Statutory rape exists as a legal reality because children are incapable of consent, regardless of what they think they're capable of.

Not buying it. Sounds too much like a rationalization to me. Children consent to all sorts of things all the time. Depending on what mood the wife and I are in, like if we're both ambivalent towards doing one activity or another, or maybe we just couldn't care any less, we'll call the oldest into the room, present him with two choices, and let him decide. Now, sure, little kids typically choose the second option, so we'll ask twice and reverse the options. If he still makes the same choice, we know it's because it's something he wants and not something he's just going along with.

Or maybe mom is making a quick trip to the store. Who wants to go? Who wants to watch a movie with daddy? And one or both of the bipeds will go along with mommy.

They get choices, and they get the option to consent to some activities. Why? Because they're capable of consenting, and to my recollection we haven't made them choose among options in which there was at least one that could harm them.

I object to child sex for completely different reasons, but I should point out that preteens do explore their sexuality and even engage in sexual intercourse. From what I gather, that is becoming less frequent than it was when I was that age, but things do happen that seem to be out of the reach of the law, like when a 12 year old has sex with a 9 year old. Of course, it could be that I'm an adult and like most adults I'm not a part of that circle anymore and thus unaware of how often it really does go on. However, I know of some former neighbors of ours who had a 12 year old boy lose his virginity to a 16 year old babysitter... Anyway, like it or not, sex is a pleasurable activity for most people and kids younger than 9 can even figure out how to masturbate. So if they know it feels good and have no problems engaging in it, they certainly can give a partner the "go ahead" while they're playing doctor.

The same kid who can consent to that can consent to sex with an adult that he or she likes and/or feels sexually attracted to.

"Cannot consent" is bs. It's a rationale, an assumption and a compromise that legislatures are forced to accept. It's a "line in the sand" because an exact age at which ALL children are able to say "yea" or "nay" doesn't exist. So an AOC of, like 14, 16, or 18 is drawn up to err on the side of safety. It's the kind of language you hear from conservative, evangelical Christians to legislate morality and keep kids sexually pure. If we suspend antiquated Biblical values in our culture and society, we might find and accept that kids are capable of consent at much lower ages than we're willing to admit.

Much of foundational western law is formalized Christian morality straight from the Bible. The "can't consent" argument is a poor one that only really works for kids less than 3 years old. "It causes physical harm" is a better argument. But past a certain age the "physical harm" argument doesn't work because it doesn't physically harm everyone. Same thing with the "psychological harm." It doesn't affect all children equally. So why even put an age on it and enforce the laws? Because it's wrong, Christians already accept that it's wrong, and the AOC is just a way to keep children sexually pure for a longer period of time and provide legal recourse against immoral people willing to violate them. Of COURSE kids can consent. It's the job of parents to make sure that they don't consent and keep them out of situations in which they would. All the rationalizations in the western world can't get around the fact that the non-religious "borrow" their values from Biblical morality. Setting the AOC at 14 or 16 is just a compromise--a pitiful one at that, but better than nothing at all.