I'd say (pls don't get angry with me without reading to the end), technically, there's some kind of point: if, like, a teen wants to have sex, there's quite a possibility (s)he finds a partner (not some old guy though) and feel happy about that; quite a number of my female friends around 16-17 had boyfriends and none of them ever seemed to be traumatized about having sex with their beloved partners.

However, they obviously didn't hit on some old creeps, instead going out with someone of the same age (highschool); and suggesting that a 16-20yo girl would be voluntary about smb like Epstein sounds at the very least as kind of stupidity, so this logic doesn't apply to most cases. It sounds a bit like saying 'let's find out if a person on the he verge of death really wants to live before saving him' - but even that case sounds a bit more sane.

But, sometimes people get punished - at least in my country - when the age combination is like 18 and 17; I find it... a bit ridiculous, because a gap of a year doesn't really help one to get enough influence or power or maturity over the other person. Or the campaign about 'let's ban young people from accessing porn', even though 'children' of say 16 kinda want to watch it on their own, so it's not like there's a victim or a reason to get a trauma at all (what stops the person from closing the tab if (s)he feels bad about what (s)he sees, after all?)

But RMS seems to have trouble understanding that actual paedophilic cases are not like the ones I descripted just above, and his logic doesn't work in those.