OnionPetal,
I can't disagree with most of this.
Sure, let's talk about those rare minority of cases, which DISPROVE everything antis assert about children. Antis assert that sexual activity is inherently 'harmful' to minors. But if the older partner no longer consents to sexual activity, then they are also harming minors by withholding this 'harmful' activity? Antis frequently assert that children aren't mature enough to feel true romantic love. And at the same time, if the relationship fizzles out, we are to believe that the child will be romantically devastated by the love they could not even feel? Well which is it? Nevermind how exceedingly rare it would be for a MAP to suddenly ditch a kid, despite the kid pleading for their kisses.
To play 'devil's advocate,' not that I don't think this is something that should be seriously considered, a personalized rejection from an older partner whom one has history with might be more damaging than their never having been open to a relationship to begin with (especially if it's understood that their justification is not wanting to 'exploit' or hurt the younger partner and not the younger party's lack of attractiveness as an individual). When you already have a relationship with someone (and I think this applies to sources of happiness in general) you become 'addicted' to them, it becomes familiar and something you expect which is why the death of someone you're emotionally attached to will probably hurt more than the death of someone you like and respect but never had a close long-term relationship with (I don't think this contradicts my belief that, unlike emotional attachment, over-familiarity breeds sexual desensitization). Even though I don't think that there's anything inherently wrong with incest (parent-child or otherwise) and I'm not turned off by the idea of a sexual/romantic relationship with a hypothetical/fantasy daughter, I think there's an argument to be made that people benefit when they can rely on their opposite-sex parent (or same-gendered parent if they're gay) for an unconditional love that stands regardless of how attractive they are (I can think of one or two youtubers who have stated this better than I have). That unconditional love isn't necessarily incompatible with self-serving sexual attraction but it might 'complicate' things for some people or you could argue, for example, that a girl's father should be the 'one' man she never has to worry about what she brings to the table in their relationship or 'pleasing' him in order for him to reciprocate her attraction (I'm definitely not trying to come up with a hard fast rule that applies to all scenarios, even practical ones, I'm just considered arguments rooted in risk aversion). Imagine, for example, that even at a young age your appearance changes and the insecurities that might stem from an older partner breaking things off because they're no longer physically attracted to you. To be fair, that has nothing to do with age-gap relationships per se; children and teens can be rejected by other children and teens, adults are rejected by other adults, the only way I can see that being notable when it's children is because they are especially vulnerable but I don't think the distress of the vulnerable fundamentally matters more; vulnerability should be considered because vulnerable people are more likely to suffer to begin with (and again, young people can be rejected by other young people).
That might be a moot point in terms of the stereotypes that actually exist (or the actual reasons why people condemn minor-adult relationships), but it's something to consider (and individuals matter even when they're statistical anomalies). I've also never understood the idea that what teenagers feel is 'puppy love' and they don't know what 'real love' is (I probably disagreed with that assumption long before my attitude on child-adult sex changed, all of the hormones that play a role in romantic infatuation are present in teenagers) but I think so much of the idea of 'love' or romantic relationships has nothing to do with what people actually feel, so maybe some of them mean that they're not mature enough to take commitments seriously which I think is still backwards.
Sexual/romantic frustration in children is something people should care about but most will never, ever take it seriously (it might be because we're not used to thinking of happiness as having 'moral value' so sexual pleasure/the euphoria associated with infatuation is seen as supererogatory and if one eliminates their desire for sex and romance then the absence of it won't bother them anymore). It's not even a factor in the equation, to be weighed against risks and costs of a less restrictive approach to adolescent sexuality. That said, I want to be honest in assuming that adults would be the primary beneficiaries of loosening up restrictions (when it comes to age-gap stigma where the young party is seen as a victim, not necessarily condemning or socially ostracizing teenage girls for being 'sluts'). I don't want to undermine the heartache a child or teenager might feel as a result of not being allowed intimacy with a specific adult, or even another child or young teen, whom they love (and no one knows what tomorrow brings so the opportunity might not exist later, which relates to the point I'm getting ready to make. It's also worth noting that the stigma around older teens being with significantly older partners could affect them the same way even if sex with legal adults after 16 or 17 is perfectly legal. Many people might not even want to have sex, they might just want to go on dates and be in relationships in the same way that a Christian couple can date while waiting until marriage before they have actual sex), but at least with them the idea is that you can have all the sex you want to when you come of age but if you prefer significantly younger partners you're not just expected to endure a delay in gratification; you are never supposed to have the opportunity to be with someone you're attracted to (or prefer, depending on how exclusive your interests are). That doesn't apply to children or young teens who will strongly prefer their own age group even as they age though.
Not 'inevitably.' Perhaps the simplest rebuttal is the relationship of Eunice and Charlie Johns, whose happy marriage lasted a full lifetime.
I can't disprove this but I don't believe it. I don't doubt that many people
love their spouses until the day that they die but a relationship built on basic companionship, loyalty and commitment is not sexual attraction or even infatuation. Commitment is a choice but people have no direct control over who they're sexually attracted to (I'm not convinced that they even have indirect control, say through some kind of conversion therapy). I don't believe that people's sexual preferences change in 'significant' ways over time, even if they settle for less than ideal partners as they age.
To go back to the point I made in my other post, insofar as someone admits to a preference for young people I don't think it's unreasonable to assume an aversion to long-term commitment (romantic commitments, not 'I will always care for you' commitment), depending on how strong or exclusive their preference is. I'm not sure how common it might be for people to claim that their partners in their 60s, 70s and beyond are their physical ideal or even that they're sexually attracted to them, the idea is often that as you get older 'you care less about looks' which might imply that they're not claiming to be strongly physically attracted to them which might undermine my point but when you remove physical attraction I don't know what besides cohabitation and a sense of exclusivity (or the formal label of wife/husband, girlfriend/boyfriend or significant other) distinguishes a 'romantic' relationship from platonic ones. If you can reasonably ask people to commit to people they're not physically attracted to, I don't see why you can't expect gays to open themselves up to long-term relationships with opposite-sex people. It seems to me that the general cultural norm is some level of dishonesty about one's attraction or the nature of sex and 'romance' and that if we were all brutally honest about how sexual attraction works, the idea of a free love culture without formal commitments ('romantic' commitments, not friendship or valuing the welfare of the other person unconditionally) or exclusivity; where sex and physical intimacy associated with it (e.g. cuddling and kissing) were just seen as recreational/casual bonding activities with people you're attracted to, might seem less unacceptable.