"Jailbait"

1.1 First of all, in essence, sex is natural, normal, and good. All of us (absent artificial insemination) are the result of a sexual encounter. There is nothing to be ashamed of in desiring a sex partner. The real issue is not some archaic morality, but the wellbeing of the partners.

1.2 I say this because the whole Age of Consent (AOC) debate smells of sex-hatred, erotophobia. Even though we know that sexual desire is basically good, I predict that some of you will become angry, defensive, and self-righteous in the next few minutes. Please use reason and keep your emotions in check. I promise to do the same.

1.3 When a person (male or female) becomes sexually mature, he or she often becomes sexually active. Age of Consent laws are based on the premise that these "underage" people cannot give mature consent for sexual activity, and that therefore it is wrong and illegal to have sex with them.

1.4 Now if a young person, say 15 years of age, is sexually active already, then he or she is already giving consent to sex. If no one may have sex with them, then they may not have sex with each other. If both partners are "underage", neither can give consent: both are breaking the law and both should be punished. Strangely, I have never heard of this happening.

1.5 However, I am aware of cases in which a young man has been arrested and prosecuted for having sex with his girlfriend, even though she was just one year younger than himself. A young man becomes a "predator" or even "pedophile" when he turns 18 before his girlfriend does[1]. This is grossly unjust.

1.6 The AOC situation becomes even more unjust and strange when different countries have different ages of consent. For example, in the USA it is either 16 or 18 yo, depending on the state. In France, the AOC is 15, and in Colombia it is 14. This indicates that no one really knows what is the "right" age to begin giving consent to sex.

1.8 Consider the following: if a man lives in France or Sweden, he can have a 15 yo sexual liaison with no problem. If he attempted that in the USA, regardless of the girl's sexual activity, he would be imprisoned and treated as a pariah for life. Even in some of the States, if his liaison is 16, there is no legal problem with their relationship. (Taking intimate photographs is another matter.)

1.9 Please spare the tough "Momma Bear" talk and all the righteous indignation; young people are having sex whether you like it or not. And some of them do prefer older partners. There are even Internet websites on which girls give each other advice to attract their teachers. These "underage" young women are doing more than giving consent; they are initiating liaisons with older men. We need to drop the moral facade and face the reality of intergenerational sex.

2.0 To those who say, "eew, gross", or "perverted": the same was said about homosexuality, and before that, about interracial relationships. Both of these were (and by some ignorant people still are) considered abnormal or evil. In the USA, homosexuality was actually considered a mental illness until 1973.

2.1 To those who suggest that intergenerational sex is inherently abusive, or damaging to the younger partner: young people can abuse each other both physically and emotionally. Relationships between teenagers can be very damaging, as I know.

2.2 I have no personal stake in the Age of Consent debate, since I am physically out of the game. However, I do have a stake in truth, especially where it affects so many other people's lives. Therefore I will reemphasize: if young people cannot give consent for sex with an older person, then they cannot give consent to anyone. This presents the question, should young people be held accountable?

2.3 If we hold young people accountable for shoplifting or any other crime, we should hold them accountable for "underage" sex. If not, why? Please do not beg the question by assuming that sex is acceptable, but shoplifting is not. The issue is accountability. Do we hold "underage" people accountable for their behavior, or not?

2.4 Returning to intergenerational sex itself: there is one substantial argument against it. Young people's brains are too immature to make adult decisions. Barbara Strauch, in her book The Primal Teen, (First Anchor Books Edition, 2004), shows that brain development is not complete until approximately 25 years of age. Modern neuroscience explains why teenagers take risks with so many things such as alcohol, drugs, and sex. No matter how adult their bodies look, they are children in their minds.

2.5 Both girls and boys reach full physical development long before their 25th birthday. A boy reaches fertility at about 10-11 yo, a girl perhaps 13-15. Now consider the case of the Japanese swimsuit model, Saaya Irie. She has a body many Western women would envy, and most men would desire. Saaya Irie is 11 years of age. Should she be allowed to have a boyfriend? Should she be modeling at all [2]?

2.6 Incidentally, the lag between young peoples' body and brain maturation presents a conundrum for those who believe in creationism or "Intelligent Design". Teenage boys in particular have a sex drive like a wild animal, and by 15 years of age, girls can be as fecund as rabbits. This means the "intelligent designer" has designed a developmental disaster. If he were a human designer, he would be fired.

2.7 Therefore, I must correct myself. In light of the neuroscientific and behavioral evidence, I no longer see intergenerational sex as appropriate. Adults should not be having sex with young people; young people should not be having sex at all.

1. Getting it straight: the correct term for attraction to sexually mature young people is ephebophilia or nymphophilia. It is not "pedo"anything.

2. See Girl Model$