Consensual, underaged sex does not cause significant damage, physically or psychologically, period. When are people going learn this? That just because one is below a certain age, they somehow someway more susceptible to “damage”? Unless by “damage” you mean to the negative reactions brought on by the teen girl or boy who was caught in the relationship. Maybe he or she got a slap on the wrist by their parents or got scolded to their room for the night. Maybe they weren’t allowed to have that slice of chocolate cake for dinner. Maybe he or she got grounded and couldn’t use their phone for a week or two. Sure, they call “damage”, I call it “laughable”. Whatever the case is, the teen gets to move on and resume his or her life, while the real victim are teacher who rot in prison for years for victimless sex.

If an article is going to claim “abuse” or emotional damage for a victim(s), please, for the love of God, ask the willing “victim(s)” what they thought of the encounter before you assume. I guarantee you that I will be right 99% of time that no damage was ever garnered in the first place. When will there be a day where the system will have handle out a copy of the Rind 1998 study to every judge on the bench? Soon?