Who wants a staggered age of consent?

Let us consider the idea of a staggered age of consent, which is currently floated in the UK as part of a campaign of hatred against men led by the government and media and a woman who had a relationship to Russell Brand when she was 16 and now fancies herself a victim -- not just of an alleged assault but of the entire relationship in principle because he was 30. Of course the feminists would love to raise it to 18 for all, but a staggered age of consent is suggested as a kind of compromise. But is it really?

Actually it brings discrimination front and center at a time when we are not supposed to discriminate, which is probably why surveys show less support for this concept than raising the age of consent absolutely. Let’s say the law gets staggered so people under 18 are restricted to consenting to 20 and under while anyone older is defined as an abuser if there is any sexual contact. You get two classes of people. The “morally pure” up to 21 who can be trusted with teenage lovers down to 16 and the second-class citizens 21 and over who cannot. The moral class division is inescapable, forcing us to think of what was previously regular adults as morally inferior to not just children but some semi-hallowed class in between.

A, say, 40-year-old normie will not conceptualize it like he is a bad person or worse than a 20-year-old and therefore cannot sleep with 16-year-old girls, but that’s what this scheme says. Having been indoctrinated with feminist antisex bigotry his whole life he will sputter some shibboleth about a “power imbalance” when asked why, but even if true then why does he assume he will use his power for bad? He must think he is a bad person! He is full of self-loathing while also managing to ignore that the teenage girl has tremendous sexual power over most men, so why should she choose to let him boss her around? Why can’t she choose an older man (if she happens to choose an older man) who is both “powerful” and nice? Oh, they don’t exist, do they? Then we are back to the idea that men over the staggered age of consent at something like 21, or the regular age of consent at 16 for that matter, are morally worse persons than below. And what is the evidence for that?

The evidence I know of says people become more considerate with age. People become more altruistic, with the reward system in their brain responding more weakly to self-gains and more strongly to others' gains. It would be astonishing if sex is an exception to this and we all reach maximum sexual benevolence at 16 or 18 or 20, after which we all irredeemably become sexual monsters. It is absurd. There is also an awful lot of sexual aggression by men 20 and under which is hard to reconcile with making them out to be a morally pure class. Real rapists tend to be quite young while accusations against men 40 and older are almost always statutory.

Now a normie would be likely to bring up naiveness -- that it is somehow better for young girls to have their first experiences with naïve boys. Even if there is a grain of truth to the idea that a virgin or timid incel boy would be less likely to mistreat girls, naiveness is not related to age but experience. The boys teenage girls are likely to sleep with of their own age don’t remain inexperienced for long. Realistically we must imagine the 16-year-old Russell Brand-accuser choosing instead (if there had been an enforced staggered age of consent) not some virgin 16-year-old boy but a 16 to 20-year-old version of Russell Brand or similar alpha, who would probably already have had dozens of girls and act similarly already as he did at 30. It is indeed possible that Russell Brand was an inconsiderate lover, but age of consent does not solve the problem. Frankly it does the opposite -- as sexual aggression goes down while compassion goes up -- and I think even he has calmed down over the years and would not now at near 50 do what he is accused of with the 16-year-old if he should get the chance to have another Alice, which by the way is: “'forced his penis down her throat' and 'made her choke', only stopping after she punched him in the stomach.” The problem with older men is not that they tend to act like that, whereas I am not so sure that teenage boys weaned on today’s porn yet know better than to act like that. You see, they are all really not so naïve after all even if they never had sex, and not in a good way.

It is of course true that attractiveness declines with age, but that simply makes age gap relationships less likely rather than more inherently abusive. Attraction isn’t always zero, and whoever remains interested in an older man do not need a law telling them that they can’t consent. It is also entirely possible, even likely, that an older man is a more considerate, empathetic lover and will use whatever power he has over you for good rather than bad. If your view of human nature is that vulnerable equals abuse victim, I don’t see how you can trust any kind of relationship. There are many more profound ways to be vulnerable than to be young, and if you think your partner is only waiting for you to be weak so he can hurt you it would be dangerous to even fall asleep next him at any age, or be frail or incapacitated for any reason. Yet this is what the feminists will have us believe, selectively applied to age gap and sexuality. It may be consistent with their hateful agenda, but not with reality.