>>105072967>The law isn't the sole arbiter of what's right and wrong.Then why are you so heavily programmed to think of people in their late teens as children? Because you're used to society setting an age limit. Why else you would be so bothered by the idea of a 16-year old doing this or that, even though most of human history has had 16-year olds fucking older men? Don't try to play some moral card for what is obviously you being adjusted to your own culture.
>Nice strawmanIt's not a strawman when you literally say "age gap matters". You put the idea out there. It's fucked up you think a 17-year old can't fuck a 30-year old, but you would be fine with a 20-year old fucking a 33-year old despite both ages being legal. We're not talking statutory rape ages like 13, we're talking two legally consenting ages. We're not talking about Bojack's frame of mind here. Bojack isn't wrong for wanting a legal teen, he's wrong for going after a daughter after failing with the mother.
>with parental consentYes, with parental consent. That means all it takes is them saying yes for 17-year old Jimmy to be eligible to fight in the fucking war, but you also want to tell him he's not allowed to get laid before he goes to do it.
>and that's not a fringe opinion.I never said it was, I said that you can't consider a 17-year old a child who shouldn't be having sex if, by your own government's very definition, they are not a child.
