"what do you argue generally about consenting?"

When I came here I tried to figure out a reasonable AoC based on puberty.

Of course not all go through puberty at the same age. And the ability to understand consent might arrive prior to puberty or be delayed well past it.

But an AoC seemed like a necessary evil.

A lot of great Nepiophile posters here disabused me of the notion that any evil is necessary.

We get so used to the arbitrary in lieu of the just that we sometimes begin to rationalize it. 65 mph is the safest highway speed. A "dozen" is a normal clutch of eggs. 18yrs is adulthood.

My feeling now is that we should have one standard for consent for all. And one body of remedies for the special cases where consent is nullified due to temporary incapacity by illness or defect.

Adult legislators have created one set of consent laws they consider reasonable for a person to live under.

They have created another for children who they have given no voice.

So I defer to the standards they think are reasonable to live under rather than the standards they impose on others.

I don't think that a whole lot of adjustment would be needed to accommodate the more vulnerable members of society. And as laws at present tend to treat those of the age of majority as if they were invulnerable; perhaps a little more consideration of protection is due. But these should be protective standards adults would apply to themselves which might also cover the young who fit the case standards.

My feeling is that no definition of consent can be based on a number. So I no longer hold with any AoC.

Dante