I dont know how you arrived at this conclusion. Various example where given in this thread, but they are generic examples, with no intent whatsoever to link statutory rape laws to a certain sex.And from this, we've ridden the game out to the point where we say that laws against minors having sex are to protect boys from the consequences of sex?
Im sorry, but this is simply not true.The intent of laws against minors having sex is to protect females from becoming a teenage mom with no support from the dad. The law is intended more for the consequences of teenage pregnancy on the infant than on the teen.
The statutory rape laws only incriminate adults performing sex with minors which are under the age of consent. Two underage partners of close or same age do not fall in this category. You cant legislate the age at which one decides have sex. Sex between two minors over a certain age , but below age of consent, is as probable to produce offspring as it is sex between an underage and an adult. Furthermore, it is not incriminate by laws.
Conservators usually don't. Nor christian fundamentalists. (Im not inferring you are part of any of those categories). This is why this is fought politically.I never understood the logic behind "If he's old enough to vote, he ought to be allowed to drink!"