Shockingly 'somewhere between 13 and 16' happens to be 14.5, which is the average age that complete sexual maturity is reached! I would rather have a law that is lax enough that normal men are not victimized to a far greater degree than a 14 year old girl who *chooses* to have sex with an older man would be. Who do you think is more fucked, the 20 year old gets caught sleeping with a willing 14 year old, or the 14 year old who willingly slept with a 20 year old who got caught? Anyway why don't you care about the percentage of 16 year olds who are not mature enough for sex? Because there are less of them? What is the number of people that you are willing to fail to protect? Shouldn't we just keep increasing the age of consent, as every additional year it increases will 'protect' more people? Or at least raise it so high that those who are not protected are only those who never would be capable of meaningful consent in any case? Maybe the U.S.A. should increase its age of consent to 21, like Madagascar, in order to protect all of the vulnerable (possibly 17), 18, 19 and 20 year olds!  And another arbitrary line. What power has a 20 year old got over a 14 year old that a 19 year old doesn't? It sounds like you rolled dice to come up with your morality system. Your claim that your beliefs are based on morality allows me to prove that the assertions derived from your beliefs are subjective rather than objective, if I can show that your sense of morality is derived from cultural conditioning. As you yourself have said, societal norms are completely irrelevant to objective right and wrong. Demonstrating that societal norms have a causative rather than correlative relationship with your sense of morality would thus demonstrate that your sense of morality is completely irrelevant to objective right and wrong. And there you go sounding like a religious neoconservative again. I am pretty sure that anarchism and "the government decides when you get to have sex" are mutually exclusive.