If an infant could demonstrate the ability to give informed consent to sex, then I’d say he or she should be allowed to have sex. Similarly, if my aunt sprouted a penis, she’d become my uncle. My knowledge of human biology tells me that neither of those things are going to happen, though, so the question is moot.
Where does it come from? How do you know whether someone has it or not?
Until you can answer those questions, you’re in no position to make any claims about whether maturity is tied to age or anything else.
I doubt you knew about orgasms, or arousal, or the mechanics of sex beyond “this goes in there and then nine months later a baby appears”.
But perhaps you did. In that case, perhaps you’d like to explain what it is that you didn’t know, but you do know today, that makes the difference between being able or unable to give informed consent.
In other words: if someone can know what sex is, what it can lead to, and express a desire to have sex, what could he still be lacking? And don’t throw out some vague, meaningless term like “social maturity” - be specific.
Specifics, please. Which consequences are they incapable of appreciating? And how does the passage of time magically render them able to appreciate those consequences?
No. What’s good enough is an informed agreement, made in sound mind and without coercion.
Being “vulnerable”, in the sense that something bad happened to you in the past and made you more likely to make certain decisions in the future, does not prevent you from giving informed consent. Everyone is shaped by their past. Maybe you hate brussels sprouts because you were force-fed them as a kid, but you can still make an informed decision as to what to have for dinner today, even though that decision will be affected by the trauma you suffered in the past.
I agree completely. What I disagree with is the claim that this consent is automatically invalid, just because it’s rare or because you can trace it back to a past event.