I think you know, lee, that no one here is saying that all abuse cases are bogus. We all readily acknowledge that real abuse occurs; we simply question cases where a younger person consented and insists they were not abused, yet seeing this still labeled as "abuse." Or seeing such cases labeled as "abuse" when we do not have all the facts, or heard the opinions of the younger party before they are pushed at the mercy of the social workers and law enforcement officers' interrogation rooms.

In fact, it's well known that most genuine abuse cases occur within the home, not within the context of interactions between adults and youths whom the latter actually chooses to be around. It's mostly the adults who have the greatest degree of legal power and authority over an underage youth who conducts largely opportunistic abuse, and the great majority of these abusing adults are not MAAs; an adult need not be an MAA to sexually abuse a child anymore than a prison inmate needs to be a homosexual to sexually abuse fellow inmates of the same gender. Opportunistic abuse of this sort occurs in all institutions where legal power and authority are held by one party over another. Also, sexual abuse is far from the most common or worst types of abuse initiated against underagers within the home: neglect and emotional abuse are much more pervasive, and often much more damaging. But whenever a form of abuse occurs that does not have sexual elements to it, we tend to give the parents, stepparents, grandparents, older siblings, aunts/uncles, etc., the benefit of the doubt, or even defend them as utilizing a method of "parenting" or "discipline" that we simply may disagree with. Forms of abuse against underage youths that do not have a sexual element to them are often overlooked or downplayed, no matter how damaging or unjust they may be to the younger people they are inflicted upon because of the disproportionately huge effect on our collective emotions that sexual activity has.

And you do like to throw the "undeveloped brain" justification for your views, which are not scientifically verified, and have been refuted despite the strong, self-serving cultural beliefs to the contrary in regards to adolescents today, which is similar to arguments used against blacks and women in the past. Brain development actually occurs throughout our lives, it doesn't reach some maximum zenith in our early 20s, and as Michael Moore noted in his article "The Kids Are Alright" (which caused him to first jump on the youth lib train), older people routinely vote against their interests, whereas the youngest voters routinely voted in favor of progressive change, and people too young to vote engaged in positive action in support of change during the 2004 presidential election, and a few local elections since. Tweens have increasingly begun doing the same, and they exist on the cusp between childhood and adolescence. Children as young as six years of age have proven able to competently engage in the democratic system of schooling seen in the Sudbury method--where they participate with the adolescent students and adult staff in voting on the campus rules and academic curriculum--that the government will not adopt at large for obvious reasons, which suggests that these beliefs need to be objectively re-evaluated. The main problem is that if you believe young people are so undeveloped in their brain structure that they can be convinced an abusive situation was not an abusive situation, then they can easily be convinced of the contrary too, which is why their feelings should be considered, and all situations of this nature should be taken on a case-by-case basis rather than making absolutist assumptions in all cases.