I know Ethan will not reply, but for the rest:



Do we have references on that? I'm not saying that with any particular axe to grind, I just hadn't seen any studies on it or specific claims about it.

Go to any Islamophobic site and you will certainly find a number of newsclips.

I saw this whiz by in some other thread but didn't respond to it then. This is a cop out.

It is not a cop out.

For all your accusations of hypocrisy to the pro-contact side, this position is more hypocritical. To admit consent, you ask for a standard of information about the future that is impossible to meet. You know well that children cannot meet it; but you know that adults can't meet it either. You demand of children a standard of foreknowledge that you don't demand of yourself.

By analogy, no activity is totally safe, so we should not worry about some being more dangerous than others?

Although this is not directly what was being argued, your position is also more hypocritical than the pro-contact position. You have been told countless times that cars and swimming pools are far more dangeros activities for children than sex is. So again, if more and less danger will constitute a criterion for deciding allowing an activity or not, then cars and swimming pools will be banned before sex. But again, you hypocritically apply for sex a standard you will not apply to cars and swimming pools.