>

I’m sorry to hear you feel this way. I can tell you that in the US women & men don’t typically get justice over their abusers. Most people who are sexually assaulted don’t report their assault. Due to various reasons we know that at least 1 in 3 women are sexually assaulted by age 18. The statistics are that 1 in 7 men are sexually assaulted by age 18. There’s no doubt that statistics based on self-report are not accurate.
What you have asked about is not a male vs female issue. Sexual assault & sexual harassment are a human issue.
I agree that sexual assault, female on male, should be treated just as seriously as the reverse, and I agree that there are double standards. However, I do not accept the premise that male sexual violence against women is treated as harshly as you imply. Everybody hates a hypothetical rapist, but people often turn a blind eye or make excuses when it turns out to be their friends or family, and actual conviction rates are pitiful. >

Even if that’s true society as a whole would demolish that person. Women can be found to actually have assaulted someone and no one really talks about it >

Hey, so this isn’t as true as we’d like it to be.  The guy who was convicted of violently raping me served six months house arrest during which he was able to leave the house for work and limited recreation.  He hasn’t been shunned or ostracized.  I actually did lose friends because I reported him, and lost my job because I was missing work for the trial.
I won’t go into lots of detail about what he did, but it took me six months to physically recover.
His life is just fine. >

I don’t think this one example can trump numerous other ones. And by what measure do you say his life is fine? >

You've got this a bit reversed.  
The cases of a man sexually harrassing/assaulting a women are more likely to have very few consequences for the aggressor than otherwise.  
Most women have experienced/will experience such a thing in their life, and their aggressor won't be convicted of anything because it will not be reported, dismissed, or have barely any punishment for it. >

But we aren’t compare victims justice to abusers consequences. We’re comparing male victims to female victims and the outcomes. >

Not in the last 4 comments. >

Huh? >

Your argument is all over the place.
Premises: 

if a woman s*xually assaults a man, it is treated as something less serious. This is unacceptable

True. And valid.

Regardless of gender, a 16-year-old is vulnerable to being manipulated or exploited.

True. And valid. But I'm getting closer to asking you the important question.

So as a result, I think that the age of consent laws should be changed.

That's a non sequitur. Age of consent laws don't have any bearing on the social views of gendered victims. E.g., age of consent laws create a victim/perpetrator by definition. You're talking about two different things - law and culture.
The bulk of what you're trying to discuss here is covered by 'traditional values.' Women were generally viewed as delicate - and in need of care. This cultural thought has shifted. But it's slow. So we still have a lot of the 'care' stuff when it's not necessary. Family courts are a good example.
So, yes, there is a double standard. But no, I don't think it's wrong. I just think the standard is warped. Men and women are different - biologically, mentally, etc. We are the same species but serve entirely different roles within our species. Having standards is not a bad thing - having irrational standards is.
This is slowly changing. Women are no longer experiencing the 'care' (I use that term loosely, because it was mainly just misogyny)  that they did in the past. And that standard takes time to change. I honestly think that the bigger issue is in 'pretending people can do whatever they want without consequence' as that seems to be the more common thread. 
E.g., sex-workers claiming that sex work is an admirable venture. >

I agree to an extent. Age of consent laws do create a victim by definition, and age of consent laws aren't gender specific. I do think however in some countries they can be improved, as for the age of consent laws in the US, they are good but that does not apply for the rest of the world. The view is changing, I agree.
I do not however understand what you mean buy

So, yes, there is a double standard. But no, I don't think it's wrong.

Could you elaborate on that section? >


I do think however in some countries they can be improved

Based on what? There's no universal right and wrong. You're speaking of a cultural issue - not an issue of all humanity.

Could you elaborate on that section?

Double standards are only double standards when you ignore the actual differences in principles. You can agree or disagree all you want - but true double standards are incredibly rare. >

I agree that there is no universal right or wrong, what I am saying is that there are some principals that everyone agrees on namely; the age of consent should not be lower than 13,  a 40 year old should not be allowed to have sex with a 14 year old, even if she has consented and rape should be treated very seriously. This unfortunately, is not the case for some countries in the world. 
True double standards are rare, true. I do think that double standards are at play to an extent here though. >


some principals that everyone agrees on namely; the age of consent should not be lower than 13

While I agree, I'm going to be the devil's advocate.
Why? What the difference between 13 and 14? 14 and 16? 16 and 18? >

Generally, 13 is the age where puberty starts to really hit, and hormones that make you horny, start to increase drastically at that age. There is little difference between 13 and 14 but generally 13 is widely accepted as the start of major puberty, and as of the start of teenager life. As for difference between 14 and 16 and 18, a 16 year old is generally going to be more mature and intelligent then a 14 year old and so one... There is not concrete answer but there has to be A answer, as there has to be A age, it's the same thing with the age that you become an adult, it is somewhat arbitrary, yes! But does there have to be an age, also yes. >

Puberty starts on average at 11 for girls and 12 for boys.
That throws a wrench in your 'at least 14' argument based on puberty. >

I did not state that puberty started, I stated that hormones that make you horny start to increase drastically at that age.
The vast majority of 11/12 year olds have not gotten horny ever. >

So your argument just went from subjective to really subjective. You're attempt to quantify the unquantifiable.
There is no 'this person is fully capable' brand. It's shades of grey all the way up. Which is why we look down on employer/employee relationships - because of the power imbalance. Fully capable adults - yet we still allow for a victim status.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say other than 'I think it's unfair' but you haven't explained the why behind it. Just observations that have explanations. >

I agree, that there is not this person is fully capable brand, I also agree  that if there is a power imbalance in the relationship it should be looked down upon. But that has nothing to do with what I'm trying to say. 
What I'm trying to say (in one sentence) is that sexual assault, rape and similar acts should be treated very seriously, regardless of gender.