While I understand an older teenager flirting with or dating a younger teenager is frowned upon, especially in more puritanical locations, there is nothing objectively wrong with it. At this point, people being overly judgmental have set their brains aside and are just virtue signalling. As far as I know, this boy did not harm anyone.
On the other hand, mass gang-bullying a teenager to the point of suicide is incredibly harmful. I'd say fucking despicable.
Facts. Biological development does not occur at the same rates for everybody. 18 is as arbitrary as any other age. I remember at 14 there were girls who you'd mistake for 18 and others who looked 8. In China, 14 is the age of consent. In France, 15. In Nigeria, it's 11. And we're not even talking about having sex here as I understand it so people getting upset seem to have no ability to break out of their preconditioning. These are the same types of people who think drugs are bad because they are illegal. Like that's the entirety of their thought process. Not they can be dangerous, not that it would be difficult to track levels of intoxication, just "bad cuz illegal".
It really is a myopic and sophomoric thought process, but hey not all of us can be smart.
It is not remotely like taking drugs because there are two parties involved and a high probability of harm.
It is not based an arbitrary distinction, but a reasoned knowledge of human development and psychology. The goal is to prohibit sex with someone until they are old enough to make a rational informed decision. We can't pinpoint this moment, but we can be sure that, until the point of mental decline, the older a person is, the more likely the are to have that capability. We know typically when people develop their executive function enough to make sound decision, and we know how those who have sexual relationships with adults when they are children tend to feel about it later in life. Tends not to be good. Physical development is irrelevant as the mental development necessary for consent does not correlate well with physical development. That being said, I generally do not believe in strict liability for statutory rape, and if the accused had reasonable belief that a person is legal aged, then that should be a valid defense.
Humans do not all develop at the same rate. However, unless we set some age, it would be impossible to enforce any kind of statutory rape law. 18 is a reasonable standard, particularly whereas most states have a romeo and juliet clause to prevent prosecution when the parties are close and age.
The laws do not only protect minors, but also adults who are attracted to younger people. If we had a standard where a person could have sex with anyone of any age so long as they are "mature enough", then a person could have sex with a minor that he believes is "mature" but later be found guilty because a court disagrees. Clear laws help protect violators by ensuring that they can abide by them. Laws that do not enable someone to know clearly when they may be in violation are actually invalid "void for vagueness". If I made a law that stated "a person can consent to sexual activity when they are mentally developed enough to give informed consent" that would undoubtedly be struck down.
It is possible that there are some very highly mentally developed minors who are capable of informed consent to sexual activity with adults and would suffer no ill effects. We may be delaying some potential sexual relationships that might be benign. However, setting no age limits will inevitable enable relationships that would be damaging and destructive. And forcing people to wait a few years before fucking is a price well worth paying to avoid child abuse.
Do you believe we should model our laws after China or Nigeria?
If the basis for your position is "hey, some girls get tall and get tits earlier so we can't have any laws to protect children" then I'd suggest you might want to think on the matter a bit more before being condescending.
Last edited by JWeinCom - on 05 April 2021