Why the age of consent should be 18

 Many people think that the age of consent is 18. It isn't in all states, but a small minority of states. Here in Pennsylvania, the age of consent was 18, until leftist activists had it lowered for a well-meaning cause - to stop locking up teenagers for their sexuality - but gives sexual predators an avenue to sexually abuse children in a lawfully excused manner.

Children's rights advocates in the United States operate differently on the age of consent than they do in Europe. In most European countries, the age of consent is 15, meaning older men have the lawfully-protected right to date a teenager, and unless he coerces her in some way, the law won't do anything about it, and neither will many conservative parents. The legal situation is similar in the United States, but we still have Judaeo-Christian sexual mores, which, at the core, advocate for abstinence until marriage. Most American teens acually are sexually abstinent, but may feel pressure to have sex with peers. Most adults don't have sex with children - yet.

The age of consent does exist in the Bible. It says in 1 Corinthians 7:36 KJV:

But if any man think that he behaveth uncomely towards his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, he sinneth not: let him marry.

The Greek root word translated "flower of her age" is υπερακμος (Latin: huperakmos) and refers to the marriageable age in ancient Israel, meaning when a young girl was marriageable. The age of consent was the same as the marriageable age under the Law. The age of consent/marriage then was also at the age of majority. This all falls under the moral crime of fornication, and is denoted by the Greek root word πορνεία (Latin: porneia) and here refers to any sexual entitlement from an adult perceived by a child through sensory means, including the slightest of unlawful glances or menaces, meaning any sexual motion or maneuver that the child unilaterally finds offensive.

There is a reason why the age of consent should be the same as the age of majority. The age of majority puts a blanket power of attorney over children. It does not mean children are belongings or property, contrary to popular beliefs. Parents and all adults surrounding the child have power to engage in legal action on behalf of the child, with the lawful assumption that the child cannot make decisions for themselves, due to the drastic nature of such a decision. It is not wise to have sex with someone who has power over you. Most workplaces today have a no-dating policy, and that is because when you sleep with the boss, the boss can take advantage of the situation, take advantage of you, and make your life miserable. It can be used as a means of control, known as quid pro cuo. All adults in our society have this sort of control over children, meaning all adults other than the parent in a child's life are parents in loco parentis, meaning are in place of the parent. They too have enough power and control over the child to abuse an otherwise "egalitarian" sexual "relationship" with a child. Some adults like me actually don't claim punitive authority over children, but in fact do claim providing custody over a child I am friends with, in ad hoc format, meaning when friends with a child, I am to put her needs first, and mine last. That would be like sex with your therapist - I'm just there for them to talk to, not as someone to play with in that way. Children tend to feel beholden in gentle parenting friendships with children, to the point where they'd submit to sex with an adult without their consent, meaning it would be "I want to please you, even I don't want to, because I love you". Sometimes they are able to say "no", but if you take the non-entitled view of children that gentle parents have, it's just a curiosity. I want nothing from a child, but to think of her in a sexual manner. Objectification, as a form of abuse, is only so if the young girl is treated like that, if not by antisocial "leer". Same with contributing to sexual objectification of children. Simply imagining a girl you like with no clothing on, and using that mental image, is not the moral crime of sexual objectification. Simply looking at an image of a child for sexual reasons is not abuse. Sharing it for sexual purposes makes the image child pornography by the moral legal standard, and thus abuse. Talking about children in a way that is defamatory, meaning degrading and in contexts where it can lead back to them, is abuse...The whole idea is the harm to the child, counting backwards. 

The ideal society for this would follow Judaeo-Christian values, and have no sex outside of marriage. Too many boundaries have been violated against children. The concept of abstinence until marriage once created a set of strong boundaries, that deterred abuse in all but the worst of at-risk adult. I myself do have a sexual harassment problem with children, and the reason I had problems is that I bought into modern dating culture. I now know what is abusive the moment I even think of it as a realistic possibility, and trash that idea. Then, I didn't, because the rules today are more complex, and casual sex is something accepted. Pornography is widespread on the Internet, and often is marketed to adolescent children even when the law technically forbids it. America has turned into a sexual predator's paradise. Most sexual abusers are sex-positive in some way or another, usually in a hidden way, but these days it is more likely to be an open sex addiction in which the abuser started targeting teenagers, namely their own child.

Way too much is legal already in this country. We need to roll back the sexual permissiveness that is engulfing this country. We can start by raising the age of consent back to 18 in Pennsylvania. The more restrictions on a stimulating activity such as sexuality, the better, because sexuality is a very dangerous drug, and can be transformed into a weapon of abuse against a child.