Because you don't seem to have a good grasp on the subtleties of language, or how debate differs from discussion: https://www.uopeople.edu/blog/debate-and-discussion/

Again.... We have opposing views. I understand your viewpoint, I just think they are wrong and to be honest, I have doubts that you are acting in good faith.

If 19 doesn't count as an adult, capable of making decisions for themselves, what does?

Just because you are an adult it doesn't mean you can't or should be manipulated.

In the instance of Corgan and Mendel's relationship, what evidence if there of taking advantage? If Corgan befriended a 19 year old male musician with no pre-tense of sexual gratification, would we assume that was an inappropriate relationship predicated on taking advantage of another adult?

What if the situation was a completetly different situation....?

What policy amendments would make a more fair world that reduced the sexualization of girls?

Legality does not dictate morality.

If your feminist values are actually based on dialectic materialism, you must be willing to acknowledge that the vast majority of your presumed critique of age-gap power imbalances are inherently due to wealth/affluence imbalances that are primarily contingent on contemporary capitalist sensibilities of the world.

If it is actual power imbalances that your critique is focused upon, you must be even more critical of worker/company power imbalances that drive society as a whole and acknowledge that Walmart has done more harm to society than every music star who has ever lived combined.

Your argument is that since Walmart is more evil, then disgusting old dudes get a pass?

You must also be aware and acknowledge that the intersectionality of wealth/race/class/gender/sexuality all conspire towards ones privileges in the world, but that outsized privilege in one of those areas of personhood can all but erase privilege-impacts from other areas of personhood. You must also be adamantly opposed to people of wealth pursuing relationships with people who do not have wealth?

Wealth imbalance in a relationship can and often is utilized to to abuse.

To be clear here, I am very critical of power imbalances and how hegemonic orderings of society reinforce such imbalances. This is why I am so critical of puritian aesthetics, as they operate on narratives of women being lesser than and in need of protection from nefarious men by virtuous men.

When did I say that this individual needs to be protected by a virtuous man? Are you claiming that any person who isn't a woman who is critical of the patriarchy is actually aping puritan aesthetics?

I reject those notions and choose to focus on empowering women to speak up and have space and support to do so when and where abuse occurs.

By supporting the same goals as the people abusing young women......

we follow your statements to a teleological ends, your argument is that no person should be allowed to enter into an activity/relationship that could cause them harm.

Again, I never said that. I just wouldn't support that decision. I would also be critical of the person in more power of the relationship.

Do you think that people should not be allowed to work dangerous jobs? Should they not be allowed to take out a business loan? Should they be allowed to get pregnant at all?

Are you not comeitical of unsafe work environments? Are you not critical of banks handing out predatory loans? Are you not critical of medical practices that inhibit safer pregnancy?

If a male partner manipulates/coerses/abuses an female partner of the same age, should it be given less scrutiny because that pre-cursor of age-gap was not present?

Again..... All abuse should be scrutinized. We should also scrutinized the trends that increase the likelihood of abuse, like power imbalances.

still don't know why you're bringing Epstein into this discussion. As far as I can tell you are looking at every relationship with a power differential as equivalent to Epstein

Your model does not differentiate between the two as you are evacuating all contextual information and boiling it down to "I believe in choice".

I don't see how it relates to discussions of adult relationships, unless you don't consider 19 year olds to be adults.

He abused young adults as well. And again legality does not dictate morality. If it was bad to do to a 17 year old, it's also bad to do to a 18 year old.

It's also interesting that you focus on Epstein, when Maxwell was seemingly the person who was responsible for establishing relationships with young women towards their eventual rape and abuse.

For who?

The common thread between Maxwell and Epstein being wealth and lust for power, not gender identity or age. I guess invoking notions of a female predator would undermine your thesis of old-man=evil?

Again, I've said several times that sex is just one aspect of relationship imbalances. Again, ignoring this fact leads me to believe you are not acting in good faith and are just as miserable of a person as the ideas you vomit forth.