Recently, the country of France has been embroiled in controversy for its age of consent, or more specifically, its lack thereof.
Basically, once a minor passes the age of consent, he or she can legally consent to sexual acts without said acts being classified as rape (obviously, there are specifications that apply in certain situations, but that's the general idea).
Different states in the United States have different ages of consent. In Georgia, it's 16, and in California, it's 18.
Now, what does all this have to do with France? Well, France doesn't have an age of consent. At least, not yet.
Lacking a consent age can have monumentally detrimental societal effects. If, say, a 35-year-old pedophile has sexual relations with a minor, and there was no "constraint, threat, violence or surprise" involved, they may not be convicted of rape. Such a system is dangerous, and clouds what it means to consent. Without an age of consent, cases involving what would be considered rape of a minor in the United States are deemed "consensual" in France.
It all comes down to one question: Can children and young teenagers consent? And the answer, which France has come to realize, is blatantly and obviously: no.
Perhaps I should defend the aforementioned assertion, but what I'm claiming, I believe, is not something that should be contested. A child should have the right to be a child. The idea that they can "consent" is dangerous and volatile, and could be used by pedophiles to justify morally reprehensible acts.
I applaud France for changing their existing consent laws. Thank you for taking a step in the right direction, however long it took to do so.