Bothered

Would your position be different if the “legal” age were 15?

And yet there are those whose fave category on “the hub” is barely legal. Why not rant about that? I met my wife at 27, she was 17. Later (5 years later) after meeting again, we ended up married at 21/31. Been married 9 years now. Legal is legal. That’s what matters, not asshole that are prudes with opinions. Either get off your high horse or change the laws. Long time ago, people got married at 14, it’s only been raised as women don’t die in childbirth as much, and you don’t have to pop out 12 kids to only have one heir left to carry the name after the others died of disease. Yes, legal age exists and it’s a good thing, but damn, judgy people like you suck to be around.

So they are at different stages in life, so what? Who dictates that you need to be at the same stage to be in a relationship? Maybe other people simply have different ideas of what a relationship must be like. On another note...I actually think you're kinda discriminating not against the guy, but against the girl here. You're assuming that it's grooming instead of thinking that she's fully capable of making her own decisions. Btw. the current french president and his wife have a 25-year-age difference. And, surprise : She is the older one.

Slavery was legal but does it make it right? So let’s say the “legal” age to consent is 15, would your position be different?

Oh hell, why do so many of my discussions involve giving a whole lesson on a subject? Yes, I would probably say that 15 is too young for the age of consent. Do you understand what the age of consent represents? It is a crude but necessary construct. It's the age at which you are considered an adult, and you trade the protection from bad decisions and potentially being taken advantage of for the freedom to make your own decisions and accept the consequences. Not just relationships, but a whole assortment of decisions and activities. Smoking, drinking, gambling, and anything involving entering into a contract. I say it's crude because people are complicated. They are extremely diverse, and mature at different rates. Some people are ready for responsibilities at age 13 that others aren't prepared for by age 40. But we don't really have the ability or the resources to form a comprehensive assessment of people's capacity for these things on an individual basis, so we need a defined age where we determine that the majority of individuals are sufficiently prepared for those freedoms and responsibilities, and we arrived at 18. Maybe it should be higher, maybe it should be lower, but that's where we set it. Relationships and compatibility are even more complicated, as they involve multiple people. And the same principle applies. It is entirely possible that a 15 year old could be compatible with a 40 year old, for example, to approximate the hypothetical you're implying. Uncommon, but not impossible. But they are a minor, and deemed incapable of making that decision, and of accepting the responsibility and consequences which may accompany it. The restriction exists not because it is certain they will be abused or taken advantage of, but because they might be, and they aren't deemed old enough to accept the risk. Once they reach the age of consent, they are. And as such, the validity of ANY relationship between consenting adults, is left entirely to the judgement of those consenting adults, and only interfered with if any of those adults stops consenting or is being abused. The age of consent is not about determining the validity of a relationship, but about protecting someone who is deemed incapable of making certain decisions. Slavery robbed people of their right to live freely and make their own decisions. That sounds more like your position on this issue than mine. Per your other comment, you can be disgusted and call me a sicko all you want, and I will, in turn, call you a control freak who thinks your personal tastes and preferences should be imposed on everyone else. If someone is actually being harmed, I am all for getting involved and stopping it. But it isn't valid to assume they are because you're personally disgusted by the thought of their relationship. And I'm glad the laws aren't based on what any random person might find disgusting, but actually have the comparably sound and rational basis I've described here.