I think you may be grasping at some straws here. There is not a huge amount of controversy about Rind's methods and the results, but just the question of using college samples exclusively. The large degree of people in college make this a good population to sample from, bar none. I fully support the use of future such meta-analyses that take samples of populations such as people who hang out at bars; people who play tennis; or people who belong to martial arts schools, etc., et al., in addition to college samples. These certainly tell us a lot more than exclusively forensic or clinical samples, which was so often the case before and since.

The main results that are relevant to us are those concerning the factor of consent, and that people who recalled those encounters felt that consent mattered very much in the perceived outcomes. The point to this is that the degree of hysteria and restrictions that we see today are not justified by the data, and there can be more reasonable and less draconian and absolutist restrictions in the future that take all factors regarding children into account, and therefore treat all instances of such interactions on a case-by-case basis.