You mean making a girl (let's say she's 14) wait two years for partner sex with an adult partner (as opposed to one roughly her age).

If that is her choice? Yes. If she happens to be a mesophile and that is how she swings? Yes. That should be her choice, not the powers that be in society.

Sexual freedom is indeed a vital freedom in society, and there is no justification for blanket prohibition over empowerment and availability of scientifically objective information to enable young people to make the best choice for them as individuals. So, yes, I totally disagree with you that sex is not important, Ethan. And I likewise disagree that society choosing a girl's potential romantic partners based on its own moralistic sensibilities isn't a big deal.

When we're making a cost-benefit trade-off,

Freedom of choice with full access to objective support networks is proven by history to be the better "trade-off" than prohibition laws that deny someone their full citizenship rights, demonizes a group of people simply for wanting to have relationships with them that may be natural for both parties involved, and which is based on moralizing assumptions--not to mention the draconian precedents it sets on the rest of society, including the excuses it provides to the government for creating police state and invasive surveillance measures.

with huge benefits to prohibition and this is the worst cost we can come up with for a few girls, I'll stand by it 100%.

You'll stand by any measure that preserves the power and authority structures that you're accustomed to, whatever the cost. Your near-obsessive focus on just sexual rights while ignoring the numerous ways the status quo you support harms kids outside the sexual realm provides disturbing evidence that looking after the well-being of girls has nothing to do with your agenda. Rather, preserving the power structures as they are by preventing kids from entering relationships where adults will treat them as equals and full human beings is the actual agenda. Youth liberationists, whether MAPs or not, discuss the entire spectrum of safety issues for kids, and resolving them via democratic measures. Your ilk, on the other hand, focuses almost exclusively on the sexual issues while giving full tolerance and a free pass to all else that adult-controlled society approves of and/or is willing to tolerate. There is no overlooking the evidence if one is truly objective.

You have said yourself, including here, that you will stand behind draconian measures even if they only arguably may help a few girls. That is absolutely extremist, and shows that your contempt for democracy and freedom is rivaled only by your contempt for youth competency.

Hence, I and others of my stripe will oppose you 100%.