[GOPsterinMA]

A 17 y/o and a 13 y/o? Dumb, horny kids.

A 43 y/o and a 13 y/o? Statutory rape, at a minimum.

[UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide]

A 17 y/o and a 13 y/o? Dumb, horny kids. A 43 y/o and a 13 y/o? Statutory rape, at a minimum.

Legally, yes.

But if 13 y/os are not sexually attractive as everyone is proclaiming, then why would anyone of any age have sex with them unless he is a pervert? You are saying that 17 y/os are perverts but it is okay to be a 17 y/o pervert but not after 18. If you are excusing the 17 y/o then you are saying that it is not the sex that was harmful but the age of the 43 y/o partner. But that is absurd because it is perfectly normal to have sex with a 43 y/o but illegal to have sex with a 17 y/o. You are saying that a 13 y/o can consent to sex, just not with anyone else who can consent to sex, i.e. two wrongs make a right. I can probably think of ten more absurdities that arise from your two statements.