This one is for Markaba and Ethan (if you guys read this).

I am wondering. Based on your arguments I feel the consent from guardians model would fit well into your belief systems. Yet every time I bring it up it is ignored or maybe accidentally looked over. You seem to agree harm is largely sociogenic or iatrogenic however you also claim that even if that were not the case, potential for abuse because of power imbalances and possible later regret make it too risky to allow. So why not allow it only when parental consent is given? It removes the power imbalance because the guardians can assure everything is fine and it removes the future regret problem for the most part because parents that allow their children to consent to sexual contact will be raising their children sexually open thus future regret would not rear it's ugly head.

I have thought about this a fair amount. I feel quite certain that if no adult engaged in sexual activity with a child without prior written consent of all parents/guardians, sexual abuse would be dramatically reduced. I would certainly urge any pedophile who is inclined to ignore the law to at least get parental permission -- I think in practice it will be denied the vast majority of the time.

Dangers include parents who do not care, do not understand future risks, or parents who give permission as part of a quid pro quo -- some version of prostitution. Since I think genuine childhood sexual interest in adults is very rare, those possibilities weigh heavily in comparison. The older the child, the more likely genuine sexual interest is. I could imagine an age of consent of 14 provided it is with parental permission, 16 otherwise, though I would want to hear arguments from reasonable sex-positive people who are opposed to it.