Setting up "regulators" ends up doing the same thing, incentivizing corruption and allowing the already politically entrenched interests to buy the positions in order to "regulate" away the consequences of actions as well as to "regulate" away the competition.

Currently the entrenched interests are those measuring "adulthood" as the standard for consent. And not to surprisingly all the usual reasonable standards seen in the unregulated areas where children can and do consent are no longer valid. In sexual agency it is their lack of adulthood which is the sole criterion, not any of the factors recognized in other areas.

But this is what happens when legislators were bought in order to write a piece of legislation. The thing is, the legislation is already written, and the post belongs to others now.

If we create an ongoing "agency"-agency, it will do what all the alphabet regulatory agencies do; become an institutionalized permanently-funded ongoing overseer who will seek to expand the power of those who wish to deny any alternative choice.

Big Pharma regulates pharma. The Telecommunications giants regulate the broadcast media. Adults with a stake in "adult-privilege" would end up regulating the gateway to the power conferred by choice. Not a pretty picture. Unless you think that the other entrenched interests are doing a good job of using taxpayer dollars and political clout to self-govern.

Dante