I have always been charmed by Tatler. It’s a beacon of a bygone era, proudly shining even though it doesn’t really belong any more. Like living in a stately home or having staff, it doesn’t really fit with modern life - but there’s something irresistible about it. Seductive, yes, but not usually all that controversial.

Think again.

The magazine has just run a piece by a woman in her late thirties, who was practically rubbing her thighs over the prospect of Brooklyn Beckham, who has just celebrated his 16th birthday. Meaning he can now consent to sex under British law.

Brooklyn Beckham with his mum, Victoria

Annabel Rivkin wrote: “He's 16. So he's suddenly legal. Which means there are options that three months ago there would not have been. So that's diverting. Hot. Ready. Legal.”

Shudder.

Perhaps my self-selecting bubble of adult friends and colleagues who don’t fantasise about near-children has lulled me into a false sense of security, but I really thought these days were behind us.

"Any male journalist foolish enough to publicly fantasise about a 16-year-old girl could expect a career ruining reaction"

Years ago, when Charlotte Church turned 16, creepy DJ Chris Moyles said on BBC radio that he “wanted to lead her through the forest of her sexuality.”

There was an actual countdown until the minute that Church became legal. But surely those were the bad old times? The days before the TV presenters of our childhoods were outed as child sex offenders. Before issues around consent were high on the national agenda. Before the child grooming rings in Rotherham and Oxfordshire were discovered.

No one would get away with pervily anticipating Charlotte Church’s birthday now. We’ve moved on, right?

Charlotte Church's 16th birthday was 'counted down' Credit: TINA HILLIER

Well in part we have. At least, we have when it comes to young women. But take a moment to consider what would have happened if the piece had been written by an Andrew rather than an Annabel. Or if Brooklyn was female.

It would never have happened, because no magazine would have been stupid enough to publish it. If they had, we’d have been furious. There would have been a Twitchfork mob forming within moments of it going online. Opinion pieces about it would have dominated the newspapers.

Any male journalist foolish enough to publicly fantasise about a 16-year-old girl could expect a career ruining reaction and rightly so. It would be downright awful. Happily, I don’t imagine there’s a working male writer stupid enough to do it.

Somehow this change in perception only seems to apply to young women. How can it be that just because an article is written by a woman, about a boy, it’s considered risqué rather than horrifyingly inappropriate?

Reverse sexism is something feminists are consistently accused of ignoring. In this case it’s staring us right in the face.

It’s a double standard that still smacks of the frustrating perception that while young women and their innocence need to be protected, young men are always desperate for sex. These are both fallacies. The abuse of children happens to and equally affects both genders.

When we celebrate a child becoming ‘legal’, we’re implying (however jokily) that the only thing preventing us from having sex with them before was the fear of getting arrested.

The Tatler article was obviously intended as playful and amusing, but there’s a far more insidious side to what it represents.

The Beckhams

It contributes to the idea that a young man’s sexuality is public property, which is genuinely problematic. Boys are expected to be testosterone fuelled Lotharios who can’t wait to get their end away, even if they’re still technically children.

"We have allowed for far too long a false notion that young men cannot be abused".

When we blithely accept a woman discussing the attraction of a child 20 years her junior, we perpetuate the idea that fantasising about children is acceptable.

And while, in this specific instance, I don’t fear for Brooklyn’s safety, we have allowed for far too long a false notion that young men cannot be abused. That is exactly the kind of reverse sexism it’s our job to destroy.

Telegraph Wonder Women contacted Tatler for a response but the magazine had not responded at the time of publication.