E
so IT say that post-pubescent teens can't be fertile because they have complications during pregnancy. what they don't tell you is that pregnancy complications in teen pregnancy has a lot to do with lack of prenatal care and smoking while pregnant among teens.
the reason teen pregnancy is more likely to have complications isn't because of biological immaturity. it's because many pregnant teens smoke while pregnant and many don't get access to prenatal care. i'll admit biological immaturity can be a factor for complications among early teens (age 13/14) but it isn't often a factor among older post-pubescent teens (16-19). if any pregnant teen age 16-19 had problems because of biological immaturity, then they're probably a late bloomer. in fact, if you look it up, research has found that if teens avoid drugs, smoking, alcohol, etc. and get sufficient prenatal care, they have a good chance of giving birth to a healthy baby. also, miscarriages still happen among a minority of successful births among teens and complications during pregnancy aren't necessarily extremely common among teens. If older teens didn't smoke and had prenatal care, they wouldn't have complications of pregnancy. in fact, in the middle ages, many women died a lot from birth and had pregnancy problems because there wasn't prenatal care back then.
in fact, studies have found that it's adolescents under 14 who have pregnancy problems because of biological immaturity, NOT older teens or adults.
women's fertility peaks at age 20-24. they're already fertile in their late teen years (16-19) and their fertility decreases in their 30s, and is gone in their menopause (late 40s).
i can't find all the citations i found but here's a good one https://www.healthline.com/health/adolescent-pregnancy#prescription-birth-control
a lot of problems during pregnancy happen more among early teens (13-14) than late teens. you can't tell me a post-pubescent 18 year old can't give birth to healthy babies.
i also remember IT saying that attraction to teens is rare because in the middle ages or 1800s or something, people hit puberty very late at like 16. the problem with that argument is that we aren't attracted to age, we're attracted to appearance. nobody will find Greta Thunberg physically attractive, but finding a post-pubescent 16 year old physically attractive isn't rare at all. there's a 27 year old guy who hasn't reached puberty, finding him attractive is abnormal. but finding a post-pubescent 16 year old physically attractive isn't abnormal. if a 90 year old looked like a young adult, we'd find her attractive. if a 20 year old looked like a toddler, we won't find them attractive.
also, in the paleolithic age (old stone age), girls began puberty and menarche early, like they do nowadays. the puberty age increased much higher centuries later because society became agricultural.
many post-pubescent teens look like they're in their early 20s, and according to OkCupid data, early 20s is the age men find the most attractive. some studies show that men find late teens most attractive. if a person looks like they're in their early 20s, our biology and brain will make us attracted to them. our biology doesn't respond to laws. the age of consent wasn't raised to the way it is nowadays until the late 19th century (1880s).
sexologists like Fred Berlin and James Cantor have confirmed that attraction to post-pubescent teens is normal, most men just don't act on it. all studies about men's sexuality have confirmed that attraction to post-pubescent teens is common. hebephilia, however, is debated.
