Victimless crimes, some would probably ask how are they "Victimless?" An example would gay marriage, because it isn't harming anyone, in the end. If said otherwise, the arguments probably run along with three easy questions to ask said aggressor: Is it hurting you or anyone and preventing you from living your life the way you see fit? Is it preventing you from practicing whatever you may practice? Is it taking away anything from you, besides maybe discomforting you? If those are a yes, then what about drug usage? Drug useage, in all of it's controversy around legalizing it, has no solid victim. As removing the interpersonal relationship strain that is a possibility from the action itself, there is no actual harm other than to the user due to negligence being done. There are a few victimless crimes that may of had some purpose, that being protection, usually. An example of an attempt at protection at the time of it's creation would be Age of Consent laws, as most if not all of them have documents tracing back to them being wrote around the time of legalizing child labor. Being concerned for the fact children could very well be forced into underage prostitution, it was wrote with the intent to prevent it, with questionable useage, as other measures could of been taken. Now, it seems like Age of Consent only exists to prevent teens from having sexual freedom and only farther support the unreasonable absistance-only sex ed we now see in the majority of US curricula in all schools. Polygamy laws are of unsure origin, but there is reason the presume it had something to do with the mutual dislike between the Catholic-Christian majority of colonists and Pagan or otherwise native beliefs. Some may say that in order for it to be a crime, there has to be a victim. That statement should be true, but what are victimless crimes? The stage should be simple for that: no harm, no personal loss, and no loss of freedom. As there has to be loss or harm. Otherwise, the very definition of a victim is lost.