Don't you think you are misinterpreting Baldur's statements here a bit, Markie?

I don't think he ever meant to imply that you just "dump" a child you had a relationship with when they reach puberty (if the older person happened to be a pedophile; or once they age out of adolescence, if their partner was a hebephile). I think what he meant was that the love would always remain, but the relationship itself will change form. This in no way means simply "dumping" or expiating the younger person from your life in a cruel, selfish, and callous manner, and I don't believe Baldur would ever suggest such a thing. After all, the sexual component to the relationship is not the only aspect to it for a genuine MAA; the emotional and social connection you made would potentially last a lifetime. I have known many gerontophiles who had relationships with adults when they were younger who reported remaining close friends with their former love interest once they grew out of his/her preferred AoA.

As for once again declaring that younger people are more emotionally vulnerable than adults, that is another example of overcompensation, because that largely depends on the individual. There are scant examples in all objective research about younger people who were utterly devastated when a relationship with a much older partner ended to a disproportionate degree than a relationship ending with a peer. Saying otherwise is just social mythology. An important reading recommendation I am giving you is the book Going All The Way by Susan Thompson. The book extensively deals with the sexual lives of underage girls, and Thompson interviewed literally hundreds of girls and young women about this subject. The whole book is interesting, but in Chapter 7 Thompson specifically interviewed a multitude of girls and young women who had romantic relationships with significantly older people when they were underage, and nothing she heard in the numerous responses bore out the common mythology of the girl who is "totally messed up" by a relationship with an adult ending, or suffering to a greater extent than they would when a relationship with a peer ends. There is no logic or science behind that at all, just societal assumptions based upon a skewed view of youth competency and emotional resilience.

This assumption also presupposes a very strange concern (or over-concern, as they case may be): that the adult MAA/MAP is likely, let alone inevitably, going to lose interest in their partner before their younger hypothetical lover will lose interest in them. Any MAA should be aware of how fast younger people change compared to adults, and younger people are notorious for being fickle and mutable with their feelings. Romantic feelings that children or younger adolescents may have for adults will tend to run their course naturally on the part of the younger person long before they age out of their adult partner's preferred AoA. And yes, girls are often quite callous about this when it happens, depending upon the girl. Saying that the younger person is taking the bulk of the emotional risk in an intergenerational relationship is another popular bit of social mythology. Though we readily understand that romantic relationships that younger people have with peers are likely to be transitory, for some odd reason we believe that when a younger person falls in love with an older person, they do so for life, and in an entirely monoamorous fashion. This, of course, makes no logical sense.