Sexually mature healthy adults are "sexy". This is based on hormones over time, which has variance person-to-person, but has general rules to it, one of which is that it takes between one to two decades to reach "full" sexual maturity in a biological sense (closer to two than one, but there's weird fringe cases when people got exposed to growth hormones at very young ages, or don't produce enough and have a delayed-onset growth), and we in general err on the "safe" side and legalistically push it to the far side of that, for the mental and sexual safety of those undergoing this maturation.
It's not about finding or not finding a 17.99999 year old "sexy", it's about their mental welfare and well-being and to not abuse the societal trust in safekeeping the youth and stability of society. Any needling and poking about a 17 year and 364 day teenager versus a 18 year and 0 day teenager in terms of general moral stance is just sophistry, the law exists to err on the side of caution and to institute broad general CLEAR rules, which is reasonable when society is so large that "the side of caution" will be many people who are successfully protected.
If there's some human who, by birth certificate timing turns 18 at 1:30AM, and you start having sexual relations with him/her, and then you look up a half-hour later, and "Oh no! It's Daylight Savings switchover today, it's actually only 1:00am, still a half hour away!"... but then cheer because you're having sex in a moving truck which just crossed state lines to one with an AoC of 16, but as you're crossing the state line barrier, a shake happens and sexual contact occurs in a questionable point in crossing the state line at a questionable timeframe, to illustrate the point with the most absurd possible example, it's the exact same thing plus or minus Daylight Savings, and no one cares from a moral standpoint. Most people would point at you and call you a retard for setting up such a scenario, not a predator, because you WOULD be a retard, not a predator in a moral sense, but legalistically speaking you did a no-no and those laws exist for a reason. Now, in that particular case, the judge would probably have a stress migraine and throw everyone out of the courtroom, but law's the law, and while morally it may be a shrug, if they DID throw the book at you, well, you were in a stupid scenario and did fall afoul. That's not attraction or non-attraction, maturity or non-maturity, it's simply a general guideline case applied to a specific circumstance that isn't the exact same shape.
EDIT: And all this stated, this applies to humans. Doing human things. We don't demand that a dildo a woman is using be aged 18 years from factory production before it can be used, because it isn't a human, it's a piece of plastic. It feels weird to need to add this addendum, but yet, so many online commentators somehow can't seem to grasp that a dildo is not a thinking, growing, living, soul-having human.
Sexually mature healthy adults are "sexy". This is based on hormones over time, which has variance person-to-person, but has general rules to it, one of which is that it takes between one to two decades to reach "full" sexual maturity in a biological sense (closer to two than one, but there's weird fringe cases when people got exposed to growth hormones at very young ages, or don't produce enough and have a delayed-onset growth), and we in general err on the "safe" side and legalistically push it to the far side of that, for the mental and sexual safety of those undergoing this maturation.
It's not about finding or not finding a 17.99999 year old "sexy", it's about their mental welfare and well-being and to not abuse the societal trust in safekeeping the youth and stability of society. Any needling and poking about a 17 year and 364 day teenager versus a 18 year and 0 day teenager in terms of general moral stance is just sophistry, the law exists to err on the side of caution and to institute broad general CLEAR rules, which is reasonable when society is so large that "the side of caution" will be many people who are successfully protected.
If there's some human who, by birth certificate timing turns 18 at 1:30AM, and you start having sexual relations with him/her, and then you look up a half-hour later, and "Oh no! It's Daylight Savings switchover today, it's actually only 1:00am, still a half hour away!"... but then cheer because you're having sex in a moving truck which just crossed state lines to one with an AoC of 16, but as you're crossing the state line barrier, a shake happens and sexual contact occurs in a questionable point in crossing the state line at a questionable timeframe, to illustrate the point with the most absurd possible example, it's the exact same thing plus or minus Daylight Savings, and no one cares from a moral standpoint. Most people would point at you and call you a retard for setting up such a scenario, not a predator, because you WOULD be a retard, not a predator in a moral sense, but legalistically speaking you did a no-no and those laws exist for a reason. Now, in that particular case, the judge would probably have a stress migraine and throw everyone out of the courtroom, but law's the law, and while morally it may be a shrug, if they DID throw the book at you, well, you were in a stupid scenario and did fall afoul. That's not attraction or non-attraction, maturity or non-maturity, it's simply a general guideline case applied to a specific circumstance that isn't the exact same shape.
EDIT: And all this stated, this applies to humans. Doing human things. We don't demand that a dildo a woman is using be aged 18 years from factory production before it can be used, because it isn't a human, it's a piece of plastic. And anyone who argues a piece of plastic is the same thing as a human life probably needs to get their brain checked, because most humans learn to differentiate plastic from living tissue.
Sexually mature healthy adults are "sexy". This is based on hormones over time, which has variance person-to-person, but has general rules to it, one of which is that it takes between one to two decades to reach "full" sexual maturity in a biological sense (closer to two than one, but there's weird fringe cases when people got exposed to growth hormones at very young ages, or don't produce enough and have a delayed-onset growth), and we in general err on the "safe" side and legalistically push it to the far side of that, for the mental and sexual safety of those undergoing this maturation.
It's not about finding or not finding a 17.99999 year old "sexy", it's about their mental welfare and well-being and to not abuse the societal trust in safekeeping the youth and stability of society. Any needling and poking about a 17 year and 364 day teenager versus a 18 year and 0 day teenager in terms of general moral stance is just sophistry, the law exists to err on the side of caution and to institute broad general CLEAR rules, which is reasonable when society is so large that "the side of caution" will be many people who are successfully protected.
If there's some human who, by birth certificate timing turns 18 at 1:30AM, and you start having sexual relations with him/her, and then you look up a half-hour later, and "Oh no! It's Daylight Savings switchover today, it's actually only 1:00am, still a half hour away!"... but then cheer because you're having sex in a moving truck which just crossed state lines to one with an AoC of 16, but as you're crossing the state line barrier, a shake happens and sexual contact occurs in a questionable point in crossing the state line at a questionable timeframe, to illustrate the point with the most absurd possible example, it's the exact same thing plus or minus Daylight Savings, and no one cares from a moral standpoint. Most people would point at you and call you a retard for setting up such a scenario, not a predator, because you WOULD be a retard, not a predator in a moral sense, but legalistically speaking you did a no-no and those laws exist for a reason. Now, in that particular case, the judge would probably have a stress migraine and throw everyone out of the courtroom, but law's the law, and while morally it may be a shrug, if they DID throw the book at you, well, you were in a stupid scenario and did fall afoul. That's not attraction or non-attraction, maturity or non-maturity, it's simply a general guideline case applied to a specific circumstance that isn't the exact same shape.
EDIT: And all this stated, this applies to humans. Doing human things. We don't demand that a dildo a woman is using be aged 18 years from factory production before it can be used, because it isn't a human, it's a piece of plastic. And anyone who argues a piece of plastic is the same thing as a human life probably needs to get their brain checked, because most humans learn to differentiate plastic from living tissue at a fairly young age.
Sexually mature healthy adults are "sexy". This is based on hormones over time, which has variance person-to-person, but has general rules to it, one of which is that it takes between one to two decades to reach "full" sexual maturity in a biological sense (closer to two than one, but there's weird fringe cases when people got exposed to growth hormones at very young ages, or don't produce enough and have a delayed-onset growth), and we in general err on the "safe" side and legalistically push it to the far side of that, for the mental and sexual safety of those undergoing this maturation.
It's not about finding or not finding a 17.99999 year old "sexy", it's about their mental welfare and well-being and to not abuse the societal trust in safekeeping the youth and stability of society. Any needling and poking about a 17 year and 364 day teenager versus a 18 year and 0 day teenager in terms of general moral stance is just sophistry, the law exists to err on the side of caution and to institute broad general CLEAR rules, which is reasonable when society is so large that "the side of caution" will be many people who are successfully protected.
If there's some human who, by birth certificate timing turns 18 at 1:30AM, and you start having sexual relations with him/her, and then you look up a half-hour later, and "Oh no! It's Daylight Savings switchover today, it's actually only 1:00am, still a half hour away!"... but then cheer because you're having sex in a moving truck which just crossed state lines to one with an AoC of 16, but as you're crossing the state line barrier, a shake happens and sexual contact occurs in a questionable point in crossing the state line at a questionable timeframe, to illustrate the point with the most absurd possible example, it's the exact same thing plus or minus Daylight Savings, and no one cares from a moral standpoint. Most people would point at you and call you a retard for setting up such a scenario, not a predator, because you WOULD be a retard, not a predator in a moral sense, but legalistically speaking you did a no-no and those laws exist for a reason. Now, in that particular case, the judge would probably have a stress migraine and throw everyone out of the courtroom, but law's the law, and while morally it may be a shrug, if they DID throw the book at you, well, you were in a stupid scenario and did fall afoul. That's not attraction or non-attraction, maturity or non-maturity, it's simply a general guideline case applied to a specific circumstance that isn't the exact same shape.
Sexually mature healthy adults are "sexy". This is based on hormones over time, which has variance person-to-person, but has general rules to it, one of which is that it takes between one to two decades to reach "full" sexual maturity in a biological sense (closer to two than one, but there's weird fringe cases when people got exposed to growth hormones at very young ages, or don't produce enough and have a delayed-onset growth), and we in general err on the "safe" side and legalistically push it to the far side of that, for the mental and sexual safety of those undergoing this maturation.
It's not about finding or not finding a 17.99999 year old "sexy", it's about their mental welfare and well-being and to not abuse the societal trust in safekeeping the youth and stability of society. Any needling and poking about a 17 year and 364 day teenager versus a 18 year and 0 day teenager in terms of general moral stance is just sophistry, the law exists to err on the side of caution, which is reasonable when society is so large that "the side of caution" will be many people who are successfully protected.
If there's some human who, by birth certificate timing turns 18 at 1:30AM, and you start having sexual relations with him/her, and then you look up a half-hour later, and "Oh no! It's Daylight Savings switchover today, it's actually only 1:00am, still a half hour away!"... but then cheer because you're having sex in a moving truck which just crossed state lines to one with an AoC of 16, but as you're crossing the state line barrier, a shake happens and sexual contact occurs in a questionable point in crossing the state line at a questionable timeframe, to illustrate the point with the most absurd possible example, it's the exact same thing plus or minus Daylight Savings, and no one cares from a moral standpoint. Most people would point at you and call you a retard for setting up such a scenario, not a predator, because you WOULD be a retard, not a predator in a moral sense, but legalistically speaking you did a no-no and those laws exist for a reason. Now, in that particular case, the judge would probably have a stress migraine and throw everyone out of the courtroom, but law's the law, and while morally it may be a shrug, if they DID throw the book at you, well, you were in a stupid scenario and did fall afoul. That's not attraction or non-attraction, maturity or non-maturity, it's simply a general guideline case applied to a specific circumstance that isn't the exact same shape.
Sexually mature healthy adults are "sexy". This is based on hormones over time, which has variance person-to-person, but has general rules to it, one of which is that it takes between one to two decades to reach "full" sexual maturity in a biological sense (closer to two than one, but there's weird fringe cases when people got exposed to growth hormones at very young ages), and we in general err on the "safe" side and legalistically push it to the far side of that, for the mental and sexual safety of those undergoing this maturation.
It's not about finding or not finding a 17.99999 year old "sexy", it's about their mental welfare and well-being and to not abuse the societal trust in safekeeping the youth and stability of society. Any needling and poking about a 17 year and 364 day teenager versus a 18 year and 0 day teenager in terms of general moral stance is just sophistry, the law exists to err on the side of caution, which is reasonable when society is so large that "the side of caution" will be many people who are successfully protected.
If there's some human who, by birth certificate timing turns 18 at 1:30AM, and you start having sexual relations with him/her, and then you look up a half-hour later, and "Oh no! It's Daylight Savings switchover today, it's actually only 1:00am, still a half hour away!"... but then cheer because you're having sex in a moving truck which just crossed state lines to one with an AoC of 16, but as you're crossing the state line barrier, a shake happens and sexual contact occurs in a questionable point in crossing the state line at a questionable timeframe, to illustrate the point with the most absurd possible example, it's the exact same thing plus or minus Daylight Savings, and no one cares from a moral standpoint. Most people would point at you and call you a retard for setting up such a scenario, not a predator, because you WOULD be a retard, not a predator in a moral sense, but legalistically speaking you did a no-no and those laws exist for a reason. Now, in that particular case, the judge would probably have a stress migraine and throw everyone out of the courtroom, but law's the law, and while morally it may be a shrug, if they DID throw the book at you, well, you were in a stupid scenario and did fall afoul. That's not attraction or non-attraction, maturity or non-maturity, it's simply a general guideline case applied to a specific circumstance that isn't the exact same shape.
Sexually mature healthy adults are "sexy". This is based on hormones over time, which has variance person-to-person, but has general rules to it, one of which is that it takes between one to two decades to reach "full" sexual maturity in a biological sense (closer to two than one, but there's weird fringe cases when people got exposed to growth hormones at very young ages), and we in general err on the "safe" side and legalistically push it to the far side of that, for the mental and sexual safety of those undergoing this maturation.
It's not about finding or not finding a 17.99999 year old "sexy", it's about their mental welfare and well-being and to not abuse the societal trust in safekeeping the youth and stability of society. Any needling and poking about a 17 year and 364 day teenager versus a 18 year and 0 day teenager in terms of general moral stance is just sophistry, the law exists to err on the side of caution, which is reasonable when society is so large that "the side of caution" will be many people who are successfully protected.
If there's some human who, by birth certificate timing turns 18 at 1:30AM, and you start having sexual relations with him/her, and then you look up a half-hour later, and "Oh no! It's Daylight Savings switchover today, it's actually only 1:00am, still a half hour away!"... to illustrate the point with the most absurd possible example, it's the exact same thing plus or minus Daylight Savings, and no one cares from a moral standpoint. Most people would point at you and call you a retard for setting up such a scenario, not a predator, because you WOULD be a retard, not a predator in a moral sense, but legalistically speaking you did a no-no and those laws exist for a reason. Now, in that particular case, the judge would probably have a stress migraine and throw everyone out of the courtroom, but law's the law, and while morally it may be a shrug, if they DID throw the book at you, well, you were in a stupid scenario and did fall afoul. That's not attraction or non-attraction, maturity or non-maturity, it's simply a general guideline case applied to a specific circumstance that isn't the exact same shape.
Sexually mature healthy adults are "sexy". This is based on hormones over time, which has variance person-to-person, but has general rules to it, one of which is that it takes between one to two decades to reach "full" sexual maturity in a biological sense (closer to two than one, but there's weird fringe cases when people got exposed to growth hormones at very young ages), and we in general err on the "safe" side and legalistically push it to the far side of that, for the mental and sexual safety of those undergoing this maturation.
It's not about finding or not finding a 17.99999 year old "sexy", it's about their mental welfare and well-being and to not abuse the societal trust in safekeeping the youth and stability of society. Any needling and poking about a 17 year and 364 day teenager versus a 18 year and 0 day teenager in terms of general moral stance is just sophistry, the law exists to err on the side of caution, which is reasonable when society is so large that "the side of caution" will be many people who are successfully protected.
If there's some human who, at midnight, turns 18 and you start having sexual relations with him/her, and then you look up, and "Oh no! It's Daylight Savings switchover today,it's actually only 11:30pm, still a half hour away!"... to illustrate the point with the most absurd possible example, it's the exact same thing plus or minus Daylight Savings, and no one cares from a moral standpoint. Most people would point at you and call you a retard for setting up such a scenario, not a predator, because you WOULD be a retard, not a predator in a moral sense, but legalistically speaking you did a no-no and those laws exist for a reason. Now, in that particular case, the judge would probably have a stress migraine and throw everyone out of the courtroom, but law's the law, and while morally it may be a shrug, if they DID throw the book at you, well, you were in a stupid scenario and did fall afoul. That's not attraction or non-attraction, maturity or non-maturity, it's simply a general guideline case applied to a specific circumstance that isn't the exact same shape.
Sexually mature healthy adults are "sexy". This is based on hormones over time, which has variance person-to-person, but has general rules to it, one of which is that it takes between one to two decades to reach "full" sexual maturity in a biological sense (closer to two than one, but there's weird fringe cases when people got exposed to growth hormones at very young ages), and we in general err on the "safe" side and legalistically push it to the far side of that, for the mental and sexual safety of those undergoing this maturation.
It's not about finding or not finding a 17.99999 year old "sexy", it's about their mental welfare and well-being and to not abuse the societal trust in safekeeping the youth and stability of society. Any needling and poking about a 17 year and 364 day teenager versus a 18 year and 0 day teenager in terms of general moral stance is just sophistry, the law exists to err on the side of caution, which is reasonable when society is so large that "the side of caution" will be many people who are successfully protected.