[Protagoras]

Not really, pointing out your flawed hypocritical logic of “consent” as the defining criterion for law was the exercise.

The exercise was one of futility. As for hypocritical, please explain if you can. You start with a flawed premise and expect a flawless conclusion. The only whooshing sound is the wind through your ears.

You still haven't said what age a person needs to be before he/she can give sexual consent. You attack others, (irrelevant uninvolved others) but duck every time you have to say something substantive.

[Clint N. Suhks]

As for hypocritical, please explain if you can.

Ummm…from the Office for the Department of Redundancy and Short Attention Spans, YOU supporting the legislature’s right to make Age of Consent laws and not sodomy laws using the criterion of consent. Get it yet or are you going to ask the same another 10 times?

You still haven't said what age a person needs to be before he/she can give sexual consent.

I said you can state that for me to make your point and I wouldn’t care. OK? You want a number let’s try 35.