>>512777263
A lesson of history is that we need something better than an arbitrary cut off that draws a line between childhood and adulthood.
We need gradations that take into consideration context.
Your argument is that context can't be proven in court.
My argument is (a) yes you often can, and (b) even if you can't its better than a brutal, irrational cut off point that doesn't even try take into consideration context.

The whole purpose of a judiciary is to take context in mind when adjudicating a situation. Our problem is adding more context, not denying the importance of context.
The *way* you are with a young person and not the bare fact of age should determine what society and the state does with you.
The alternatives are clear:
> no state == adult men do whatever they want with young people, maybe even babies
> hard AOC (what we have now) where loving men are criminalized no matter how good or loving or generous they are
> flexible legal guidelines that take context into consideration, and offer multiple points of reasoning, that unfold over time as the child grows and becomes more competent and independent
The latter is the only rational solution.
In a reasonable society, most people wouldn't call the cops on you for having a relationship with a young person. But they should have recourse to calling someone to ensure the rights of the child are upheld. What that looks like is up for discussion. Reasonable institutions don't go around trying to destroy human relationships.
Unfortunately, and maybe this is your real point, we don't have reasonable institutions, and so we are forced to make a harder bargain, which means keeping the state out.
If that's the offer, most people take the hard AOC. I think the only way to have a reasonable conversation about this is to argue for better contextualization of relationships, decriminalization, and improved social services, even if it is a risk.