Age of Consent Policies

My position is one against age of consent policies--particularly those imposed by the government. My arguments which will follow will explain the extent of my contention. Opening Argument Age of Consent is an age-based statutory division which determines one's legal capacity to consent to sexual contact. Consent is the establishment of agreement of one's own free will. The government uses Parens Patriae to inform and legitimize its arbitrary divisions. In the United States for example, The age of consent varies among states, Where Pennsylvania has an age of consent at the age of 16, New York has it at the age of 17, And California has it at the age of 18. It's also worth pointing out, Using these three examples, That generally speaking, One can seek employment as young as 14. I point this out because Parens Patriae presumes that those who fall under the arbitrary division "cannot take care of themselves. " Legal policy usually permits the engagement of sexual contact between minors (some of which are taken to court and found not guilty--e. G. Michigan Court of Appeals: State vs Jennings & Jennings and Girl, 13, Charged as sex offender and Victim) but exercises punitive measures when one is at or above the age of consent, And the other isn't. This makes little sense. If those who are under the arbitrary division are incapable of informing consent, Then how is it that they can inform consent among themselves during sexual activity? Ceretis Parabus the contact, The mechanics, And the resulting sensations are identical. A "predatory" element is presumed to have manifested when one partner is above the age of consent and the other below it. "Power dynamics" are usually used to premise arguments against sexual relationships between adults and minors. Even if we are to accept "power dynamics" as a credible premise, Can it only manifest in age differences? What about ethnic differences? Height differences? Weight differences? Income differences? Differences in social status? Wouldn't there be some conflict when intersectionality is considered? Is there a nefarious nonsexual benefit to adults having sex with minors which uniquely manifests in their relationships? No such gains or benefits have been made explicit in these policies. Furthermore, A girl as young as 14 can exercise her right to an abortion (even without the parents' consent) with a judicial pass (Planned Parenthood. ) If the State recognizes that it's "her body" when she carries out an abortion, Why is it not her body when she chooses to have sex even with a partner above the statutory age of consent? Deciding the capacity to consent on age alone produces a slippery slope argument. If the minor has no capacity to consent, Then operating on that same logic, Said minor cannot withhold assent, Or 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 consent to its logical conclusion would make it impossible to rape a minor, Much less minors raping each other 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 State, 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. " Your floor, Speedrace.