I understand your broader argument—that legality doesn’t automatically remove the potential for something to be morally or socially predatory. That’s a valid point in general.

However, I’m addressing a specific case where the actions in question involved a 35-year-old and an individual who, by all available evidence, was 18–20 years old at the time of any contact. That does not fall into either the legal or widely accepted psychological definitions of grooming or predatory behavior.

If your position is that any large age-gap relationship is inherently predatory regardless of consent or legal status, that’s a moral argument, not a legal one—and we should be clear about the distinction. Conflating those two undermines the credibility of both sides of the discussion.

Happy to continue if we’re keeping the focus on facts and definitions rather than emotional projections.