Should the age of consent be lowered?

You're the one on the backfoot here.

Without age of consent what, in your ideal society, stops someone taking advantage of the young and violating them?

how about make the age of consent wait for marriage?

I think a 13 year old has much of this same knowledge.  They know about pregnency and STIs.  I don't think people should have sex at all with a person with an STI, but people have the right to infect themselves with horrible diseases through their sexual choices.

 meaning of "taking advantage" and "violating."

nor did you address that much of these sexual freedoms are already possible with a marriage approved by the parents and/or a court, as the case may be. (There are thousands of such marriages in the USA every year).

IF spain's age of consent was 13 i dont give a damn because that's an entirely different country.

I thought the source I provided was good enough.

IF spain's age of consent was 13 i dont give a damn because that's an entirely different country.

If it worked in Spain, it could work here.  The left doesn't have this attitude with UHC.  They are like, "It worked in Europe, so lets try it here.

A 25+ year old sexually interacting with a 14 year old.

Don't mess around here, this isn't a joke

Answer me, who stops that in anarchy.

You sure the courts will let a 13 year old marry someone?  

But marriage is too binding, regardless of age unless you want to start a family. 

If Spain can let 13 year olds have consensual sex and not have it be classified as pedophilia, I fail to see why the US can't follow suit.

you are blocked and a danger to society

And am I to presume that mere sexual interaction in your view between a 25+ year-old and a 14 year-old constitutes "taking advantage" and/or "violation"? Why?

Yes. The presumption is a protective one on the side of caution. There are exceptions to it where, for example, a marriage approved by parents and a court may lift the presumption.

Let me ask: do you object to two fourteen year-olds legally consenting to a sexual relationship?

Not per se. The compelling interest is the protection of a vulnerable group. A 14 year old may take advantage of another 14 year old just as much as a 25 year old may. Though, I'm imagining that the probability is less.

It would simply depend on studies and data,

Age of consent policies arbitrarily divide the capacity for individuals to make value judgements as it concerns sex based on their age alone. In the United States, it varies from state to state usually between the ages of 16 and 18 (where 16 is adopted by a majority of the states.) The reasoning for this framework is identical to that which informs the supervision of an infant by its parent: an infant's naivety to the dangers of its environment subjects it to the prospect of mortal danger; therefore, as the more experienced party, the parent presumes the infant's proxy in all decisions which serve the infant's utility. The government's approximation of this is known as Parens Patriae. At first glance, it's difficult to argue against this rationale. After all, our species has persisted due to the experience and innovation of its predecessors. So then why would I challenge the "wisdom" of a government using its "experience" in its seeking to protect the most naive of its citizens? We must first consider that from which we are attempting to protect them.

It's important to note that age of consent doesn't protect minors from the dangers of sex. Instead these policies seek to regulate those with whom the minor engages in sexual contact and activity. Seldom are sexual interactions among minors condemned and/or punished, and in the cases where court proceedings are conducted, often the liability of each minor party is mitigated by Romeo and Juliet laws. When we speak of age of consent, typically one party is a minor and the other is an adult. Now here's the inconsistency: sexual contact between adult and minor is almost always condemned and punished. Ceteris Paribus, the sexual contact and sensations experienced between minor and minor and adult and minor (and even adult and adult) aren't different. The mechanics are essentially the same. If the government took the position that the participation of any minor in sexual activity is prohibited, that would be one thing. But to condemn it particularly in the cases where an adult is involved as if some non-sexual benefit (which these policies presume to be "predation") manifests makes no sense. After all, the adult is often presumed legally to be the competent and experienced party. The logic in this case is "reversed" in that the adult's experience, competence, and dare I say "wisdom," are presumed to harm the minor. The presumptions made about adulthood which served the adult's benefit is now used to aid in that adult's disadvantage. One would presume that adults would be more competent in dealing with unexpected pregnancies, STI's contractions, financial obligations, etc. Instead, the government treats this capacity as the makings of a predator.

The second inconsistency I'd like to explore is consent. The law deems that minors cannot provide valid consent to sexual interaction with those among the age of majority. It dismisses the value judgements which inform consent. Deciding the capacity to consent on age alone produces a slippery slope argument. If the minor has no capacity to provide valid consent, then operating on that same logic, said minor cannot withhold assent, or provide valid dissent because age of consent policies render value judgements by a minor on his her own sexual desire and capacity null. It's one thing to state that a person who was raped DID NOT CONSENT; it's another to state that said person COULD NOT consent. Extending this premise of incapacity to provide valid consent to its logical conclusion would make it impossible to rape a minor because the minor would have the capacity to know that which is neither in its best interests, nor its worst interests--an undeniably absurd inference. The government, in my estimation, is currently operating on the illogical platitude, as described by Judith Levine in her book, Crimes of Passion: Harming Minors, "statutory rape is not about sex the victim says she did not want. It is about sex she did want but which adults believe she only thought she wanted because she wasn't old enough to know she didn't want it." The government can't have it both ways: either the minor is capable of making value judgements and thereby can provide valid consent and dissent, or the minor can't, and we ultimately render the sexual prospects of that minor to the decisions of an outside party. Furthermore, would rendering these decisions on the sexual prospects of minors to outside parties be moral?

Morals are concepts which establish conditions in which we ought to live, usually separated by notions of right and wrong, or good and evil. For this particular debate, I'm going to subscribe to epicurean moral themes--i.e. happiness is the greatest good, and pain and suffering is the worst. The former is maximized, and the latter is minimized best by individualist philosophy, particularly the axiom of individual sovereignty--i.e. we are of and ought to have exclusive control over ourselves. [I will expand on the reasoning as the debate continues.] From there, other concepts are derived such as liberty, property, association, etc. Now what does any of this have to do with sex? When a minor decides to have sex, said minor either thoughtfully or superficially considers the value(s) in having sex. It could be to attract the attachment of one whom the minor desires, boredom, lust, control, etc. Whatever the reason, one thing always remains constant: the minor is behaving his or her body in sexual contact. When the government can arbitrarily impose policy that dictates how an individual, in this case a minor, can behave his or her body, the government is presuming authority over that minor's body, undermining that minor's individual sovereignty. The government is committing an infraction upon a fundamental right of all individuals, including minors, to behave themselves as they see fit so long as it doesn't interfere with another individual's capacity to the same. The government recognizes, for example, a 14 year old female's right to bodily autonomy when she decides to get an abortion, but doesn't acknowledge said autonomy as it concerns the very act which produced the result that informs her decision to get an abortion? This inconsistency is demonstrative of government whim, which necessarily makes minors government property because their capacity to express values as it concerns themselves are diminished and outright dismissed in favor of government priority. And human beings--individuals--no matter how old, are the property of no one else.

Age of consent is about protecting those who are mentally vulnerable to those who are more mentally savvy.

To state that a 30-year-old having sex with a 14-year-old is appropriate is not appropriate.

Taking advantage of a 14-year-old are convincing her that she wants to have sex is exactly the kind of thing people have been talking about when it comes to rape or lack of consent.

I'm for protecting children, and not penalizing people who are close in age from having sex.

Cases should be done on an individual basis to determine whether or not some sort of consent violation occurred.

But there's no reason people under the age of 18 should be having sex with someone that's more than 5 years older than them there is a huge difference between the mental and physical body of a 14-year-old and a 19 year old.

13 is too young. Some guys and girl haven't even hit puberty or have had the talk yet with their parents. They simply don't know what consent is at the time and can not properly function at all.

There's also relative studies to confirm my point as well about maturing and adolescences and puberty. Hell I don't think I hit puberty at 13.

Being pro rape and child molesting is not a good look.

Not per se. The compelling interest is the protection of a vulnerable group. A 14 year old may take advantage of another 14 year old just as much as a 25 year old may. Though, I'm imagining that the probability is less.

So then what informs this statutory division between a 14 year-old and a 25 year-old if the one "taking advantage" is a moot point? You've inferred that the quantification of vulnerability--or at least the quantification of its alleged "probability"--informs this division, but can vulnerability be quantified, much less its probability?

It would simply depend on studies and data,

Why would data be required on this? Who's a better informant on his/her own "vulnerability" than the person him or herself?

I've debated on this subject before, and wrote an extensive OA which I think would be pertinent. I warn you: it's quite a read.

Can't speak for all the legislatures, but one issue is that a 25 year old is usually an independent person while a 14 year old probably is dependent on and accountable to his parents. I mean, I don't see any mechanism outside the law for controlling what a 25 year old does. That, and I'm imagining that there's simply less opportunity for 14 year olds to be abusive with each other because they're more on a level playing field mentally. (not that it doesn't happen) There's also less knowledge of the world and laws and what have you.

Teenagers are going to want to have sex with each other and they see each other all the time from schools. I don't see any purpose in having a punitive statutory regime for regulating it when it can already be regulated through parental oversight.

It is the parents' role to look out for their children.

RN it's a TLDR. Maybe later.

Being on a level playing field mentally creates less opportunity for abuse? So couldn't one infer that abusive relationships among those within the age of majority by its nature is minimized? Do you view this as an accurate gauge? Furthermore, what role does "knowledge of the world" play in having sex? Having sex is not all that complicated.

So why can't the interactions between a teenager and an adult also be regulated by parental oversight? Why does it require a punitive statutory regime?

It is the parents' role to look out for their children.

That doesn't answer the question. For example, my parents may have looked out for me during my formative years, but that doesn't mean that they knew me better than I did. Why would their looking out for me be more of a testament to my interests than my own word?