"However, the overall allocation of society's concern is not something we can cite in favor of adult-child sexuality. If you are brought up before the judge on a case of shoplifting, you will get nowhere arguing that white collar criminals steal far more and that's where the judiciary should be expending its efforts instead.

No, but we can cite the hypocrisy of claiming an interest in preventing harm while simultaneously punishing what is often harmless and ignoring what is demonstrably more harmful.

Your false analogy is sadly predictable.

Theft always causes harm. ( Unless one is seeking to undermine entire theories of personal ownership. )

In talking adult-child sexuality we have left entirely the area of certain-harm. This is, in fact, what the statutory rape concept wishes to replace reality with. It has to deny the testimony of every rape victim who believes that no rape occurred. ( And who benefits from silencing the voices of "rape victims?" )

Once we reject the false analogy and realize that only the tyrant would argue for removing the least degree of freedom as all freedom might lead to harm; then it becomes a matter of what is more likely to cause a greater degree of harm while conferring the least benefit.

Sex, definitely doesn't fall into the category of even sports like soccer.

This even assumes that one believes its the state's job to remove potentially harmful choices which are freely chosen; nor that their removal doesn't itself cause greater harm than it prevents.

Because the fact of the matter is that the use of coercion and force is a certain harm, not a potential harm. And therefore its the policing which should be subject the the same lack of exception based on "degree" cited in your false analogy.

Isn't it awful when the reality behind the analogy argues against you?

Dante