Re: To be fair to all sides...

"I'm a bit confused about what I did to show that I am trying to impose a moral imperative on MAPs/patients. My questions were an attempt to understand the way that some people on this board interpret a situation like this, to get to know you all better."

I understood you this way, but as with Dissident when I read your post I "got a bad taste in my mouth", though I suppressed it so quickly I barely noticed. Dissident has explained it well, I think: we are so used to accusations that we are misinterpreting the actions of children to suit our own desires that the question as to why we thought this example was consensual seems to fall in line with that line of attack. In fact, we have good reason to believe it was consensual - and if you look at the comments at the LA Times, it is clear that most non-peds are thinking the same thing. Most of the commenters there acknowledge that the relationship appeared to be consensual, but then do mental gymnastics to "prove" that it was not consensual in spite of the evidence. "She clearly wanted it, but she was not old enough to consent." "She clearly wanted it, but he is a pervert and should be punished." "She apparently wanted it, but we do not know how he threatened her." Those are not factual descriptions of events, they are excuses that allow them to believe what they have been told they must believe.

This case appears to be pretty clear - we also tend to be suspicious in less clear cases, simply because we have learned to distrust anything the media tells us.