I am by no means intending the following as a 'gotcha' or to stand as a refutation of your argument, but allow me to, out of curiosity, ask you how a theoretical situation fits into your stance:Dadrobit wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 8:57 pmThe age of consent is very very heavily reliant on life experience. Being a consenting individual relies not just on how developed a brain is, it's reliant on the individual being able to make an informed decision through understanding the position that they're in based on the information they have gathered throughout their life. Having a developed brain does not make a person inherently equally mature or well reasoned when their actual access to everything life has to offer is less than half of another person with the same brain maturity and twice the age. This is the source of ick.Yastreb wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 3:18 pmAge of consent is not just about life experience. Human brain is still developing when you are 11 and there are major changes that happen over the teenage years. Keidran brain presumably matures faster, reaching its adult state at ~9 instead of ~20. Mentally an 11-year-old Keidran is nothing like a human child of same age.Dadrobit wrote: ↑Sun Jun 21, 2020 11:41 am Aye, I personally am from the same camp. I don't care if it's "legal" (and yeah, that "joke" REALLY didn't age well) or not. I don't particularly care if the body is "mature" or not. The fact of the matter is that a person who is only 11 years old is someone who still only has 11 years of life experience. They are mentally still just an 11 year old. Regardless of how much their matured body might push them towards sex, it's still inevitably an icky scenario.
Certainly age does not ALWAYS beget wisdom, but the exception does not make the rule.
Say a sentient and technological race exists which has a natural lifespan of 25 years max and a fertile window of 9-20 years old (i.e. early puberty to menopause equivalent). (for reference, humans' fertile window starts at age 12-14)
If they were a client species of Humans, would you expect them to adhere to Human age of consent standards among themselves? If not, would you regulate their half of a mixed-race couple up to human standards (obviously human-side would still have human standards)? If yes to the second question, why?
Second situation:
Flip the scenario. Humans are the comparatively short-lived client species of, say, an Asari-like or elf-like species. Same questions but this time about humans.
My understanding of the reasoning for the age of consent is that it is based on the brain being far enough along in development that there is enough decision-making capability and that there will be minimal effects on physical (incl brain) development of the body. If it were purely about consequences, IMO there would be two ages for with and without protection.Warrl wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 9:22 pmIf the age of consent were based on brain development and the ability to understand and weigh consequences, it would probably be about 26.Dadrobit wrote: ↑Thu Jun 25, 2020 8:57 pm The age of consent is very very heavily reliant on life experience. Being a consenting individual relies not just on how developed a brain is, it's reliant on the individual being able to make an informed decision through understanding the position that they're in based on the information they have gathered throughout their life. Having a developed brain does not make a person inherently equally mature or well reasoned when their actual access to everything life has to offer is less than half of another person with the same brain maturity and twice the age. This is the source of ick.
Certainly age does not ALWAYS beget wisdom, but the exception does not make the rule.
And the human species would probably go extinct.