I disagree for a couple of reasons. First, I read ptichka &amp; couldawouldashoulda's comments, the comments that you are implicitly and explicitly replying to, as simultaneously looking at the legality of the situation as well as the morality of it. They both seem to be in agreement that what he did is legally and morally incorrect. Regardless, the intersection of law and philosophy are interesting and jurisprudence is one of my favorite areas of study. So, indeed, part of where we are not in concordance is that I am attempting to analyze this like a lawyer, especially since I already have it in my head that the ages of the parties most likely make this a strict liability offense. I agree with your comment that some young persons physically and mentally mature at different rates, but the framers of our legal institutions seem to agree that 12 is a pretty bright-line age to apply a societal objective standard as opposed to having judges look at each individual 12 years and younger in these circumstances to determine what their age of mental maturation is. TL;DR have an upvote as I your point is right in the abstract, even though we both seem to agree that it is legally irrelevant.