Fornication is a sin, and a grave one, and the seduction of a young woman is a great evil.

Nevertheless, it is a fact that girls are fully capable of knowing what they are doing before they are 18, and that a majority lose their virginity before 18 (in this country).  If the sin to be punished is fornication, it is not just to punish men and not punish the girls also.  And it would not be practical to punish a crime that the majority of the population commits.

It is also unjust to to claim that it should not be criminal for a young man close in age to seduce a young woman, while claiming it is criminal for a man just a few years older to do so.  

Our ancestors restrained the law from interfering at a much younger age, because they understood human nature and the folly of trying to control such things with threats from the police.  Of course they also had recourse to vigilantism.

For the latter reason it seems fair that the age is higher than it was in common law.

However, surely 18 is too old, because to punish it that age is to make criminals of the majority of the population.  (if the law were applied equally to young men and women) A law (with severe penalties) that is generally broken and selectively enforced is a pretext for abuse, not a legitimate protection.

It is the responsibility of parents to guard their children, not the police.  It is absurd for parents to send their children into situations where fornication is likely to happen  for the majority of underage girls, but to call the police to punish the offender when the worst happens.  They and their daughters are also to blame for what happens.

The solution to this problem is not the demonization and severe penalization of older men who fornicate with younger women, when the girls are responsible for their actions.  They know what they're doing.  It is kidding oneself to pretend otherwise.  And it is also absurd to pretend it is "just kids being kids" (as sex education and condom distribution in high schools show) when the fornicators are close in age, but otherwise it is a form of "statutory rape"

Laws should not be grossly unfair.  

By all means, the necessary steps should be taken to protect young women.

If I were a father I would surely seek legal recourse for a daughter younger than 15.  But after a certain age one must assign responsibility where it is due.  And most young women engage in fornication (or something worse) before the age of  18, and they know exactly what they are doing.  They are responsible for their actions, as much as the man.

Tele, I'm not certain if you brought this up for the sake of your experience with that 18 year-old, but if so I'm actually glad you did because I've been wanting to say that I've been thinking about that and something just recently hit me like a ton of bricks, something I should have realized from the start.

As you said, seduction is a sin. And it occured to me that the 18 year-old at your chapel was acting in a very seductive manner towards you. If I remember the story correctly, she even wanted to speak to you during Communion. As if it's not sinful enough for a woman to act seductive period, doing so during Mass is even worse. I was telling you that your mind should have been on God during Mass, yet somehow I didn't understand that it was her mind that obviously wasn't on God. A shame that she got away with it.

Not that I have a TLM to attend, but if I were to attend one and have a young girl acting flirtatious towards me, I would have tried to ignore her the best I could. And should she have persisted to the point where I could no longer ignore here, I would tell her after Mass in a kind way "During Mass, your mind is supposed to be on God. So I would appreciate it if you kept your mind on God rather than me, it's a distraction". If that didn't work, I would have reported it to the parish priest. Perhaps had you done this you wouldn't have been kicked out of your chapel, but what's done is done. Regardless, she is the one who is primarily to blame for acting flirtatious rather than having respect for God, and she obviously is not a good Catholic. Her parents must not have taught her how to act at Mass.

So, I sincerely apologize to you, Tele, for failing to grasp that on the now-closed "America and Courting 18 year old Virgins" thread. I obviously was having a problem properly comprehending the situation and am sorry for the trouble I caused on that thread.

God Bless.

I would set the cut-off at 15 because at that age pregnancy is no longer more dangerous to health than it is at later ages, but I can see why some would prefer 16.  Eighteen is too high, seventeen is far more reasonable, but if the age is set at 17 then the man should be able to use ignorance of the girl's age as a defense if she is really 16.

Age of consent laws were not originally established in order say when it was acceptable for people to engage in fornication.  In fact, these laws were on the books even after fornication was specifically made a crime in many jurisdictions.  The purpose of the age of consent laws was to differentiate crimes of different severity.  If the parties had reached the age of consent, then they could be prosecuted for a lesser crime of fornication.  If one of the parties had not reached the age of consent, then the other party would be prosecuted for a greater crime of statutory rape.  

In a truly Catholic country, fornication would be illegal and the age of consent law would identify the age in which a man and woman could marry,  which is 16 for a man and 14 for a woman though even the Church would discourage youthful marriages at these minimums (Canon 1067), and age of consent laws could actually be higher as long as there were provisions for exceptions down to these ages.

Why am I not surprised Tele wants to lower the legal age of consent?

It wouldn't help you get a teenage bride, Tele. The girls' fathers will still hate you and protect their daughters.

I brought up this subject because Mrs Z was worried about her son having a 17 year old girlfriend.

Parents of young men shouldn't have to worry about their sons being locked up if their girlfriends are 17.  I don't think any sane person could disagree with that.

I am not sure where Mrs/ Z lives or what her states law are .

I don't disagree with what you have written in the above. The laws in this area are often too harsh(romeo and juliet) or too lenient(rape, molestation, sex abuse).