Besides the fact 'he' may be a 'she' (I can't be bother to check, since it doesn't seem important) ;)

It doesn't take a genius to assume

Anything. Just from this limited exchange you don't seem like one to me, and I've not made any such lofty claim. It's tedious attempting to have civil discussions with cocksure know it alls, so please forgive me if I seem that way to you.

[the preferences of consensual adults in the dating world] are the type of relationships he had in mind when creating his post

You infer context qualifies OPs claim, effectively weakening it, making it conditional. That doesn't seem unreasonable, 'common sense' if you like, but they could deny it, possibly having meant it unconditionally. If context does qualify the claim, that seems to contradict 'no matter why', and if it doesn't then extreme contexts (or extreme examples if you prefer it said that way) have to then be dealt with. Maybe it's dumb but it seemed safer and surer to me sticking to what they typed and not inferring too much. Thank you for inadvertently agreeing with the criticism, that it was 'too strong, rash, and categorical'. Admitting it requires 'context' means it's categorical. That seems contradictory with 'no matter why', the latter being a 'too strong and rash' claim of uncategorical truth. True under all circumstances including

rape & pedophilia.

If it was true under all circumstances (beyond those you believe it's safe to restrict it to), it would be uncategorically true, but evidently context matters a great deal to both you and the application of the principle. The latter would mean OPs relying on other implicit assumptions or intuitions, and the principle is essentially incomplete on it's own. That makes it more of a rule of thumb or advice, or maybe a rationalization.

However it's possible even uncategorical in context it's still a dangerous principle to follow. You've just complicated it by adding 'consensual adults', neither notion seeming any clearer and less controversial.

The examples were obviously extremes, to demonstrate as clearly as possible extremely malignant negative consequences of following such a benign seeming principle and merely being consistent. It seems likely they never considered (hopefully outliers like) rape and pedophilia, whether or not they demonstrate how undesirable and unfortunate the consequences of taking a principle seriously could be.

For a less extreme but more realistic or fairly common example you may be more comfortable with 'in context', consider parents and adult children (children of the age of majority). Do you think parents should have no influence whatsoever with regards to who their children date? This is a perennial topic of friction and debate, meeting the family. For younger or dependent children, it would seem a very unjust abrogation of parents just and natural authority that they can't have a sort of veto power, e.g. 'So long as you live under my roof, you will not see X'. Similarly, some people believe people should not date outside their church or race, though these opinions publicly expressed are by and large considered bigotted and unfair.

So you don't mistake my meaning, I'm not advocating arranged dating like marriages, but just want to clarify whether the principle might have comparatively subtle hidden dangers, like being some form of radically antisocial and selfish hedonism of either individuals or couples. Not all lovers are admirable, e.g. Bonnie and Clyde. Thanks for your contribution, you're welcome to disagree further with anything I've written, I just hope the arguments and positions I've presented (as strong or weak as they may be) are at least reasonably clear.