[For further elucidation of my theories concerning nymphetal philokalia and why the age of consent should be lowered, see Courtship, the chapter of my book, Exact Morality for Today, in which these matters are discussed. Alternatively, download (for free) my book at Exact Morality for Today.]
It is my contention that, compared with women, girls are especially pleased by moral goodness in males. I herein shall give an outline of this theory, which also is outlined in my book, Exact Morality for Today. It is not reasonable on the face of it to suppose that a group of people would evolve to mate as early as in the group's self-interest. Indeed, it is clear that, all else equal, evolution occurs at a rate inversely proportional to the time period between generations. However, if something evolves somewhat previously to what it otherwise would, the advantage of that is mainly to distant descendants, who get to use their useful trait in a slightly less evolved world easier to compete in. These distant descendants are but little related to the individuals which caused by earlier mating the trait to occur earlier than it would have; so self-interest won't suffice to ensure people want to mate sufficiently early. But unless the trait will always be particularly useful to the group, there is no reason to suppose that in distant generations the trait will be inside the group any more than outside the group. Indeed, there is always going to be a certain amount of (desirable) intermating between those inside the group and those outside the group, so the useful trait will before long likely be common outside the group to about the same extent it is common inside the group. Thus, for instance, if a person behaves so as to advance morality, caring unselfishly for moral persons, though she effectively is a member of her particular moral group, and a large portion of her future genetic material (that encouraging her morality) will always be more in the moral group than otherwise, there is no reason to suppose that whatever talent traits arise better in her on account of her tendency to mate early will in the long run especially be in the moral group. Thus, there is no particular reason to suppose that altruism selection or some kind of group selection would in fact select for mating early. Caring unselfishly for beauty is a short-term advantage to an individual, because it tends to make one have children via talented individuals who because they tend to share your unselfishness and love you, will likely love you unselfishly; but there is no analogous short-term gain as regards caring unselfishly for mating early. If mating early be good, it would appear that otherwise good people who are indifferent to mating early would prosper better than good people who love mating early, which gives no explanation for how, even in good people, mating early could arise.
Yet, it is quite in the interest of good people as a whole to mate early. Why? Because moral virtue and skills related to morality would be expected to always be more common in good people than in bad people, and so would evolve much faster and better than otherwise if good people mated early, much to the advantage of moral goodness and moral people. In fact, I posit that there is a phenomenon that (desirably) encourages moral females (or more particularly, those females who tend to love moral males) to mate early, a phenomenon I call nymphetal philokalia.Before I explain my hypothesis, let me counter an argument frequently given, namely that good females, alone caring about mating only those worthy of love, in fact should mate later than bad females, because bad females on account of their indifference to moral worth don't need to be patiently careful in judging the moral worth of those they mate with. In fact, there are at least two equally weighty reasons why immoral females would tend to wait longer. First, moral worth in fact is easier and quicker to judge than an ability to prosper in the world, and bad females like good females are concerned with the latter. Second, bad females are much more concerned than good females in mating for wealth, and so one would expect that bad females would spend more time judging the present or future wealth likely to be gotten from their prospective mate and that they would more tend to wait to make sure someone providing more wealth won't come by later.
Moral goodness is easier to judge in an individual than an ability to prosper; it follows that there is an age (early adolescence, probably) at which a typical good girl could judge quite accurately the morality of a male she is considering as a mate, but not judge particularly well his ability to prosper. Now, only immoral people are likely to be deceptive in mating. (Moral people consider it immoral to deceive those they love, and since they tend to mate those they love, they don't have much use for deception, and so it hasn't evolved well. Also, they don't want to give good people a bad name by being too deceptive). Thus, a young female knows that if she feels like she wants to mate a good person, she isn't feeling that way because he deceived her (she to a larger extent than an older female might desire to mate on account of an error on her part, but a just as likely error is that he is much better than he would have to be for her to want to mate with him). It follows that it is actually not unreasonable to suppose even from normal considerations that, compared with women, girls might tend to mate good males more than bad males. However, it must be admitted that bad males to a certain extent do profit by (1) making themselves seem more moral than they are, (2) making girls think themselves desirous of something it is not in their nature to desire (3) making girls think selfishness is more profitable than it is. It is also relevant that to the extent girls are deceived into mating, the ability to deceive is a somewhat useful trait selfish girls in particular wouldn't mind in their offspring. A good guess is that if only normal considerations were involved, selfish males effective at deceiving would on average be more pleasing (fake pleasure, but pleasure nonetheless) to girls than good males would, whereas selfish males not good at deceiving would on average be less pleasing to girls than good males would. But, of course, my hypothesis is that something else is involved, in fact making good males more pleasing than bad males of any flavor, and making girls extremely displeased by a possibility of deception in prospective mates.
If a good male is desired by a young female well enough to mate with him while she is still young, she must desire him especially strongly, because her uncertainty as to his worth (especially her uncertainty as to his ability) is likely to be so great that she must know that by waiting her judgment of him may change markedly (in either direction). Notice that for a good male who is pleasing especially to young females, it is equally likely that he is more worthy of mating than he appears to girls than it is that he is less worthy than he appear to girls. But if a bad male is especially desired by young females, likely the cause of that is that he is unusually able to deceive young females and that he has little appeal to older, less deceivable females. So in fact, it is extremely likely that he is less worthy of mating than he appears to girls. He is more deceptive than the girl is likely to think. If his non-deceptive abilities were special, he would also have special appeal to older females, but he does not. And his powers of deception are not really that useful in the adult world, inasmuch as they are not likely to be of much use on the adults whom alone it is useful to manipulate in making money.
Sperm selection is what causes nymphetal philokalia. Presuming, as seems likely, young females select for different sperm than older females, then a good young female having sex with a good male is, from the preceding paragraph, likely to select for those extremely special traits of good males loved (sexually) by young females. On the other hand, the body of a young female mating with a bad male would likely select for sperm with much genetic material from those pathetic male ancestors who tended to resort to trickery to get young females because they had no ability to appeal to older females. A young female having sex with a good male is likely to have children with abilities inherited from the father that on average are more awesome than his abilities, while a young female having sex with a bad male is likely to have children with abilities inherited from the father that on average are more lame than his abilities. Since sexual pleasure in females is mostly caused by the fitness of the genetic material with which she mates, girls are especially pleased by moral goodness in males, the phenomenon I call nymphetal philokalia.
The interested reader may want to explore other similar questions. For instance, another theory of mine is that it is slightly more moral (but not particularly more pleasant) for older females to mate with young males than older males. Suffice it to say that this and many other related questions are explored in my online book, Exact Morality for Today. One thing I will mention is that society should be set up so young females can more easily mate with older males as opposed to young males (well, actually only if no marriage is involved). Indeed, girls thinking about sex are properly very emotional because a more rational outlook takes a very long time to come to meaningful conclusions about life, and so to the extent a girl arrives quickly at her values and self-understanding otherwise than just by taking what others say at face value, she really has to be emotional. And ideally a girl really ought to have some understanding of her own values and self-awareness before choosing a guy for sex (otherwise her ability to engage in meaningful sexual selection won't be selected for by her decision). Now, what particularly screws up the emotions and thus deceives young females is sexual abuse (sodomy), which young males are pretty much just as effective at as older males. Indeed, young males are just as strong (and able to rape or forcibly sodomize) as older males (in fact, stronger, usually), and their semen is doubtless just as addictive as that of older males. So the kind of bad males who tend to dominate young girls pretty much peak in the abilities they use when they are young, while the kind of good males who appeal to young girls peak when they are older. Therefore, so far as the attentions of young females are concerned, good older males can compete with bad older males much more easily than good younger males can compete with bad younger males. Since it is in the interest of goodness for young females (like any sort of females) to mate especially with good males, it follows that it is more in the interest of goodness for young females to more easily be able to mate with older males than young males, especially as regards relationships especially rewarding to the male.
At any rate, the age of consent to have sex should be lowered considerably.