Thanks Ethan,

"If a man clearly rapes a young girl, she reports this, and he claims that she consented at the time but changed her mind later, he might get off due to reasonable doubt. The AoC means he won't get off if she is underage."

But if a man clearly raped a young girl, he won't get off despite his claim that she consented at the time but changed her mind later. The AoC prevents an evidence based investigation.

"Bad relationships can happen at any age, but a key difference is that adults have to take risks for sex and love in order to have a good life -- the positive is so important that they risk the negative. For young teens -- and certainly prepubescents -- it's not that way at all. They lose little by waiting."

Mostly adults have to take risks for sex and love in order to have sustained relationships with some promise of permanence and stability, because of the time they have to invest in the relationship. For young teens, they probably don't and maybe even shouldn't get into lifelong relationships but rather will have short relationships in order to explore themselves and in interaction with others. For this it makes sense for them to take advantage of the adults who have more experience, but not those who seek lifelong relationships.

"Could this 23-year-old not have the patience to wait a couple years before turning the relationship sexual? I would say his love is rather shallow if he walks away when told he has to wait."

The idea is that repeated failed attempts at integration into a society based on unnatural laws which exclude a part of the 23-year old can prevent the relationship from forming in the first place.

"It includes ones they think are bad at the time but also ones that they later decide were bad. A classic case is a woman who has sex with a man who has promised to marry her. When she finds out he was lying and is (for instance) married to someone else, then that interaction becomes bad after the fact."

It's not true that that interaction becomes bad after the fact. what was bad was the man's false promise. his using his false promise to have sex with her is not bad because if that's what happened, then the woman likewise used sex to attempt to get him to marry her, so it balances out. so what was bad was the man's false promise, and if both enjoyed the actual sex and thought it was consensual and good then that's good.

For your general comment, that bad interactions also include ones they later decide were bad; according to that logic any interaction could be bad at some time after it happened, and it becomes important when and why only then the person evaluated the interaction as bad.

Thanks for the link I'll check out your blog.