Its not at all the same thing. Viewing teenage girls as sexual objects is morally corrupt, across all societies. It doesn't matter if it was the disgusting norm 4000 years ago, it was morally corrupt then, and is morally corrupt now.
Its a social boundary, not one based in colour, or in institutions, but in common decency. I understand what you're saying, but cherry-picking, and using a straw man argument to defend male predators, doesn't make it any better. Its still wrong.
Um, no it isn't. The idea of girls being too young is a new phenomenon, regulated principally by social contract, but not by the individual.
Ask any guy who he wouldn't deal with a 16 year old girl. Most would say the laws. A sizeable amount would say because they remember what it was like to deal with those girls when you were that age. I'm of the latter opinion, because if it was that big a deal that people wouldn't have relations with these young'ns, we wouldn't have varying ages of consent.
Across the world, girls have been married or simply in sexual situations with grown men, but it is accepted that those men don't have to manipulate those girls
because it isn't socially condemned. Its like teachers having relations with kids. Or girls you know in high school as young as 13 having sex with men in their 20s.
Hell no I don't believe it is a good idea, but it is arbitrary how people came to the conclusion that it isn't right. Understandably, we aren't dying in droves before 50
years of age (men) so it isn't necessary to impregnate youngin's, but it doesn't technically make it wrong suddenly. We just assume that adults will exert
their will over the kids, which is the real danger. In certain European countries you can tap 14 year olds and it is no thing. It really is a culture to culture issue, not
a moral one.
Keep in mind, I am only using your logic and applying to widespread to another situation. 
....
....being the presidents daughter means shell never have to deal with unwanted advances in real life.
