--

Misogynistic isn't defined as "sexuality at a woman's expense". It isn't defined as anything that makes one feel discomforted.

It is hatred and dislike onto women. Even if something is inappropriate or childish or disgusting or any number of epithets that you can tack onto it, it is not automatically misogynistic simply because it relates to women.

Using heighten terminology out of place cheapens the terminology and makes it lose the caustic impact that rightly should have.

--

Secondly, inappropriate sexuality is not juvenile. Inappropriate sexuality is often illegal, and I wouldn't characterize that as being something expected from children.

I suspect people want to call it juvenile in order to have a way to publicly shame those who practice it.

In their (and perhaps your too) zeal to censure others, you've created an odd situation wherein:

1. The situation is called misogynist---aka evil.

2. The situation is called childish.

So misogynistic is childish now? Or is it the reverse: are children misogynistic then grow out of it?

--

See this is why I don't agree with the arguments as used. They're the arguments of a firebrand or a demagogue---not a logician.

I find that statement ironic, given the fact that your own argument has a glaring logical fallacy in it:

1. The situation is called misogynist---aka evil.

2. The situation is called childish.

So misogynistic is childish now? Or is it the reverse: are children misogynistic then grow out of it?

1. My computer is a laptop.

2. My computer has 4 USB ports.

So all laptops have 4 USB ports? Or is it the reverse: are all computers with 4 USB ports called laptops?

I hope this serves to illustrate the point that "P and Q" is not the same as "P implies Q" nor "Q implies P".

This is especially relevant when P and Q have diverging connotations. Usually one would expect not to say something is both misogynistic and childish. The meanings are not completely orthogonal.