Most probably not.

However, what makes my decision to pour HCl on the cat ethically unjustifiable isn't simply that I did so sans its informed consent, but rather that I caused it to suffer; in my view, even if the cat was informed about the dangers of this acid and gave its consent anyway, my decision to pour some on it would nonetheless be unethical. Indeed, in some cases, proceeding with an action against someone without their informed consent is not only ethically justifiable, but even ethically imperative. This generally characterizes nurturing parent/child interactions, in which cognitive immaturity often prevents the latter from comprehending the relevant facts necessary to give informed consent.

Given that, as I noted in my essay, the lack of informed consent does not necessarily or even generally result in harm, this means that the lack of informed consent per se is not ethically relevant, making it a red herring in these discussions. Clearly, something other than informed consent itself concerns the antipeds when it comes to adult/child sexual interactions.