You claim the youth liberation people only support it because it allows for contact.

But that is a woefully inadequate doctrine if sexual contact really were the priority.

The way child sex would become the easiest would be an open market for children as property where sex is allowed as part of that possession title. Like pets today, only plus the sex. Anyone could sell their biological child to anyone else; anyone could re-sell their purchased child to anyone else; anyone could buy any child, in principle. And among the rights conferred by possession would be the right to have sex.

Now that is at least akin to slavery, and under many definitions, it is, period.

Sure, as in all marketization, it somewhat may advantage the rich over the poor. But if sex were the priority, it's still superior than prohibition. And a barrier of price is lower than a barrier of a threat of incarceration.

So...

If all we care about is sex, why aren't we supporting the pet/slave model?

Notice you don't have open as answer "because that will never happen" since you believe that a society with youth rights will never happen either.

The financial barrier must be a problem for some. But the barrier of whether she says yes still is a problem under the youth rights model, so they cancel out. And still as in every relationship, even if there is no slavery purchase or prostitution, there are expenses.

Why does nobody support legally treating kids as pets, if that is what would make sexual contact easiest?