts, dreams, wishes, etc. is slim to none. It's really about the sex and sex alone. That's fine, and having raucous orgy swinger sex without attachment is just fine and dandy. However, when it comes to a high school girl and a middle schooler, I think that they ought to grow up first before they engage in it. That's my opinion. I have a daughter, and when she gets older, my first concern is not whether someone who fancies her gets to have sex with her, and I don't feel any sort of outrage or sadness over the fact that some 40 year old doesn't get to play with her that way.

I realize that girls will have sexual thoughts and urges at pubescence and onward, and they will likely want to feel grown up and interact with older people and feel popular and feel good and even might think they honestly want to do all sorts of things with an older person. I just think the older person should refrain, and that there is nothing to lose from the child's standpoint that the adult does refrain. There is a lot to lose for a child if the adult does not refrain -- the girl can be led on, get seriously emotionally hurt, feel used, regret her actions, get pregnant, all sorts of things short of "rape" but which are nevertheless things I wouldn't mind a 12 year old waiting a few years to endure.

[colubridae]

…….

Stop it! playing semantic games. My car is hopelessly inadequate for taking all my friends to the sea-side, but I’d be fool to call it objectionable.

Yes of course. Legal issues are often very thorny. That’s the whole point I’m making.

“That ‘the age of consent’ line is hopelessly inadequate but the best we can do” is my viewpoint.
That it’s “not perfect but not bad” is your viewpoint.
I simply disagree with you.

A “one age fits all” approach is inadequate. Hopelessly so. That it is the only ‘workable’ solution doesn’t lessen its inadequacy. You’re simply equating “workable” with “adequate”. If that’s your view fine, It’s not mine.
Modern jurisprudence is “workable”, but “adequate” no, not even close.

And I agree with you about other legal ages.

Driving ages are a particular favourite of mine. Pin-point age lines are (probably) the only ‘workable’ solution, I would never deny that.
It doesn’t mean that they are, even reasonably, adequate.
Plenty of the drivers I taught who passed should not have been let loose for at least another ten years.
A better solution (for driving) would be, at least, based on gender. Females are much better at driving than males.
Males are slightly better at physically controlling the car, but hopeless at following the rules. Females are much better at learning rules and obeying them.

[Coito ergo sum]

…….

Stop it! playing semantic games. My car is hopelessly inadequate for taking all my friends to the sea-side, but I’d be fool to call it objectionable.

I already withdrew "objectionable" as I accepted your distinction, and I limited my comment to clarifying that I do not find the bright line rule "hopelessly inadequate."

Yes of course. Legal issues are often very thorny. That’s the whole point I’m making.

“That ‘the age of consent’ line is hopelessly inadequate but the best we can do” is my viewpoint.
That it’s “not perfect but not bad” is your viewpoint.
I simply disagree with you.

Agreed.

A “one age fits all” approach is inadequate. Hopelessly so. That it is the only ‘workable’ solution doesn’t lessen its inadequacy.

Well, in a way it does, because it is the best solution we have. I don't get why you think it's "inadequate." The only inadequacy you explained so far was the 15 year 364 day example, which I don't see how that makes the whole system inadequate and the example is one that I don't think has ever actually occurred and is therefore speculative at best. It's a theoretical miscarriage of justice, for which things like prosecutorial discretion and common sense can likely come to the rescue.

You’re simply equating “workable” with “adequate”. If that’s your view fine, It’s not mine.
Modern jurisprudence is “workable”, but “adequate” no, not even close.

And I agree with you about other legal ages.

Driving ages are a particular favourite of mine. Pin-point age lines are (probably) the only ‘workable’ solution, I would never deny that.
It doesn’t mean that they are, even reasonably, adequate.

Well, the best we can do is the best we can do. I guess I was figuring adequacy in light of the available options.

[colubridae]

All else being agreed then

Well, in a way it does, because it is the best solution we have. I don't get why you think it's "inadequate." The only inadequacy you explained so far was the 15 year 364 day example, which I don't see how that makes the whole system inadequate and the example is one that I don't think has ever actually occurred and is therefore speculative at best. It's a theoretical miscarriage of justice, for which things like prosecutorial discretion and common sense can likely come to the rescue.

The reason I think it’s inadequate is because it doesn’t take into account the individual’s ‘fitness’ to make decisions about its sexuality. As I said before the ‘proper’ way would be to handle each person’s fitness individually.
That such a system, today, is unworkable I accept.
But if you imagine a world where there is very little crime, adequate resources could be brought to bear on ‘rare’ cases of alleged under age sex. What’s more if you imagine a world where the age limit was too high (say 21) then you have a situation where perfectly able individuals are denied the right to ‘express their sexuality’.
And it cuts the other way too. There will be individuals aged above the ‘consent line’ who are still not fit to make decisions on their own. Such abused individuals are likely to be missed.

This is why it’s ‘inadequate’. But I do accept that investigating fully every individuals’ fitness to be, for all intents and purposes, unworkable.

One of the things that makes it disturbing was watching the Zimmerman case. Had the defence and prosecution counsels changed places, he might well have been convicted. Your view of prosecutorial discretion and common sense seems a little naïve.
Whether you think Zimmerman should have been found guilty or not, a large part of the not guilty verdict was down to the superb performance of Mark ‘Atticus’ O’Mara versus the blithering incompetence of Delshithead. But that’s another story.

[Coito ergo sum]

All else being agreed then

Well, in a way it does, because it is the best solution we have. I don't get why you think it's "inadequate." The only inadequacy you explained so far was the 15 year 364 day example, which I don't see how that makes the whole system inadequate and the example is one that I don't think has ever actually occurred and is therefore speculative at best. It's a theoretical miscarriage of justice, for which things like prosecutorial discretion and common sense can likely come to the rescue.

The reason I think it’s inadequate is because it doesn’t take into account the individual’s ‘fitness’ to make decisions about its sexuality.

But, that's because such determinations are next to impossible to make. Who will make that determination? A psychologist? After the sexual encounter?

As I said before the ‘proper’ way would be to handle each person’s fitness individually.

But that way is impossible.

That such a system, today, is unworkable I accept.

Not just unworkable, but undesirable. Because the idea is that a whole lot of kids are not "fit" in that manner. However, once they are fucked by the adults, they can't be unfucked, so all that will be done is a fitness determination would be made to see of the adult would be prosecuted. Unfit, and the child is considered raped. Fit and the consent is valid and the adult is free. However, the adult in that instance would validly complain that he or she had no idea that the kid wasn't fit. "Seemed fit to me" would be the normal refrain.

So, to have a prior evaluation, children are going to be given monthly sex evaluations, to receive "o.k to fuck adults" card. What would be the point of that? As a society we're concerned that as many middle schoolers as possible are fucking adults?

I still come back to the idea that with whatever faults can be identified with a bright line rule, it is really the only option. And, it is adequate because it actually gives a clear line for adults to follow -- under X years, no fuck -- easy peasy. With an a la carte method, we either have to have prior evaluations of children throughout their development to see if they are fuckable or not, or we're going to have protracted legal battles where adults are bringing in experts to evaluate children to demonstrate that they were fuckable when they were fucked. And, the argument will be that it's not whether the kid was actually fit for fucking, but whether the adult was reasonable in concluding that the kid was fuckable, so some unfit but apparently fit kids would be fucked and the adult would suffer no repercussions.

[Seth]

the issue is not, however, whether a consensual relationship between the two is harmful. the issue is the difficulty in determining whether meaningful consent was given and whether the mental capacity of the child is sufficient to give meaningful consent. A rule that 16 is the age of consent is not a statement that "always" those under 16 are incapable of giving consent. it's a rule to set the line somewhere fairly reasonable, so that the law does not have to evaluate the capacity of every child when the instances come up.

The obvious question this raises is why should the law not be required to evaluate the capacity of any (not every) child who wishes to have sex (with anyone) on an individual basis? When one is an adult, having sex is a right, at least these days. If the issue of meaningful consent is the concern then why shouldn't a sexually-mature 12 year old be able to petition the court (or someone else) for an evaluation of the "meaningfulness" of her (or his) consent to sexual activity?

Moreover, from the point of view of the older person in the relationship, if the public concern is "meaningful consent" then it would seem to me that whether or not the particular 12 year old gave meaningful consent is an essential element of the crime.

But that's precisely the point of "statutory rape" laws, to ELIMINATE any possible defense of consent or predatory behavior by the defendant. The law is a strict liability law that makes the sexual contact unlawful no matter what. Take Mary Kay LaTourneau and her then 13 year old lover as an example. She was convicted and jailed for seven years and when she got out she and her "victim" got married and by all accounts are perfectly happy and in love. Was it justice for her to be convicted and jailed for what is now obviously a real, authentic love match that endured things that many marriages between "adults" would not endure.

So are statutory rape laws reasonable public policy or are they merely manifestations of a particularly Puritanistic "ick factor" revulsion on the part of legislators?

i mean, a 12 year old? At 12 there is no life experience.

There's 12 years of life experience, which, sadly, for some kids is twice the lifetime that you or I have experienced. But what does that have to do with sexual libido? Half of all 12 year olds in the US are engaging in sex acts of one kind or another. Mostly with peers, but it's hardly unusual for horny girls to seek out "older men" for their first, or subsequent sexual experiences. "Older" meaning anything from 13 to 90. I see stories all the time about 18 and 19 year old "men" having sex with, and "marrying" and having babies with 13, 14, and 15 year old girls all the time. Some states have such a problem with underage pregnancy that they are instituting mandatory cord-blood storage from underage mothers so that DNA can be used to identify the father...which quite often the girl is unwilling to identify because she loves him.

Sexuality and capacity to consent and emotional maturity have everything to do with why we as a society generally view children below a certain age as being legally incapable of consenting to sex. having a libido, in other words, is not the only factor relevant to the analysis.

Why? And what age is that? We've already agreed that there may be 12 year olds capable of giving informed consent, so what is just about infringing on the freedom of choice of those girls? Why should the law presume as a matter of law, as it does, that a 12 year old CAN knowingly and validly consent to having sex with another 12 year old, or in many cases someone up to 16 years old (4 years older), but CANNOT likewise consent to the very same act simply and only because the chosen partner is more than 4 (or in some cases 10) years older than the young person?

What is the law trying to accomplish? Protection of the 12 year old against sexual exploitation, in which case it is illogical to sanction ANY sexual activity regardless of the age of the partner (which in fact some states do)? Or is it the "ick factor" visceral response that denies the right of choice to the young person in order to control the conduct of the older adult?

Again, if the relationship is consensual, where's the harm. Particularly, where's the greater harm from having sex with an older adult as opposed to a peer. If anything, it's probably more dangerous to the health of a girl to have sex with another horny teenager, who is far, far less likely to go about it properly or safely than it is for her to have sex with a responsible, caring and careful adult.

of course it's not "unusual for horny girls to seek out older men." Is is not ought. And, the idea is that the older men ought to refrain, whether pursued or not, because the young girls are not making proper decisions or are not capable of fully understanding the nature of their decision-making.

But this falsely presumes that NO young girl is capable of making a "proper decision." Is that the case? Is there objective evidence demonstrating this, or is it merely a societal presumption?

Because 18 and 19 year old men are fucking middle schoolers and impregnating them doesn't mean it has to be legal.

Nor does it mean that it should be illegal.

i realize culture changed, and in the one Elvis pressley was raised in, an adult marrying a 13 year old was not too far out of the norm and in Shakespearean times, Romeo and juliet, the early teens was when it all happened. I'm referring to what I think ought to be the rule in today's culture. others may have different views of it, including you. That's fine. i don't share it, and I've explained why. May the best lobbying effort win, and may the legislature enact what it enacts.

The gist of what you've explained consists of an appeal to common practice and a personal "ick factor" revulsion of the notion. Is there any stronger argument to be made for a blanket proscription against May-December romances?

You simply cannot generalize about sexual activity in young persons of either sex.

making generalizations does not mean there are no exceptions. of course you can generalize about sexual activity -- the numbers are the numbers. That doesn't mean that a given particular individual adheres to the general rule -- that's why there are exceptions. my view of it is that it's better if 41 year old men keep their dicks out of 12 year old girls. it's not an "ick" factor at all. It's because I don't think 12 year olds are generally intellectually and emotionally suited to making those kinds of decisions, and i think it's better for them generally to remain non-sexually active for a while and engage in typical kids' stuff for a little longer. Yes, of course, there may be savvy and suave, sexually mature 12 year olds. But I believe them to be the vast minority and that doesn't justify changing a general rule. A law which keeps a 41 year old from boning a sexually savvy and suave 12 year old, while at the same time seeking to protect the greater mass of non-savvy and suave 12 year olds, is fine. i don't really care that the 41 year old and the 12 year old lost out on some fucking.

Sounds like "ick factor" to me. And where is the justice in the state interfering with the rights of the 12 year old to sexual sovereignty if he/she is mentally capable of making rational decisions in that department? The very same child has implicit permission from the government to exercise sovereign judgment about having sex with a peer. What is different with the 41 year old except age and experience, given the same degree of knowing and voluntary consent on the part of the child?

It's the "ick factor." You seem to be having great difficulty even analyzing your own feelings and motivations here, and as has happened before you appear to be resorting to the appeal to common practice fallacy and to simply evading the issue because you appear to be uncomfortable with it.

I understand this, and I'm not trying to malign you or suggest you're a prude or anything, I'm just interested in trying to figure out why your rational faculties appear to misfire in this particular debate.

Imagine yourself at 12. At 12, my perspective on things that occurred only 10 years before was that it was ancient history, and had no real relevance. i was ignorant of most events and i had no relationship experience. i had thoughts and desires, but little or no understanding of them. My friends and I went out riding bikes, playing football and soccer, swimming, all sorts of kid stuff. Most everyone I knew had not had sex, and the most amazing bit of luck was to get access to a playboy magazine and ogle at the amazing women inside. That's not being ready to deal with adults on an even keel.

Well, that's you. I refer you to the movie "Summer of '42" for an earlier take on the sexual adventures of pubescent boys.

We can only base our own views on our experience and our understanding of reality (in this case our culture and society in general), and based on that, i think that my experience is closer to the norm than sexually and emotionally mature 12 year olds engaging in predatory sexual behavior and manipulation of adults.

Well, yes, of course, but we're discussing the exception, not the rule.

i also think it's better for 12 year olds to be engaging in the kids' stuff that i described above, rather than jumping into the swinging sex world, whether the 12 year old thinks they're ready for it or not.

I accept your opinion on this, but it's just an opinion. What facts and logical arguments support this opinion, if any?

Every person is different, but there are generalities and curves. At 6 months of age, I think the percentage of children that age that are ready for sexual relationships with adults is 0. As children get older, there comes a point in time when a small percentage of children have developed sexually, physically and emotionally to deal with sex on the level of a young adult.

We agree on this.

However, even if there are some 10 or 11 or 12 year olds that could be described that way, i would still want adults to wait a few years before fucking them. That's because (a) it's impractical and unfeasible to determine which ones of those children are mature in that way,

Why is it "infeasible?" Surely a horny 12 year old who is sexually and emotionally and intellectually mature could petition the court for a "sex learner's permit" by demonstrating physical maturity, emotional stability, rational judgment skills and a proper attitude towards safe sex couldn't she? If she were examined by a physician regarding the physical and medical qualifications, and perhaps a psychologist regarding her emotional and intellectual capacity and the question was brought to a judge, where she could be questioned on the stand to confirm her ability to be sexually emancipated this is not something that's "infeasible."

A very short version of this still exists in the US in some places, like Tennessee, where a girl can be married at 13 with the permission of her parents AND the court, which can examine the girl under oath to determine her suitability and preparation for marriage.

What's "infeasible" about that?

and (b) at a certain age, in my view 16, a teenager has developed sufficient maturity or wits about them that consent can be determined more readily on a case by case basis, and therefore a blanket prohibition is not as warranted.

So it appears that your argument is based in an "ick factor" objection and what seems suspiciously like an appeal to prudery and government convenience. Does the government work for the people or not? Do people, including children, have a right to petition their government for a redress of grievances and is not the government obligated to give them due process and a hearing?

To be clear - that doesn't mean that 16 is, to me, a magic age or magic number. it isn't. It's a practical compromise. And, i hold myself and I think others should hold themselves to higher standards than that. To me, that's about the minimum. Would i go nuts if the law in my State changed to 15? No. it's not, again, a magic number. It's a compromise.

[/quote]

Why should anyone "compromise" on their fundamental right to have sex and make babies? If a 12 year old is physically mature and capable of having children, it's arguable that she has a fundamental right to exercise her reproductive options, and that therefore the government would have to meet a strict-scrutiny standard in regulating or infringing on that right.

What is the compelling government interest involved (at the federal level), and is a blanket ban on old/young sex the LEAST intrusive way of achieving a legitimate government objective?

I would argue that if a "child" of 13 has a constitutional privacy right to have an abortion at will and without parental consent, which implies she is capable of making a rational decision about a very grave matter like abortion...and she does under today's laws in many states, she also has a constitutional right to privacy regarding her sex life too, and an equally strong presumption of her capacity to make the decision to have sex in the first place.

What would be your argument in response to that?

[Seth]

Would i go nuts if the law in my State changed to 15? No. it's not, again, a magic number. It's a compromise.

But that's exactly the problem. There is a magic number for you.

No there isn't. There is only my best judgment as to what makes sense given my experience and understanding of our society/culture, and my understanding of what is best for children.

Should the rights of EITHER the young person or the adult hinge on what "makes sense" to you? Isn't that a rather vague and indecipherable standard? Is that a standard that you really want to establish? What if what "makes sense" to me is to execute all homosexuals?

[Warren Dew]

i mean, driving a car, i'm sure there are some 14 year olds who have the skills and ability and maturity to operate a car. But, don't you see that it is (a) impractical to test everyone at every age to determine their level of skill and ability, and (b) a decent approximation to pick 16 or 17, or sometimes 15, etc., as a minimum age?

That's a terrible example, given that we actually give tests of "level of skill and ability" before granting people driver's licenses. Of course a good test would be sufficient.

[Seth]

For those of you who are having some trouble with an age of consent rule, because it is not a perfect determiner of who is emotionally mature sufficient to consent to sex and who isn't, do you have a similar issue with a minimum age to operate heavy machinery, or with a minimum age to buy alcoholic beverages, buy cigarettes, get a tattoo or drive?

Yes, I most certainly do. I was "operating heavy machinery" (farm implements) when I was 8 years old. I also owned my first .22 rifle, and was allowed to use it at my discretion, at 10. I haven't shot anybody yet...either on purpose or accidentally...probably BECAUSE I received comprehensive firearms safety training beginning at age four.

i mean, driving a car, i'm sure there are some 14 year olds who have the skills and ability and maturity to operate a car. But, don't you see that it is (a) impractical to test everyone at every age to determine their level of skill and ability, and (b) a decent approximation to pick 16 or 17, or sometimes 15, etc., as a minimum age?

Why and how is it "impractical?" We have to test the skills and ability of EVERY driver, that's what the DMV does. If a 14 year old can correctly operate a motor vehicle safely on the highway and can demonstrate the requisite knowledge, what possible rational argument is there to prohibiting him or her from doing so. When I was young I was allowed to operate a pedal-started motorbike of under 50cc displacement at age 13. I rode it four miles to school every day the weather was nice, and a good many when it was freezing fucking cold. I had to demonstrate my ability before being allowed to do so, and I never had an accident while doing so.

Why is this so troublesome for ages of consent? It's the same concept. in our culture, until a kid reaches the age to drive, they cant' drive, even if they technically would be a good driver. The same goes for sex. In our culture, until a kid reaches the age of consent, they can't legally consent, even if they technically would have no issues with sex and have an adult level mental capacity.

Because it's irrational, illogical and violative of the rights of individuals to purse happiness.

Why? Because in both instances (a) the vast majority of underage kids are not sufficiently ready to drive, or be sexually active, even though some are, and (b) it's impractical to deal with it on a case by case basis due to the imprecision of these kinds of determinations.

You keep saying that, but it's simply not true. The system for determining qualifications to drive already exists and is applied to every single driver applying for a license. The only additional burden would be the ministerial duty of keeping track of a larger (slightly larger) number of licensed drivers, and that ministerial burden is an obligation of government, which cannot justly plead inconvenience as an excuse not to execute it's assigned ministerial duties.

[Seth]

Why is this so troublesome for ages of consent?

Because the age of consent for the others doesn't deny them access to young uns affect them (as badly) if they make a mistake of judgement. Perhaps?

Perhaps? No, of course. No sane person wants to face 25 to life for screwing a 12 year old, and you have to be pretty crazy to do it with that penalty in the wings.

But that's not the issue. The issue is whether or not it's reasonable, rational and just to inflict such a penalty on someone when the "crime" was both entirely consensual (or even coerced by the juvenile) and no identifiable harm was done to the putative victim.

Nobody yet has identified any actual harm that takes places in a consensual sex act with a 12 year old to begin with. The law generally acknowledges that no such harm occurs between peers, so where's the objective harm that occurs merely because one partner is more than 4 years older than the other?

[Seth]

I posted this over at Ratskep and didn't want to type it all in again. Over there they seem to think she's 13, but the points still stand.

(Another member's) previous point about age differences meaning less as we age is well taken. I'm 16 years older than Mrs. Lak, she was 31 and I was 47 when we got together. That raised a few eyebrows at the time, particularly her mum's. Now that she's 43 and I'm 59 it doesn't seem to matter to anyone. However, if she had been 13 and I was 29 it would have been entirely different.

There are 13 year olds that are sexually active and look a lot older. When I was 23 I was approached, in an extremely intimate manner, by a young lady at a bar. I assumed she was 18 because she was drinking at the bar. We went back to my place. Imagine my surprise when the next morning her father was banging on my front door and I found out she was only 13. I about shat myself. Lucky for me I had a couple of rather large biker type roommates or he probably would have physically attacked me. Also lucky we were in a country that didn't have a legal age of consent, had I been in the U.S. or U.K. I'd be on the sex offender list. So I can understand how someone could be fooled, but honestly a 41 year old shouldn't be messing about with a 16 or 17 year old in the first place

Why not? Is there some rational reason beyond a vague assertion or an "ick factor" argument?

[colubridae]

Stop using the word fuck in this context. It’s winding up your emotions. Stay rational or stop posting.
Sexual abuse of a minor need not require intercourse.

I understand that you keep coming back to the simplistic view “under X is a crime”.
Ok I understand that it is the only workable option. At present.

Minors are regularly monitored at the moment. School staffs are instructed to be aware of inappropriate behaviour. And that includes minors not taking an interest in sexual relationships. Such lack of interest possibly indicates abuse at home, elsewhere or in the school. Extending such monitoring doesn’t seem wrong to me. Practically every other aspect of development is closely monitored. Or should be.

Even though it’s the only “workable” option there are problems with a pin-point age limit.
If you set it too low, say 10, unfit children will be abused.
Set it too high, say 20, and you have the absurdity of full grown adults legally proscribed from relationships simply to avoid the fear that ‘physical minors’ may be abused.
I’m using the term ‘physical minor’ to distinguish from ‘legal minor’

So now you only have subjective viewpoints. Should we all vote on an age limit then take, what, the arithmetic mean? The geometric mean?
We are stuck with your bright line age limit because, as you so rightly said, it is better than nothing.
Within upper and lower bounds it is only an arbitrary set point and I believe that to be wrong.
This is desirable only against doing nothing. Otherwise it’s the least desirable option.
If you want to post more go ahead. I’m out; for what it’s worth I’ve said my piece.

AFAICC we agree on most points. We will never agree on “desirable option” or “adequate option”. We do agree on “only workable option” and “necessary”.
BTW I value your views, I just don't agree with you on this.

[Seth]

Why is that a "problem?" The concept of an age of consent is not, I repeat, not, about any suggestion that all kids below age X are in fact incapable of meaningful consent or in fact lack sufficient emotional maturity. The concept is that kids below age X ought to be legally incapable of consent because it is impracticable to determine consent on a case by case basis..

Why is it impracticable? Certainly "informed and rational consent" could easily be made an affirmative defense to a charge of statutory rape, in which case the whole trial could be avoided (and the concomitant cost) by the judge carefully examining the "victim" under oath and making a determination that her (or his) consent meets the requisite standard.

What's "impracticable" about that?

[Seth]

Stop using the word fuck in this context. It’s winding up your emotions. Stay rational or stop posting.

AFAICC we agree on most points. We will never agree on “desirable option” or “adequate option”. We do agree on “only workable option” and “necessary”.

Why is a statutory rape law the only "workable" and "necessary" option? I've suggested a couple of perfectly workable options. The problem seems to be, again, the "ick factor" and nobody wants to even consider that there are other options because other options infer that "children" will be legally authorized to have sex with older adults, and the "ickyness" of this thought short-circuits all rational thought.

That's what I'm interested in probing.

[Warren Dew]

Nobody yet has identified any actual harm that takes places in a consensual sex act with a 12 year old to begin with. The law generally acknowledges that no such harm occurs between peers, so where's the objective harm that occurs merely because one partner is more than 4 years older than the other?

Just because it's legal in some jurisdictions does not mean that no harm comes from it.

I'm quite concerned about the emotional and physical damage that 12 year old girls can sustain from having sex and getting pregnant. I just don't think it makes any difference how old the guy is. And since I think adult men are in fact more likely to be responsible about the whole thing, I'd rather my daughter be socializing with adults than with peers once the time comes - but mostly because I think it's less likely to result in premature sex, not because I think sex with them would be okay.