Reply #130: Only by definition (which changes with the swing of the pendulum)

[shimmergal]

a 21-year-old having consensual sex with a 16-year-old be considered
necessarily predatory.

In fact, this was the preferred pattern for mating and marriage until fairly recently. When I was in college (late 50s) it was unexceptional; there were even married student couples that fit this age description. And no, the younger (almost always the female) did not suffer any bad consequences from it, unless she stopped her education prematurely because of marriage or children being born.
Yes, time and mores change but there's not much reason behind this one. IMO, we've scapegoated these relationships as a proxy for the disapproval that used to be aimed at all non-marital sex.

Real pedophiles are different, they prey on pre-pubertal children. Or they're 30ish or beyond and turned on by the "innocence" of the same or the very recently post-pubertal. There's _no_ way you can equate the young man whose situation was described with a real pedophile.

Ideally, no kids would have "real sex" until after the high school years. But that isn't going to come about. There's no proof that a 16-year-old girl is harmed any more by having sex with a gentle and well-meaning 21-year-old than with a 16-year-old boy. It may even go the other way, as almost no 16-year-old males are capable of thinking much outside of the "ME" box yet.

Not a PC position, I know. But true nonetheless. If by definition a teenager can't be in a "consensual" relationship, how can she consent to obtaining birth control or abortion? Or even to having her ears pierced?