I've noticed this alot lately. 14-18 y/o are referred to as "children" when they more appropriately should be referred to as young adults. I for one believe it is orwellian language to further certain political agendas. For instance, it is said since a 16 y/o is a child he/she never know what they're doing. There was a 16 y/o that lured some british tourists into a trap in which he robbed them and shot them to death. This happened in New Orleans. Now I can here some libtard right now saying "you can't try him as an adult, he's just a CHILD! He didn't know what he was doing." Us sane people can see that that is bullshit. If you don't know by the age of 16 that you shouldn't rob and kill people, then you never will. Most people know that by age 10.
And why do some people, especially feminists, accuse men attracted to teenage girls as pedophiles? Pedophiles are attracted to pre-pubescent children. A 27 y/o man sexually attracted to a 16 or 17 y/o girl or young woman wearing booty shorts and a halter top, with double d breasts and a body shaped like a coke bottle, complete with eyeliner and lip gloss is not a pedophile, just a normal heterosexual man. And most men who say they wouldn't be attracted to such a girl because shes a "child" is bullshitting themselves. That or they're gay.
But why not refer to teens as young men/women, why resort to orwellian language? A "child" until recently meant someone under 14. If you want to get real technical, the brain doesnt fully develop until after 25. So a 23 y/o gangbanger shouldn't be held responsible for a robbery and double murder he committed. Or a 27 y/o man having sex with his 21 y/o girlfriend should be considered a sick pedo, because even though she likes to have sex with her boyfriend, she really doesn't know what she's doing, therefore he's really taking advantage of her.
In the end, to be in the wrong is to be attracted to the physical features of a young girl, not those of a young woman.