This would be a much, much stronger argument if we were raising girls to be strong independent women. (And boys to be strong independent men.)

But between all the helicopter parenting and counterfactual panic about predators (yes: they exist; no: they're not more common than ever, they're less common than ever) and filling all unstructured time with school and after-school classes and homework, nigh-existential panics about whether we're giving enough trigger warnings and safe spaces (while still not managing to robustly address bullying--the one thing that is well-documented to cause lifelong trauma), kids have fewer opportunities than ever to make decisions for themselves and learn from the bad ones and good ones how to even make a decision rather than tumbling over the first instinct that pops up.

For a wise, thoughtful decision about personal or social matters, I'd pick a 16 year old of 100 years ago over a random 25 year old now. Maybe by 2120 we can push it out to 34?

So--I mostly agree. But I also think there's an argument to be made that it really isn't that fair. We give people a couple weeks of driver's ed and throw them into a off-road rally. "You do you! Oh, mind the gravel, and the thirty meter dropoff around the first bend!"

Not that this is Leo's fault personally. For all I know, he helps his love interests see how to make the kind of challenging impactful choices that adults are faced with. But still, even if he's not exploiting the situation himself, people could.

If we're going to tell strong adults you-do-you, it's our duty as individuals and as society to raise strong adults, not fragile post-adolescents. Humans are robust and anti-fragile anyway, so despite our best efforts, a lot of young adults still manage to turn out fine. But overall, we're not holding that ball. It's on the floor, rolling away towards the open door to the street.

If someone takes advantage of the situation, that's on us for not preparing people properly.

But it's on them, too.