You respond to my simple question with, again, an assertion that baseline differences in the way that the sexes function and interact justifies the difference between a lost job, suspended jail sentence and a small fine and 25+ years in prison with a permanent record as a sex offender. And that's ok with you?
The actions would be identical, and yet one person essentially gets off and the other spends the rest of his life dealing with the consequences of actions. Systems of justice are fundamentally premise on the assumption that everyone is equal and that everyone who is guilty of a crime should receive roughly the same sentence. A legal system ought to punish an act, regardless of who the actor is, assuming the actor is found guilty. A legal system with completely different responses to the same actions due to race or sex or creed or sexual orientation is corrupt to its core, because then you're punishing the actor and not the action, in which case it is no longer a fair system, but an arbitrary system, which cannot guide people in how they should act.
Edit: Per above, we distinguish between children and adults because we, as a society, have decided that children (unless they show some sort of gross disregard for human life or safety with some level of intent) don't understand how to act, that they aren't socialized. That's a major distinguishing factor in your example and the example I posed.
Think about this a different way, if a girl drugged you so you were conscious but unable to move, then tied you down and shoved her finger in your ass and rubbed her butt in your face and spit on you, would you be upset? Would that be sexual assault?
What you're saying is that people who are too old and frail to protect themselves must have consented in some way because the actors were female whereas if the actors had been male, they couldn't have protected themselves even if they tried, justifying wildly different consequences for identical events. Don't you see how strange that sounds?