I think it’s pretty obvious that this guy wants access to children, sexual access. There is simply no reason to be so wrapped up with the “arbitrary” age of 18. The alternative to setting a “one age fits all” standard would be regular and routine psychological testing of adolescents for decision-making ability and not only would this be impractical, it would simply shift your opponent’s outrage from the “arbitrary age” to "the tyranny of the government-administered tests." Again, government is keeping him from the underaged bodies he craves. And since the test score would replace the "arbitrary age of consent," there would be those who would never pass, who in their 30s or 40s or 60s would still not be allowed to do things that everyone is "arbitrarily" granted on the 18th birthday. And frankly this guy is dumb. “Divided states” wasn’t even funny once but he kept repeating it. His threat to report responses was indicative. His use of “proof” instead of “evidence” shows a weak education if not a weak mind. And resentment of government is increasingly tiresome. So he had to wait his turn at the DMV. This shouldn’t be the basis of an ideology. Edit: about your introduction here. It's easy to see promiscuity in a relationship as a moral issue. But when a relationship began with a pledge of monogamy and one partner breaks that pledge, the issue isn't morality, it's betrayal. My first two relationships each lasted four years because my partners wanted to pursue sexual fantasies. If the original agreement had been that the relationship was sexually open that would be a different thing, but I don't have a lot of confidence in the longevity of such pairings.