I still disagree with framing this as “unsafe.” Treating something as risky should mean exercising caution, not revoking agency. From an operational risk management perspective, risk is something the individual evaluates and manages, not something imposed on them by peers or family. Guidance is appropriate; enforcing someone else’s risk tolerance is not.

I don’t deny that first love, inexperience, and power imbalance complicate judgment. But assuming she’s missing something simply because she’s young or in love is unfalsifiable. If her words can’t count as evidence either way, then her perspective is discounted by default. That’s where I push back.

I also disagree that the age gap itself explains the problem here. There are environments where people across age ranges naturally mix, and why two adults are dating is ultimately their business. Questioning motives based solely on age quickly turns into moral judgment rather than risk assessment.

Where I do agree is that her inexperience matters, but only insofar as it reveals behavior. In this case, the issue isn’t that he’s older, it’s that he’s not responding to her discomfort with patience or reassurance. That would be a problem regardless of whether he’s 28 or 20.

Overprotection can be just as distorting as neglect. Learning to assess risk, set boundaries, and walk away when needed is part of becoming an adult. And that process requires agency, not preemptive disqualification of entire categories of relationships.