I was clear in my formulation that while the minor's word is final on the question of consent, it is not on the question of what activities actually took place. The usual standards of evidence and proof must apply to that aspect of the situation:
A girl or boy doesn't have to prove lack of consent -- if she says it was undesired and everyone agrees that sex took place, that's the end of the story.

Which completely makes clear my point that the statement of one person is favored over another without question and without a requirement for investigation or the presentation of evidence based on gross exceptionalist privileges given to one of the two based on entirely arbitrary factors (their age, and maybe to some degree their gender). This, as I said, blatantly invites unscrupulous and extortionist behavior from certain youths, and this is hardly a worthwhile "trade-off" as far as objective notions of justice are concerned. It constitutes, as I said, a strange combination of condescension and coddling.

You lump me inappropriately with liberals on the issue of believing women over men and a lack of concern for due process. I am deeply concerned about this issue, for instance the recent policies adopted on college campuses that deprive men of due process.

I consider this a flip-flop on your part, Ethan, because you blatantly cast aside the notion of due process for the hypothetical older partner of a girl in an intergenerational relationship. This strongly demonstrates a favoring of sentiment over due process. And you have made similar comments showing a form of condescending coddling of women based on a belief in an inherent greater degree of emotional vulnerability in women than men.

From the perspective of society at large, my view on forgiving adult-teen sex unless the teen feels she was wronged would mostly be seen as scandalously, shockingly pro-child-abuse.

But it still conveniently casts aside any requirement for due process, out of the alleged concern that due process and the democratic presumption of innocence unless guilt is proven would allow some guilty people to at least temporarily go free.

From that perspective, my being concerned about lack of due process for men is entirely consistent.

Not if you feel that a man should be indicted solely on the basis of a mere accusation from anyone due to such an arbitrary factor such as age. That, in my estimation, is not a good compromise with society but an outright pandering, and it will strongly encourage the worst and most vindictive nature in many youths. I don't think it's unfair to speculate you may hope that effectively rendering every young person untrustworthy under this schema would deter many adults from avoiding romantic involvement with them in the first place. Of course, that won't stop some of the unscrupulous among young people from taking advantage of this sweetheart deal even in the absence of sexual contact, since all they will have to do is simply claim something happened, since they know the legal policy will be to always take their word without question "just in case" the accused actually did it. Such a concern is obviously widespread in society, which is why that dark joke was included in an episode of Gotham.