Rec Runner x wrote:
To the person I am replying to. Of course there is a difference between an 8 yr old and an 17 yr old. It's called puberty. Naturally, evolution would call for that we have sex with those who can reproduce. Thus, having sex with anyone below the age of 12 would be shunned by society because morals come into play when you are not reproducing, but merely having sex. Follow me, I swear I'm getting somewhere. Now, with that being said, once one is able to produce doesn't mean they should be rushed into the production process. The female should have time to mature and consider what type of male she would like to continue evolution with. Having sex with someone who has not matured enough to make this decision (our society places that maturation at 18), is a crime and contrary to evolution.
What does "contrary to evolution" have to do with moral rightness or wrongness? This is called the naturalistic fallacy and I don't know if we want to go there, given that many species of birds, for example, have more babies than they can reasonably take care of and the whole intention is to kill the weskest one. If we were birds, we would call that moral. I hate to say it, but it just freaking depends on the 16 year old. My only argument is that it is neither pedophilia nor rape. Should it be discouraged and shamed? Sure. Informally sanctioned by societal institutions? Sure. Jail? Nope, not if it was consensual and regret isn't that same thing as rape.