… 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))).
… 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.
Well, arguments from authority never work. Being a biologist never made someone the absolute decider on reality. Reality decides the biologist, actually.
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")?
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.
… 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.