Okay, at this point I'm only responding to your bullshit so that anyone who is watching this understands why you're wrong. I knew i shouldn't of wasted my time writing out actual arguments since you obviously don't want to respond to them (and since you're obviously too fucking stupid to be able understand them) and just want to blindly assert your nonsense without backing it up with logic or evidence, use an appeal to popularity fallacy, ignore the fact that two people don't have to be equals (or close to it) to consent, and once again, ignore the reality of consent in terms of its ACTUAL requirements, which are, a desire to engage in an activity and the ability to intellectually understand that activity and it's potential consequences.

If a 14-year-old can consent to another 14-year-old, there is no reason they can't do so with anyone of any age, due to the fact that the individual possesses the abilities or requirements for sex. Engaging with someone older doesn't automatically override those abilities; it will and can only happen if the older person ACTUALLY coerces the younger one with a SEPARATE coercive action. Stating otherwise is making a supernatural-like claim that is saying that the older person somehow negates the mental capabilities of the younger person just because they are older.

To finish up here, the first part of your post is just assuming that your conclusion is true and is supported in those contexts (evidence?), which is irrelevant to whether or not your conclusion is true and is the begging the question fallacy where you continue to assert your conclusion in your premises without actually supporting them with logic or evidence.

''Most people do not though. They see those situations for what they are'' First, an Ad Populum or appeal to popularity fallacy, just because most people agree with a claim or assertion doesn't the claim or assertion true. Secondly and once again, you are implicitly assuming that your conclusion is true by saying that you and those other people see those situations ''for what they are''. You are stuck on the begging the question fallacy and also on a non-sequitur from up above since you think that two people being equal (or close to it) has any logical connection to their ability to consent to each other, again, if they both have the aforesaid requirements, they can both consent, even if they are not equals in intelligence or anything else. You are detached from reality and simply don't understand consent if you think otherwise.

''You can write a wall of text if you want, but just say you disagree with the reasons'' Uh, no? This isn't a matter of opinion. All of your nonsense can easily be refuted and exposed with logic and actual THINKING. You would know this if you weren't a lazy clown that refuses to read and comprehend 5-7 paragraphs of text at a time.