Never mind the ominous tones of thoughtcrime and sexcrime. What was weird was the statutory tone of this woman's moral judgement. To declare that someone's date of birth (to the year) determines who we should be "looking at" (perceiving sexually) seems like an extremely bureaucratic way to make a moral-ethical judgement. I'm not questioning the statutes; I know that Loki's wager makes it difficult to get across the need to draw a legalistic distinction between child and adult where no bright-line distinction exists, psychologically. It makes no sense to speak of informed consent when someone is too young to truly be informed.
The point is, why exactly is an expedient legal provision turning into grounds for actual moral condemnation? We have grown accustomed to (or given up fighting) the notion that anything an 18-year-old girl consents to is perfectly acceptable, since we don't want to be accused of "censorship" (apparently criticism is censorship when directed at pornography). So now we have to hit back in a manner patterned on a legislature - pick a numeric dimension (17 versus 18 - not "leering at girls" versus "appreciating beauty", because neither of those concepts could be defined in regulation) and pass a resolution.
Bureaucratic states pass on their patterns to their subjects. People begin to think like bureaucrats, to set their judgement aside, to confuse concepts of regulation and custom, acceptance and passivity, legal action and moral condemnation.
(If you're curious, I think they were talking about the magnificent Selena Gomez, who is now actually 18 or 19, but that isn't relevant since the ladies were pretty sure she was under 18.)