It would seem there are some people here who think there is nothing wrong with a twelve years old having sex.
Careful trying to construe that from my statements, particularly given emphasis on "of their own initiative."
12YO "sex" would likely consist of "show and tell," and some fondling/masturbation. Frankly beyond that is territory I knowingly chose not to contemplate, as I find the fondling/masturbation aspect w/pre-teens awkward enough as is. (Knowing full well I have memories of masturbating (in private) in the time frame which would have been 2nd Grade, which is much younger than 12)
But as mentioned while the "probable outcome" is "only" that, there are the precocious among us all the same.
There also is a world of difference between a 12YO doing so in the company of a peer vs doing so with a 30-something present. Although there are studies.... Regardless, even with those studies, if the adult initiated it, it's likely to be harmful. The challenge is determining which is which without going full on "big brother" on everybody everywhere.
My statement regarding life expectancy is true and we'll understood.
Generalizations and specific are two different things.
Not true, claiming life expectancy of 35 in regards to people's sexual decision making 200 years ago is patently wrong. By the time they reached their teens, simply by virtue of having survived childhood and reaching adolescence, they could reasonably expect to live to see at least their late 40's. 80 year olds were "reasonably common" but a very small overall percentage of a given population cohort(all people born that year, lived to see age 20).
But when it came to 50 year olds, once you add in "born in X Year and lived to have a 12th birthday" they were absolutely common. Anecdotally you could view that with the U.S. Constitution stipulating minimum age for PotUS as 35 years old. If life expectancy is only 36 in 1800, that seems to be a downright odd thing to mandate.
The other thing to remember is average life expectancy is an average, not a median, not a mean. And when the age groups most vulnerable to disease are the very young and very old, living in an era where disease is poorly understood. It isn't surprising to see high mortality rates for those under the age of 10. But that cycles us back to "if average life expectancy at birth is 35, and roughly a third of them will be dead before they turn 10, what does that mean for the rest of that cohort's lifespan?"
Remember, a big part of the reason for large families was because you couldn't count on popping out 2 kids and expect they'd live long enough to pop out 2 more of their own. So you have 6+ children so that in the event that something happens and kills most of them off, at least 2 remain who can go on to have children of their own. The 35 year life expectancy wasn't the consideration, childhood mortality rates were the concern.
There will always be those people who defy odds and live longer than others. They are the exceptions not the rule. To state that, or imply that, longer lifetimes as a rule occured then, is false.
I enjoy a good genetic legacy(even tested and verified as such at this point), but I have a family tree with all kinds of ancestors and relatives making it into their 60's, 70's, and 80's throughout the 19th century. Sure, I have others who died younger(usually due to accidents or warfare), or MUCH younger(childhood mortality rates), but as rule the expectation is that if a person lived long enough to become a teen, they're very likely to see their 50's at the least.
This isn't just anecdotal evidence from a family tree taken in isolation, this is information from demographers, gerontologists and a number of other experts who study these things as part of their jobs.
As for increased AOC to 25, again you get into extremes. Again, there will always be the exceptions to the rule.
But then who is the rule being written for and for what purpose?
If the rule is there to protect women from becoming pregnant before they're physically capable of safely carrying it, then the fact that some 20 year olds aren't physically capable of carrying a child to term is relevant.
Of course, this ignore IUDs, shots, or other contraception options which can be employed to mitigate that specific issue rather than prohibiting people from having sexing sex with them under penalty of law.
We can tap dance around this until hell freezes over. How about each of you grow a set and state what age you find it acceptable instead of redirection/logical fallacies.
And the problem here is you're trying to use age as proxy for something with which it is a poor proxy for. My personal line is apparent physical development paired with a psychological component. Personally I am more than fine with 18.
But I also know that is a myth, and reality will never conform to that short of someone figuring out how to medically intervene to make it so. Teenagers are going to be teens, and that means sexual activities are going to happen. Pretending it doesn't happen doesn't make it not happen. The healthier approach is finding a way to work with how things are rather than ignore reality.