If it was up to you to set a new age of consent, what would the age be and why?

[ronnie4u]

4 hours ago, Lily95 said:

Ifvit was for just myself id have been someone's toy long long ago at 12 when my teacher asked me to be his toy. I was always told to waut to date till im at least of age to consent.

Fantastic - grew up with sex around me - family - my mother divorced - love to party and love black cocks !

[Guest]

On 10/26/2015 at 7:54 PM, tallslenderguy said:

Back at the time of the purported birth of Christ, Jewish women traditionally were married around the age of 13 or 14. As the story goes, Mary would have been about 13 or 14 at the time God impregnated her. That would make God a pedophile by our current cultural standard, which ironically has many roots in religion. 

 

I pretty much agree with those who note a general rule cannot be applied to everyone, everyone is 'ready' at a different point in life. I think religious cultures are mostly responsible for making rules about sex in order to exercise control. They make sex into a morality issue. They teach you cannot have sex till married, and where does marriage traditionally take place? "God" controls the basic human needs (the blessing over the meal, sex can only happen after a "God" approved wedding, etc.), and the people who head religious institutions decide who God is and what God wants.  Who wants to make gay sex illegal? Who calls it a "sin." Who argues that allowing people to be gay will lead to "pedophilia?" The very institutions whose beginnings were born out of "pedophilia"... except then, that was accepted practice by their culture, so it was okay.

 

If you take away the religious element, what is it that makes sex at any age immoral or inappropriate? To my way of thinking, the immorality comes from one person manipulating or coercing another human being to do something against their will. I don't think sex, in and of itself, is immoral. I think it's simply a natural drive, just like the drive to eat. We don't have laws against adults feeding kids McDonalds till they become obese and sick.

 

In that vein, it makes sense to me that kids would have sex with kids, usually, because they are more likely to be on the same level when it comes to ability and maturity. Adults having sex with kids increases the risk of manipulation or coercion and a violation of another's autonomy.  I personally do not think most kids today are emotionally mature enough to make decisions about many things, not because of age, but because culturally we have dictated and ensured that they are still emotionally immature. In other cultures where people take on adult responsibilities at younger ages, they also end up in responsible positions and romantic/sexual relationships at younger ages. But honestly, if I question the reasons why one might not have sex (at any age)? The only thing I can come up with is the risk of disease and thus harm (pregnancy is not a question between 2 guys).  To me there would need to be a level of competency/maturity.

Maybe we should administer a sex test and license to ensure the operator knows what they are doing and that is what determines legality?

Agree.

The point should be that people and especially vulnerable people shouldn't be harmed. 
Not some arbitrarily rule about a certain age of consent.

[Guest]

  Earlier in this treat there were some arguments made comparing the age of consent to the age a youngster can join the military, drink alcohol or legally drive a car. (Both pro and con I think).
  It made me think a little and I quickly came to the view that at the very least a boy or girl should be allowed to have sex some years earlier than at the age they are accepted in the armed forces (running the risk of getting killed) or allowed to drive around in a machine that has the ability to kill others when operated incorrectly.
  Get your priorities in order and if you want to ban stuff: Start with things that kill or injure other people for sure.
(I obviously don't get why the US Supreme Court interprets an amendment to the constitution in a way that protects the right of just about anyone to carry lethal fire arms around either).

  Declaring sex to be rape (hence statutory rape) based solely on the age of the youngest person in the room or the bed mostly sounds stupid to me.
  Not only has never in history declaring something a crime stopped people from doing it. But you use an only partly effective tool to protect innocents by declaring all of those actions illegal, also when no one got hurt by them.
  Stupid.

  Another thing - but I could be mistaken about this - is that the strongest supporters for keeping the status quo use the word 'paedophile' and using it not so much descriptive as derogatory. And it seems to me that at least some of these people just might be - maybe - very busy screaming at the top of their lungs that they're better than others and not crazy perverts. 
  Perhaps, and I'm not saying they are but that it could be, because their own emotions and lust frightens themselves.
  What better way to deny being a paedophile than by demanding they're all worthless shits that should be hung (no pun intended), drawn and quartered? 

 

I don't know how the law should read but I do agree the current rules don't work.

To me sex at a young age even with someone quite a bit older is not in itself harmful. 

And contrary to 1 or 2 other members who said people who had early experiences should be disqualified because they're 'too close on the subject' or something I feel very strongly those are exactly the voices that should be heard.

 

Including mine.
  I've written here on BZ about experiences when I was myself underage (starting at 15 or 16) that was just hot. If any harm came of it I am certain that it was due to the shame because society condemns such sexual acts between the people involved and that therefor it had to remain a secret.
  Before that I had an earlier experience I don't think I mentioned and that 'event' was not ok. Not due to my (even younger, about 10 or 11 y/o) age but because it was something I didn't want, afterwards still didn't want and I'm sure I still don't. Not with that person.
  Without witnesses and lacking evidence the law couldn't protect me. What did protect me was feeling strong enough to say no and that I managed to get out of that situation.

 

  I would like people letting go of their hangups about sex, especially a victorian and prudish morale that serves no-one and certainly not victims of (sexual) violence, coercion or even rape.

  If we are serious in protecting kids from harm we'll teach them to be true to themselves and stand up for themselves when they need to. We might even teach them sex is - and I know to some it might sound shocking - fun.

  And if someone and especially a vulnerable person does get harmed, the deed is done. I'm not impressed at al when anyone here cries out for stiffer penalties either. (See my remarks above about people using the word 'paedophile'). Too little, too late and it sounds to me you're only voicing your outrage in stead of bringing about a better solution. 
  I'd suggest focusing your energy to help find ways in how to find evidence for these crimes, so these can be presented in a court of law and enabling these courts to punish but also rehabilitate the convicted to be nicer in future; for instance by offering effective therapies.

 

I'm fairy certain I qualify as a pervert and perhaps even as insane.

Fuck that.

One other thing helped me, besides saying no and getting out and that was starting speaking out. 

 

So I hope you guys (and galls) appreciate my contribution to this discussion. 

[tallslenderguy]

16 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

  Earlier in this treat there were some arguments made comparing the age of consent to the age a youngster can join the military, drink alcohol or legally drive a car. (Both pro and con I think).
  It made me think a little and I quickly came to the view that at the very least a boy or girl should be allowed to have sex some years earlier than at the age they are accepted in the armed forces (running the risk of getting killed) or allowed to drive around in a machine that has the ability to kill others when operated incorrectly.
  Get your priorities in order and if you want to ban stuff: Start with things that kill or injure other people for sure.
(I obviously don't get why the US Supreme Court interprets an amendment to the constitution in a way that protects the right of just about anyone to carry lethal fire arms around either).

  Declaring sex to be rape (hence statutory rape) based solely on the age of the youngest person in the room or the bed mostly sounds stupid to me.
  Not only has never in history declaring something a crime stopped people from doing it. But you use an only partly effective tool to protect innocents by declaring all of those actions illegal, also when no one got hurt by them.
  Stupid.

  Another thing - but I could be mistaken about this - is that the strongest supporters for keeping the status quo use the word 'paedophile' and using it not so much descriptive as derogatory. And it seems to me that at least some of these people just might be - maybe - very busy screaming at the top of their lungs that they're better than others and not crazy perverts. 
  Perhaps, and I'm not saying they are but that it could be, because their own emotions and lust frightens themselves.
  What better way to deny being a paedophile than by demanding they're all worthless shits that should be hung (no pun intended), drawn and quartered? 

 

I don't know how the law should read but I do agree the current rules don't work.

To me sex at a young age even with someone quite a bit older is not in itself harmful. 

And contrary to 1 or 2 other members who said people who had early experiences should be disqualified because they're 'too close on the subject' or something I feel very strongly those are exactly the voices that should be heard.

 

Including mine.
  I've written here on BZ about experiences when I was myself underage (starting at 15 or 16) that was just hot. If any harm came of it I am certain that it was due to the shame because society condemns such sexual acts between the people involved and that therefor it had to remain a secret.
  Before that I had an earlier experience I don't think I mentioned and that 'event' was not ok. Not due to my (even younger, about 10 or 11 y/o) age but because it was something I didn't want, afterwards still didn't want and I'm sure I still don't. Not with that person.
  Without witnesses and lacking evidence the law couldn't protect me. What did protect me was feeling strong enough to say no and that I managed to get out of that situation.

 

  I would like people letting go of their hangups about sex, especially a victorian and prudish morale that serves no-one and certainly not victims of (sexual) violence, coercion or even rape.

  If we are serious in protecting kids from harm we'll teach them to be true to themselves and stand up for themselves when they need to. We might even teach them sex is - and I know to some it might sound shocking - fun.

  And if someone and especially a vulnerable person does get harmed, the deed is done. I'm not impressed at al when anyone here cries out for stiffer penalties either. (See my remarks above about people using the word 'paedophile'). Too little, too late and it sounds to me you're only voicing your outrage in stead of bringing about a better solution. 
  I'd suggest focusing your energy to help find ways in how to find evidence for these crimes, so these can be presented in a court of law and enabling these courts to punish but also rehabilitate the convicted to be nicer in future; for instance by offering effective therapies.

 

I'm fairy certain I qualify as a pervert and perhaps even as insane.

Fuck that.

One other thing helped me, besides saying no and getting out and that was starting speaking out. 

 

So I hope you guys (and galls) appreciate my contribution to this discussion. 

i appreciate this well thought out reply. Society battles an age old dilemma of letter of the law vs spirit of the law. Laws are of course necessary, but courts exist for the purpose of interpreting  those laws. Black and white simply does not work in the colorful, real world. i think a lot of gays have residual internalized homophobia that inclines towards seeking some semblance of acceptance from culture/s that still consider gay as perverse, so one latches onto anything that will 'prove' we're 'okay' (am talking about so much more than age considerations here). The emphasis should be on promoting protection of the individual, and that cuts both ways protecting  'innocence' and also protecting volition.

The freedom to choose goes two directions, so kids (people) can only benefit from being informed about things like critical thinking and their right to say either "yes" or "no."  i think a system that tests or measures an individuals ability to make decisions would be more fair and inclusive, but will probably never happen... it's just too complicated.  So, a random age is picked and applied universally, whether it fits or not. The truth of it is, there are tons of people who endure sexual harm after they turn 18 (or what ever the magical socially determined age happens to be). The day before their 18th birthday one is protected as a child, the day of their birthday, it all changes. It's silly really, it takes no account of the individual.

One can be harmed by sex at any age. Age is only one factor, not the only factor in determining maturity or competence.

[Bokkierob]

I would say 16. For me, I was ready and eager at 13 but I Had to wait until I was 14 when I was fucked for the first time. I was emotionally mature enough to know I wanted sex with men. The only issue was that I was short for my age and struggled to take my top's adult cock in my boy's ass. He was considerate and went easy on me and was soon balls-deep in my eager hole. 

[Spiky]

It really depends but I was horny and in need for sex from the age of 13 I think. My body craved for a guy. And if i had to wait until 18 it would just be a torture for no reason.

[Guest]

19 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

appreciate this well thought out reply.

Thanks. I tried. 😉 

 

19 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

One can be harmed by sex at any age. Age is only one factor, not the only factor in determining maturity or competence.

Yes. 

And no.
With this I mean that this is the difference between 'Sex' and 'Violence'. If people (kids) get harmed it's the latter. If it's consensual and fun for everyone involved it's the former. 

I acknowledge and agree to the need for laws as a way of protecting the individual (kids) against getting hurt by others.
So I'm agreeing with this post.

 

But besides that it's also necesary - I feel - to see human sexuality as a positive (not trying to break BZ's new rules here; har har har) thing, something natural and enjoyable. I don't think we can discuss the law and any age-limits besides addressing how society values sex. Or loathes it, unless under specific circumstances as a lot of cultures and religions do.

The subject is different but it might be interesting to read the open letter by Catherine Deneuve and other French women in the #metoo discussion. Besides embracing sexuality which I love, these ladies refuse to be victimised. 
[think before following links] https://worldcrunch.com/opinion-analysis/full-translation-of-french-anti-metoo-manifesto-signed-by-catherine-deneuve

The difference being of course these are grown adult and strong human beings and not kids who's main goal is te grow up in their own pace and at their own speed.

 

So I'd like to offer the following statement for discussion::
Tabooing anything is counterproductive and as a starting point all fetisjes and kinks need to be accepted before one defines what is not acceptable, in regards to sex.
(Anyone can respond, and please do).

 

Ps

Not quoting in order to start an argument, just engage=ing in a free discussion.
 

[Guest]

Sorry in advance for the long reply… this is a bit of a ramble and I apologize for that too.

 

23 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

The freedom to choose goes two directions, so kids (people) can only benefit from being informed about things like critical thinking and their right to say either "yes" or "no."  

Critical thinking skills should be taught from an early age, and as a standard school subject. 

The lack of any kind of value placed by society on this skill is why we live in a world full of glass houses populated by conspiracy theorists who think Ockham’s Razor is something to avoid because they might nick their face or legs with it.

 

23 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

The day before their 18th birthday one is protected as a child, the day of their birthday, it all changes.

Statutory rape is yet another set of laws passed under the banner of “protecting our children” that are poorly researched, poorly defined, and open to ridiculous interpretation.

To take this to its most ridiculous extreme, time of birth can also be factored in, especially when trying to catch a “pedo” on a technicality.

Example: The jurisdiction’s statutory limit is 16, and the person in question was born at 6:15pm. The timeline establishes that the act occurred at 6:14pm, making the offender ia statutory rapist. By one minute.

It’s also wielded as a weapon by people who decide after the fact they want to revoke their consent, or find out they’re pregnant and can’t face their family without it having been “forced” upon them, or any other number of reasons. And the “offender” has very little defense once the person proves their age. Period.

If even a portion of the funds and effort spent on vilifying things that are “bad” for kids were instead spent on educating them, they might actually be prepared for the world they are entering. But generation after generation, it’s always the same - people either have blinders on to anything outside what they want to be the norm, or they consider it unhealthy fringe that needs to be protected against, rather than educated about.

This is the same reason why generations of parents wonder why their kids get pregnant young and addicted to drugs, when they hand the reigns of those “wars” over to someone else instead of just talking to each other. 
 

23 hours ago, tallslenderguy said:

One can be harmed by sex at any age. Age is only one factor, not the only factor in determining maturity or competence.

Now, this is just my own opinion, based on my own experiences. It won’t be very popular but that’s okay - everyone is entitled to their own opinion. 

I don’t believe that age as a simple number is a factor in determining whether someone is harmed by sex. As @tallslenderguy said, it’s not even the only factor in determining maturity or competence.

I’ve written in other posts about my own early experiences (you can PM me for details, this thread isn’t the place to expound on them now). And there are certainly places in the world where I would have already been older than the age I might have been started. Does this make that society less civilized?

There’s no way to ignore the fact that even in first world countries, young girls are sexualized for profit. Yes, selling albums and clothing is different than turning tricks, but we only need to slightly broaden our definition of underage exploitation or whoring to accommodate all of this “acceptable” and borderline usage.

Society vilifies things outside of their defined societal norms and values - deviation from these are by definition deviant. We still have the same tribal brain that evolved in our heads ages ago; that drives people to want to belong to the group. Who defines them? And why? They are fluid but slow and resistant to change. More often than not it seems it is less to protect against things classified as “public disgust” and more to vilify things that either are misunderstood, miseducated for, or avoided altogether. And of course for some, it’s always been a way to maintain their own secrets.

(And I’m not even going to get into all the things in the Bible that are deviant and contradictory; most people haven’t even read the Bible, let alone know its history.)

 

There has been so much focus over the years on defining rape as a “violent crime” rather than a “sex crime”. The reasoning for this has been that victims are more likely to come forward for violent crimes, because their is so much shame and social stigma on rape victims.

Why? Because of someone else’s societal and cultural hang ups. A crime is a crime. A victim should be no more stigmatized as a rape victim than they would be as a victim of any other crime, violent or otherwise. 

Yet even with the attempt to delineate rape as a violent crime, the sexual undercurrents make people judge the victim oftentimes as part of the problem. And that still keeps victims from coming forward.

The current climate in the US media, for anyone not playing along at home, seems to be guilty until… well, that’s it. The assumption has become that if “victims” are willing to publicly come forward, they must be telling the truth, especially if in a group. That has become a very powerful weapon to wield. 

I will wrap this rambling reply up with one last thought - when an age of consent is abolished, that also should have a cascading effect on a litany of other things. For example, if there was no age of consent, perhaps the word “pedophile” still exists, but it takes on somewhat of a different connotation. Maybe words like that become used in the way their definition intends without the negative connotations.

Of course, this will never happen. But this was a great discussion point. Thanks @rawTOP!

- Di ❤️

[Guest]

I have no answer other than 11 being too young.  That’s when my neighbor began molesting me.  Unfortunately, I was beginning puberty, so it felt good.  Shit went on until I was sixteen and was strong and wise enough to put a stop to it.  I love my life as it is, but I wish that had not happened to me.

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, doctordoctor said:

I have no answer other than 11 being too young.  That’s when my neighbor began molesting me.  Unfortunately, I was beginning puberty, so it felt good.  Shit went on until I was sixteen and was strong and wise enough to put a stop to it.  I love my life as it is, but I wish that had not happened to me.

That’s what I mean - everyone has their own opinions. And they’re shaped by our experiences.

But it’s difficult to know what would happen if the situation were different. If society was such that you were already well educated on things and had the critical thinking skills and other tools you needed, would your answer be different?

Maybe, maybe not. Just an interesting thought experiment.

I’m sorry that you had experiences you regret. I wouldn’t wish that on anyone. 

- Di ❤️

[tallslenderguy]

4 hours ago, BareLover666 said:

 Yes. 

And no.
With this I mean that this is the difference between 'Sex' and 'Violence'. If people (kids) get harmed it's the latter. If it's consensual and fun for everyone involved it's the former. 

 

I appreciate the distinction and correction here, i should have put a qualifier in front of the word "sex."  i agree that sex is not harmful in and of itself, but can be made harmful depending on lots of different factors.

20 minutes ago, Qdxxx said:

Sorry in advance for the long reply… this is a bit of a ramble and I apologize for that too.

 

Critical thinking skills should be taught from an early age, and as a standard school subject. 

The lack of any kind of value placed by society on this skill is why we live in a world full of glass houses populated by conspiracy theorists who think Ockham’s Razor is something to avoid because they might nick their face or legs with it.

 

Statutory rape is yet another set of laws passed under the banner of “protecting our children” that are poorly researched, poorly defined, and open to ridiculous interpretation.

To take this to its most ridiculous extreme, time of birth can also be factored in, especially when trying to catch a “pedo” on a technicality.

Example: The jurisdiction’s statutory limit is 16, and the person in question was born at 6:15pm. The timeline establishes that the act occurred at 6:14pm, making the offender ia statutory rapist. By one minute.

It’s also wielded as a weapon by people who decide after the fact they want to revoke their consent, or find out they’re pregnant and can’t face their family without it having been “forced” upon them, or any other number of reasons. And the “offender” has very little defense once the person proves their age. Period.

If even a portion of the funds and effort spent on vilifying things that are “bad” for kids were instead spent on educating them, they might actually be prepared for the world they are entering. But generation after generation, it’s always the same - people either have blinders on to anything outside what they want to be the norm, or they consider it unhealthy fringe that needs to be protected against, rather than educated about.

This is the same reason why generations of parents wonder why their kids get pregnant young and addicted to drugs, when they hand the reigns of those “wars” over to someone else instead of just talking to each other. 
 

Now, this is just my own opinion, based on my own experiences. It won’t be very popular but that’s okay - everyone is entitled to their own opinion. 

I don’t believe that age as a simple number is a factor in determining whether someone is harmed by sex. As @tallslenderguy said, it’s not even the only factor in determining maturity or competence.

I’ve written in other posts about my own early experiences (you can PM me for details, this thread isn’t the place to expound on them now). And there are certainly places in the world where I would have already been older than the age I might have been started. Does this make that society less civilized?

There’s no way to ignore the fact that even in first world countries, young girls are sexualized for profit. Yes, selling albums and clothing is different than turning tricks, but we only need to slightly broaden our definition of underage exploitation or whoring to accommodate all of this “acceptable” and borderline usage.

Society vilifies things outside of their defined societal norms and values - deviation from these are by definition deviant. We still have the same tribal brain that evolved in our heads ages ago; that drives people to want to belong to the group. Who defines them? And why? They are fluid but slow and resistant to change. More often than not it seems it is less to protect against things classified as “public disgust” and more to vilify things that either are misunderstood, miseducated for, or avoided altogether. And of course for some, it’s always been a way to maintain their own secrets.

(And I’m not even going to get into all the things in the Bible that are deviant and contradictory; most people haven’t even read the Bible, let alone know its history.)

 

There has been so much focus over the years on defining rape as a “violent crime” rather than a “sex crime”. The reasoning for this has been that victims are more likely to come forward for violent crimes, because their is so much shame and social stigma on rape victims.

Why? Because of someone else’s societal and cultural hang ups. A crime is a crime. A victim should be no more stigmatized as a rape victim than they would be as a victim of any other crime, violent or otherwise. 

Yet even with the attempt to delineate rape as a violent crime, the sexual undercurrents make people judge the victim oftentimes as part of the problem. And that still keeps victims from coming forward.

The current climate in the US media, for anyone not playing along at home, seems to be guilty until… well, that’s it. The assumption has become that if “victims” are willing to publicly come forward, they must be telling the truth, especially if in a group. That has become a very powerful weapon to wield. 

I will wrap this rambling reply up with one last thought - when an age of consent is abolished, that also should have a cascading effect on a litany of other things. For example, if there was no age of consent, perhaps the word “pedophile” still exists, but it takes on somewhat of a different connotation. Maybe words like that become used in the way their definition intends without the negative connotations.

Of course, this will never happen. But this was a great discussion point. Thanks @rawTOP!

- Di ❤️

Your contributions don't t strike me as a 'ramble,'  i think you add some great thoughts to the discussion.  Particularly i appreciate your thoughts on how "Society vilifies things outside of their defined societal norms and values - deviation from these are by definition deviant."  

Indeed!  Ethnocentricity can apply to sex as much as any other topic. "Society" is a cultural construct, eh?, and 'norms' are often not based on evidence (i find it hard for one to be gay and not be aware of this). Many in some religious circles still consider "gay" and "pedophile" synonymous. 

Laws supposedly written to protect can be used for violence in the hands of the violent, and some laws are simply wrong. i was arrested in 1998 for asking and undercover 'vice cop' if he wanted to fuck me. He was pretending to be gay as part of his job to entrap. i was then charged with a felony based on a 100 year old 'sodomy' law. 1998 was not that long ago.  The judge, thankfully, literally laughed at the notion of it being a felony, but the prosecutor wanted my blood. The then attorney general of VA was of the same religious ilk that the last US vice president was from, and believed gay people to be 'deviant.'

i think there are many who have never come up against a sector of culture like this. Many do not realize how, even in the year 2021, many believe that "God" is gonna send all gay people to hell. Many have beliefs where they think they would be doing "Gods" will to imprison (and worse) gay people.  Yet, this same religious culture has stories in it's book (the bible) about taking a young girl and putting her in bed with bible hero King David in his old age to 'keep him warm.'  

It's often not so much the act that is frowned upon, but who is doing it. A lot of the age bias undercurrent in portions of our society is directed at gays. 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, doctordoctor said:

I have no answer other than 11 being too young.  That’s when my neighbor began molesting me.  Unfortunately, I was beginning puberty, so it felt good.  Shit went on until I was sixteen and was strong and wise enough to put a stop to it.  I love my life as it is, but I wish that had not happened to me.

Good for you stopping what wasn't good for you, when you could.
Still sorry this happend to you in the way it did.
* HUG *

[Faggotuser]

I would throw it out altogether. Any boy that wants to get down on his knees and suck my cock or get on all fours and let me and a few buddies run a train on its ass should be able to. Cumdumps mature fast sexually. Junior fuckboys know they want mens cocks early just like young straight boys want grown ass women's tits and pussy.

[DaWhore]

Interesting topic...

Age of consent is rather a new thing in the history of our evolution. In the Roman era, you were an elderly at 25 years old. Did they wait til they were 18 to start having babies? I don't think so. That was 2000 years ago, a blink of an eye.

We made laws that goes against our very nature. Is it unnatural and evil for an adult to find a heathy sexually mature teenager attractive and sexually appealing? I advocate that it's perfectly natural, it's all about procreation. 

An age on a piece of paper is not the right idea, age of consent should be when your body is ready for procreation. A line that I've heard many times in the past would say it all "Old enough to bleed, old enough to breed".

You can procreate, you can choose.

Gay sex does not have "procreation" written all over it, but it should also follow the same guideline. 

[gwmxyz]

I'd say 16 - and for everything (buying booze, driving on the public roads, voting, getting a job, not having to go to school, flying planes, serving on juries etc etc).  Nice and simple, absolutely clear.
The Ghisliane Maxwell case amazes me. At 16, i knew what sex was and whether I wanted it. I didn't need some friend my parents' age to cast some magic spell. A few introductions wouldn't have gone amiss, mind.  Could have saved 8 years.
The only time recently I was worried a guy might be under-age he turned out to be 26 - which actually probably is about my lower limit.  Any younger and I start worrying they aren't into me.  That or they start talking about how they were born after I left university etc. It's much more relaxed to be fucked by my tranny friend and have a combined age over 100.  Who knows maybe 200 one day... 

Or just a thought - but what about an exam?  Multiple choice and if you pass you can fuck?  It would make schoolwork a bit more interesting.