I like how you change it from a man fucking a woman to "two consenting adults" so you can strategically avoid the fact that the entire point is that a man has a physical advantage over a woman and thats an imbalance comparable to the mental advantage that an older person has over a younger person.
… Are we not discussing consent or something? Why should I not boil it down to that when consent – age of consent – is what we are discussing? Moving on.
I avoided the point because males having a physical advantage over a woman is not relevant and neither is it relevant when discussing physical advantage of adults over minors when discussing the concept of (((consent))).
You're able to not be a woman in one country and then magically go from girl to woman in another country because THE AGE OF CONSENT IS COMPLETELY ARBITRARY.
… No. Every law, every principle, and every concept is based upon some understanding about science or biology – or lack thereof, rather.
Some countries choose to disregard more biological realities (there, I used that word instead since the word "truth" triggered you that badly) than others and it shows.
You can pretend to be a biologist all you want but you aren't one you're simply talking out of your ass like you have been this entire time.
Well, arguments from authority never work. Being a biologist never made someone the absolute decider on reality. Reality decides the biologist, actually.
You can't even answer simple questions that I created based on the things YOU SAID.
You seem upset. Take a moment to relax. … Now, what question have I not answered (read: "Actually answered multiple times but you ignored them because they conflict with what you believe")?
You say and I quote " The general point is that people consider age of consent to be above fifteen by both social norm and by law." and then you claim I'm confused when I ask what that was from.
Yes, because you said:
"Where are you getting the "general point" of 15" (which makes no grammatical or rhetorical sense) instead of directly quoting me, which would confuse anyone due to the lack of punctuation and clear misrepresentation of what I actually said.
You say and I quote "What is not acceptable by social norm and by law is sex between a 16-year-old and a fully-formed adult" And when I ask why its legal in your country then you make up some bullshit about me hating to disagree with you.
… It is not? In fact…
"In most states there is not a single age in which a person may consent, but rather consent varies depending upon the minimum age of the younger party, the minimum age of the older party, or the differences in age."
So, this broad generalization of it being legal in my country for 21-year-olds to have sex with 16-year-olds is not true, as I answered before and you again ignored.
By the way, all this ad hominem you keep throwing at me reduced your opposing side to lower than being a viable position a long time ago. Attack the argument, not the person or their country.