I suspect it was the insistence of those intervening that her uncle didn't really love her that was most harmful. If she had been allowed to see the betrayal of trust as a stupid action by someone who actually did love her, her experience might have been far different.

I have wondered about this sometimes, but not as a means to defend what the uncle did, just as a means of helping her heal a bit better. But it's just an intuition.

That's why we always try to keep consensual and nonconsensual cases separate.

I don't think it's a simple line, and you wouldn't be surprised to learn I'd draw the line in a different place from you. But I've said that if a 14-year-old keeps insisting that she was OK with what happened, then he shouldn't be prosecuted.

If you point out to them that children cannot know all the consequences of their actions, they may agree that they meant informed consent; if you point out that adults also cannot know all the consequences of their actions, they may decide they meant simple consent.

The way I'd summarize this is to say that (this is my prediction) they will easily admit they didn't really mean simple consent. But when you get into the realm of informed consent and just what that means, then I suspect opinions will vary a lot, and they may not even be sure what they think.