Addendum:  Maybe the title of this should be something like:

  Q: Why should sex with some "underage girls" be legal?
  A: Because many could be proven as "responsible women"!

... although I delve into way different topics, that's probably
sufficient.

Foreword: Please don't get me wrong here... I am arguing for consentual
relations between responsible post-pubescents. Molestation is not
consentual && should not be considered or mentioned any further in this
discussion than I already have.

As a responsible adult male, I estimate I embody a typical (in both
intensity && restraint) sex drive. This is why I wish to speak out about
age-based restrictions in general && most pertinantly the legal age of
consent (presently 18) where minors become considered adults, can freely
engage in sexual intercourse, can vote, buy cigarettes, && gamble (at
least through government run lotteries) here in California.

What's the problem?

Well we claim that we care about justice... that we want the truth. We
want to do what's right as a society. We have tons of laws with
endlessly intricate legal interpretations. The optimistic (or in
deserving cases realistic) among us see the proliferation of non-
layperson jargon (aka. legalese) as a means to refine && further
express... to more rigidly clarify laws && rules && regulations on the
path to perfect justice && truth && fairness. Of course the cynics see
much corruption && greed driving the majority of legislative
convolutions but anyone could legitimately find either if that's what
they were looking for.

My point is this: Why do we accept without hesitation that ridiculously
intricate laws && very specialized lawyers are needed to decide all
sorts of things yet we still adhere to the most simplistic metrics
(namely the physical age of a particular meatbag [aka. person]) to
evaluate fitness for voting or the reasonable determiner of sexual
violations against "children"?

The question is rhetorical. Of course we shouldn't accept something
wrong in place of something right. It seems to me that modern reasonable
people would agree that a child becomes an adult not at some arbitrary
age but rather once they embody certain adult traits... which can be
tested. In fact, these traits will have manifested themselves in the
person's life. Now there are further discussions to be argued such as
the discretion needed to evaluate such nebulous "maturity" but my
argument is that using arbitrary age to gauge maturity is irresponsible
of society. Those two elements ("age" && "maturity") are demonstrably
limited to a casual relationship at best.  Consider if some person
were regrettably confined to a closet for a year of their childhood
while another received constant attention from responsible parents for
that same year.  Do you think their ages reflect their social
development && sense of responsibility?

A similar argument could && should be made for DUI/DWI (ie. Driving
Under the Influence [of alcohol] / Driving While Intoxicated) where some
arbitrary BAC (Blood Alcohol Content) percentage is set as the legal
threshold for determining whether a particular driver is a life-
threatening hazard to themselves && others once they are behind a
steering wheel. A video game that realistically (&& obviously safely)
demonstrated a driver's ability to correctly perceive && react to both
mundane && hazardous situations (albeit simulated) would be much more
fair && is obviously technically feasible. Even the existing "walk a
straight line" or "touch your nose" tests hint that we know what we wish
to test... but the results are too subjective. Well just as a BAC
machine is as accurate as it is, so is a video game in determining
whether someone succeeded in staying in their lane, identified upcoming
hazards quickly enough && responded accordingly, etc.. I've digressed
from my original point but I think this one is good too && should be
revisited && expanded upon someday.

So back to my original topic... we accept all sorts of different ages as
proof that someone is mature enough to safely handle some particular
responsibility... like 16 for driving. If "children" are able to
demonstrate, through critical && standardized evaluation, their fitness
to operate a life-threatening motor vehicle, they have at least shown
the capacity for discernment && discretion which is enough to reasonably
hold them accountable for their actions (like driving drunk). How many
"children" under 16 would also be physically capable && mentally
responsible enough to wield such "adult" power if age restrictions were
not considered? The answer is very many. Would they be less fit for said
responsibility than any other driver? I admit it is optimistic
speculation as to the averages that would emerge but I'd argue that
those statistics would also be based on age which undermines their
validity according to my argument.

Here's my bottom line: Age is only a good gauge of age!

There may be reasonable average ages at which things like teething or
crawling or walking or speaking or reading or puberty or mid-life-crisis
or arthritis or Alzheimer's Disease occur all the way up until the
average age a person (any person or a specific one of a subculture... of
a certain demographic etc.) will die. Those are good rules-of-thumb.
They're reasonable averages to go by when measuring your age with the
average (age-to-age)... but when using age to judge "maturity", you have
a primitive && disillusioned base for judgement.

I'm not saying it doesn't matter when someone should legally transition
into "adulthood". I'm saying that all the dumb age limits are grasping
at human qualities... character traits of maturity, discernment,
responsibility, action. If we put our minds together to test what really
matters, we could do so at least as well as the DMV (Department of Motor
Vehicles) tests whether someone can kill others with a car. This should
serve as the single criterion for evaluating whether someone can engage
in consentual sex, drive, vote, drink, buy guns, etc. since all those
responsibilities are similarly profound.

This issue has been on my mind for quite some time... of course I lust
after ripe girls. You do yourself a reactionary disservice to label me a
"pervert" or a "dirty old man" since I share this desire with all
healthy males. What is the problem? Parents don't want their daughters
to get fscked. Well that's what men && women do. If a girl has reached
puberty && chooses to take a test to demonstrate her mental && physical
fitness for the gamut of adult responsibility, she should be able to
choose her own sexual partners.

My personal problem or concern is my standard one: When will I know
enough is enough? Do I always want forbidden? If such a perfectly fair
test were established && adulthood measured with theoretically complete
accuracy according to my above argument, would I still crave forbidden?
Would I then crave pre-pubescent girls? Searching myself, I think the
answer is a genuine "No!" but because my modus operandi is to push the
boundaries && I know that about myself, I am wary of succeeding because
someday boundaries may be right && then the now me becomes horrible...
which is not what I want. I don't mind being seen as horrible if I am
intellectually convinced that I am right (like this whole argument is
certainly unpopular among parents of teenage daughters in the United
States today) but I don't want to be *really* wrong.

I struggle with every change I advocate... not because I think I'm wrong
about that particular issue for if that were the case, I'd form a new
opinion... but because my nature is advocacy && I believe in ideals &&
strive for perfection... therefore, I abhor the thought that I am
completely && habitually wrong... yet that is a necessary consequence if
things keep improving && I keep loudly challenging. It is what I do...
it is how I see... it is my blessing && curse. My fervent hope && dream
is that my perception will appropriately dampen my advocacy as things
approach an equilibrium of goodness. Until then, I struggle
powerfully... I wake from sleep compelled to write diatribes. I am so
tormented by the strangulations of the world. I so relish freedom.
Several people around me have called me a "hater"... that I "hate"
everything. Maybe they're being facetious with the everything part but I
care so much more about everything that I put my mind to than typical
people... I agonize over minutia... at least relative to my "hater"
accusers. Human beings are critical... we must constantly evaluate
things from the small to the large. I take this seriously
(ironically by playing with all the possibilities && ramifications I
can fathom). I am me.

...

woo... here's another topic to make you lay awake at night: If you're so
atypical in your insight, advocacy, && even willingness to act upon your
anti-(social-norms) convictions, what makes you typical enough to
accurately represent what's good? Are you better because you're
different? Are you different because that makes you think you're better?
These are some deeper issues.

How can you argue that things would be better for everyone if you aren't
sure (since it has never been tried) && hardly anyone agrees?

Overwhelming intellectual conviction?

The truth is that some people think more deeply than others... some
people are more insightful, less inhibited... I am not like everyone
else or anyone else in every way... yet I am enough like people around
me to relate to them somewhat. I enjoy participating in many of life's
pleasures as they do... yet I am transcendent. I participate... yet I
also observe && ponder. I eat... but I also savor && digest. Mentally, I
am (at least comparatively) abnormally pure && healthy && free ( side
note: It is said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance. That
seems true. I am certainly eager to be a vigilant defender of freedom. )
in a largely amoral && twisted world. I long to reach the world && help
it && nurture it && teach it && purify it in almost any way I can but
being just some guy, I can't even convince my friends that I'm right...
how much harder would it be to convince anyone who does not see that I
live as close to my convictions as my human condition allows. I wish
properly intertwined logic && passion (imagine a double- helix) would be
an infectious meme... yet I do not succeed at crafting such strands.
Complacent people want neither logic nor passion. They want nothing.
They are told what to want by bigger powers && authorities... the media,
the corporations, && the popular political parties. People are bored
with the idea of waking up. People see The Matrix or Fight Club or any
of a myriad of movies about waking up from a dystopian gross-
consumerism hell... yet the notion of waking up is itself cliche... over-
played. The irony of paying the MPAA more money to see another "free
your mind", "think for yourself" movie is lost... && totally sad instead
of bitterly funny.

So what's the deeper problem at work here?  Oh My! ... I mean: Oh No!

  Thinking is Hard!

That's it.