It presumes that this "regret" issue you tout so strongly will not occur to the point that it's absolutely devastating to any girl (or boy) who may experience it, certainly not to the point where it obstructs their ability to function later in life.

I do agree that it is rarely absolutely devastating and obstructs their ability to function in life. That is one thing that the Rind meta-analyses demonstrated pretty clearly. But that is a much higher bar than saying it is harmful enough that it is wrong.

Obstructing freedom of choice when certain dangers or risks are neither pervasive nor highly likely is more wrong than allowing individuals to take reasonable and personal risks.

No, it presumes these things only: Children and young adolescents will have freedom of choice. That even if only a few had that desire, their rights and choices would be respected just as all minority choices and preferences are, and that a tyranny of the majority would be seen as every bit as undesirable as a tyranny of the few.

This pertains to the argument you personally (and Dante) put forth. But I maintain it is not what holds pro-choice communities together. The idea that it is very rare is not emotionally palatable.

The idea that it is very rare is untrue, as intergenerational relationships that are consensual in nature have continued to occur despite the laws, albeit under the radar.

the large number of sample subjects that reported positive liaisons with adults while in legal childhood when consent was involved in various studies[...]

This is worth noting. "Legal childhood" includes those in (or through with) puberty. The vast majority of sexual experiences (positive and negative) of "legal children" are concentrated among them, while prepubescent experiences are rare.

Prepubescent experiences are not rare, as is clear by anyone who is familiar with the code terminology that children come up with to engage in sexual exploration without getting caught, such as "playing doctor." Again, you tout this as a fact while in no way offering any citations that back up this contention.

I fully understand that pubescents often have strong sex drives, and they may have drives focused on adults. (And whether it's good policy to allow the adults to engage in such relationships is a different question).


This discussion started with prepubescents, and that's where I'd like to keep it.

We can indeed stay there. The thing is, which is why I bring it up, is that pubescents and young adolescents have been absorbed into the Innocent Child paradigm due to sharing a legal status with them. You may indeed recognize the difference, but many in the mainstream do not.

As for the rest, it's largely the same old ground, and we'll make about as much progress as a radical atheist and an evangelical Christian.

It seems that way.