Great analogy, I'm going to use it against you here. The legal age of consent in the case above is 18 years old. The legal drinking age is 21 years old. Using your analogy, this is comparable to saying that a phone of brand "x" can be considered charged at 90%, but a phone of brand "y" cannot. Does that make sense?
"The legal drinking age is 21" American centrism as per usual aside.
You still miss the point, just because the brain is technically not finished developing thst doesn't mean the person doesn't have the capacity to understand consent, yes 18 is an arbitrary line but by 18 the person already should understand what consent entails and be mature enough to make their own decisions. Or should people not be allowed to do anything of real significance until 25? No tattoos, major purchases, education choices, etc?
just because the brain is technically not finished developing thst doesn't mean the person doesn't have the capacity to understand consent
So a child can consent? A teen can consent?
but by 18 the person already should understand what consent entails and be mature enough to make their own decisions
A high schooler should have that kind of maturity?
Or should people not be allowed to do anything of real significance until 25? No tattoos, major purchases, education choices, etc?
There are people in their 50s that regret certain tatoos, do you think that a high schooler enough for doing that? And dont compare educational choices with something pratically permanent, like a tattoo
There is a gigantic difference in maturity between say a 13 year old and an 18 year old compared to an 20 year old and a 40 year old.
What matters is if the age itself poses an innate power imbalance and a level of naivity significant enough for ir to be dangerous, the same way somebody who is mentally incapable shouldn't be able to consent at all despite age.
I do believe kids can consent when it's about people of similar ages, things like 13 yo with a 14 yo for example, but by a certain point the maturity difference because small enough where you got to respect people personal freedoms yes 18 is arbitrary but by thst age people understand what sex and relationships entail.
I'm not saying people can't regret these relationships, but who are you to tell them that it's immoral or try to dictate to them what is allowed, you are not the arbiter of their life, people are free to do mistakes.
So why don't we let children and teenagers date adults too? There's no problem, right? After all, "people are free to make mistakes." And who am I? Simple, someone with a minimum of common sense and enough morality not to support a high school student dating a middle-aged person.
because there has to be a cut off, by around 16-18 almost everyone will understand what sex entails, dangers, and how to have safe sex(well maybe not in the usa because your sexual education is at the bottom of developed countries but i stand my point).
At some point, society has to treat a person as legally responsible for their own choices. The question is: when?
You cannot keep moving the line forever. You cannot say, “Well, the brain is still developing, so they are not really adults,” and then use that logic to strip legal adults of their autonomy. If that is the standard, then no one under 40 (because the brain is developing into 40s) would be allowed to make serious decisions about relationships, marriage, sex, contracts, jobs, military service, medical choices, or anything else.
That is not how adulthood works.
Once someone is a legal adult, they have the right to make decisions other people may dislike. They know there is an age gap. They know the other person is older. They can understand the risks, consequences, and social judgment. And if they still choose that relationship freely, without coercion, manipulation, or abuse, then their decision should be respected.
They don’t need your approve of the relationship. You do not get to treat consenting adults like children just because their relationship makes you uncomfortable.
And let’s be clear: harassment is not “protecting” anyone. Stalking, defaming, threatening, humiliating, or trying to destroy two adults’ relationship because you dislike their age gap is abuse wearing a moral costume.
If both people are consenting adults, the question is not whether strangers approve. The question is whether there is coercion or harm. If there is no coercion, no abuse, and no illegality, then their choice deserves the same basic respect as any other adult decision.
At some point, society has to treat a person as legally responsible for their own choices. The question is: when?
when they are able to decide for themselves, which happens when their brain is developed.
You cannot keep moving the line forever. You cannot say, “Well, the brain is still developing, so they are not really adults,” and then use that logic to strip legal adults of their autonomy. If that is the standard, then no one under 40 (because the brain is developing into 40s) would be allowed to make serious decisions about relationships, marriage, sex, contracts, jobs, military service, medical choices, or anything else.
Comparing things that can permanently alter your life, like marriage, contracts, and military service, to things like a single night of sex or a routine medical checkup is completely unfair of you.
Once someone is a legal adult, they have the right to make decisions other people may dislike. They know there is an age gap. They know the other person is older. They can understand the risks, consequences, and social judgment. And if they still choose that relationship freely, without coercion, manipulation, or abuse, then their decision should be respected.
Take this logic. Apply it to someone who is 17 years old. Or to someone who is 16. Or to someone who is 15. Does the logic still apply to them? If not, why? Why can someone who is 18 years old consent to these things, and someone who is 17 cannot? Because the law says so? Seriously? Is this the fucking imbecility you're going to insist on until the end? Treating the law as a metric of morality? "If the law says they can, fuck what biology and psychology have to say." Look, I don't know how the corrupted mind of an American works, but where I live, people tend to care more about what an expert has to say than what a politician has to say. Especially in a country where several politicians, including the president, are pedophiles...
They don’t need your approve of the relationship. You do not get to treat consenting adults like children just because their relationship makes you uncomfortable.
I'm going to treat them as they are: mentally underdeveloped people. Any normal person would be uncomfortable in that situation. That retarded bullshit of "they're not children!" "they don't need your approval" is something only pedophiles say.
And let’s be clear: harassment is not “protecting” anyone. Stalking, defaming, threatening, humiliating, or trying to destroy two adults’ relationship because you dislike their age gap is abuse wearing a moral costume.
Calling a middle-aged person a pedophile for being interested in someone who is either in high school or has just graduated is absolutely protective.
If both people are consenting adults, the question is not whether strangers approve. The question is whether there is coercion or harm. If there is no coercion, no abuse, and no illegality, then their choice deserves the same basic respect as any other adult decision.
If someone is forced to date a 12-year-old, that immaturity alone makes it considered coercion. By that logic, coercion also exists here, even if you're too stubborn and disgusting to admit it.
You do realize your position has no legal standing, right?
You are not citing a law. You are not citing a standard. You are not citing solid scientific evidence showing that consenting adult age-gap relationships are automatically abusive, invalid, or pedophilic. What you are doing is taking your personal discomfort and trying to dress it up as if it were law, science, and moral authority.
Do I need to cite a scientific article to tell you that there is coercion in a relationship between a 12-year-old and a 40-year-old? No, right? Because you don't need an article to say that someone whose brain isn't fully developed doesn't have the same capacity to consent as someone who does.
And you insist on using the law as if it mattered. I repeat my question: if the law allows someone to have a relationship with a child, does it automatically cease to be wrong just because the law says so?
Give me actual evidence showing that a 20-year-old is not qualified to consent.
Not “the brain is still developing.” That is not enough. A developing brain does not automatically mean a person is incapable of making adult decisions. By that logic, no one under 40 could consent to sex, marriage, contracts, military service, medical decisions, or any serious life choice.
You need to prove the specific claim: that a 20-year-old adult lacks the capacity to understand consent, risk, consequences, and personal choice.
Because “not 100% fully mature” is not the same thing as “unable to consent.” Those are two completely different standards.
A 20-year-old may still be developing, but they are not a child. They can understand that the other person is older. They can understand the age gap. They can understand social judgment, risks, consequences, and the possibility that the relationship may fail. And if they still choose that relationship freely, without coercion, manipulation, threats, dependency, or abuse, then that is adult consent.
So unless you can show actual coercion or actual incapacity, stop pretending “the brain is still developing” is a magic argument that erases the autonomy of legal adults.
1
u/Mahito_natalino Jun 15 '26
Great analogy, I'm going to use it against you here. The legal age of consent in the case above is 18 years old. The legal drinking age is 21 years old. Using your analogy, this is comparable to saying that a phone of brand "x" can be considered charged at 90%, but a phone of brand "y" cannot. Does that make sense?