Let's refine the proposition here: Very few (under 5 percent?) prepubescents inherently want sexual activity with adult partners -- the kind where one partner manipulates the other's genitals for sexual pleasure (an approximate definition, of course).

Again, this is based on a moralizing assumption.

What studies go with those surnames you cite isn't entirely clear to me. The Sandfort study I am aware of does not refute the proposition. It is a highly biased self-selected sample where most reports from the boys are that the sex is OK -- not of inherent interest.

Are you sure you read that study clearly enough, Ethan? Because Sandfort was not a MAP, nor an overt MAP supporter... he was a serious social scientist who wanted to understand the truth of the matter by going right to the sources... with emphasis on the plural. Those boys did not say the sex was simply "OK," they saw themselves having a legitimate romantic relationship. They did not, and certainly would not, support measures of prohibition. You are the one, I must say, who is reading that report with bias and wishful thinking. This is why I said you cannot be convinced by any amount of objective data, because you do not want to be convinced, and objectivity is not part and parcel of your agenda.

I don't recall the Rind meta-analysis addressing this issue directly. It could study prevalence of reported abuse -- including primarily pubescent and post-pubescent cases. It could report negative, neutral or positive attitudes about it, but it doesn't say much about whether it was actively desired or not -- nor of the desires of those who were not abused.

It reported a predominance of positive responses and memories when consent was present, and this certainly doesn't suggest in any way that the desires were not actually there. What you are clearly doing is, again, making assumptions based upon what you insist must be the case for younger people... that most of them cannot possibly desire sexual intimacy with an adult, that gerontophilia must be such an extraordinarily rare phenomenon within the diverse spectrum of human attraction that it can be simply overlooked and prohibited against with no harm and no foul to the concept of civil liberties and objective scientific understanding of the full diversity of human attraction. It's predicated upon a "don't ask, don't tell, just assume" approach to child and young teen sexuality.

As for the others, I'll await citations.

Citations have been provided for you numerous times, including by Hadjuk in this very thread, yet you continually ignore them or remain "unconvinced" because your mind was made up long before you saw any of them. And you have rarely if ever provided scientifically objective citations for any of your assumptions, claims, and beliefs. That's perfectly fine when dealing with any group of people with mainstream beliefs and assumptions, of course, because they blindly accept such claims as "facts"; but it doesn't hold water here or with a group comprised of professional social scientists with an objective interest in the subject who have no loyalty to politics or popular sentiment.