If following simple consent, a younger person engages in interactions with a trusted adult whom they enjoy those experiences with, are entirely non-sympotmatic afterwards, and continue to look back on them fondly into adulthood, and insist that they were participating under their own free will in retrospect, then what logical reason is there to insist that the whole relationship was more "complex" than this, so maybe it "was" abuse? That is simply adding ideology to the equation, not facts. It's also defining "abuse" according to a set of criteria that has more to do with the personal sensibilities of the definer than a set of empirically observable circumstances that have an actual basis in reality.

The point is, children who had such relationships often looked back on them favorably as adults, and disagreed with the common rhetoric, which has never been backed up by scientific evaluation, but simple cultural belief, and a form of cultural belief that is relatively new to human society--and specific to a time when people under 18 lost most of their civil rights. Making these decisions for children based on your own personal sensibilities and conception of childhood is not presenting any facts, but simply making a decision based on a cultural belief system.