There's a MUCH simpler answer to this.

I haven't seen this discussed here before, but it seems to me that antis have an unstated fear that children are very vulnerable to methods; that any pedophile that uses certain methods can bypass all of their 'immature defenses' and 'get into their pants.'

I expect someone to reply with a metaphor to driving...

...a much, much simpler answer.

Parents try to manipulate their children all the time. They often even use violence and coercive force to do so.

If you've checked the discussion in any parenting group, you'll notice a lot of complaints that it doesn't work. In fact, you'll notice a lot of complaints that even imprisonment, theft, and beating doesn't work.

If manipulation augmented by imprisonment, theft, and beating doesn't work, manipulation without imprisonment, theft, and especially beating will likely be less effective.

Your "driving" analogy would suggest that the average 'child' has spent 8,760 in a high-intensity defensive driving course for every year of their life.

So the questions remain: how much more vulnerable to methods are children, related to adults?

How much of the specifics of your education do you remember when you're cramming for the test?

How much do you remember 50 years later?

The case study already exists near-universally on a level of difficulty (including isolation and environmental control, for the psychs out there)... much greater than the "player" you're trying to test the concept against.

Quit pretending the empirical evidence isn't already legion and avaliable. Most parents try much harder to manipulate their kids than a 'player' would have recourse to, and fail.