I think your opinion is influenced by your personal circumstances,

And, perhaps, the personal circumstances of many, many others like me, and many, many others who are not so much like me, but who similarly cannot conform to established norms and arbitrary expectations?

and the fact that in our society the norms that do not fit you are indeed considered imperative.

Which shows you right there that me, and many, many others, have every right--and every obligation--to oppose those imperatives out of principle. All social progress is made by such "unreasonable" people.

On the whole, however, I would argue that the United States has fewer such imperatives than almost any society in the world, and especially less than non-western cultures.

Easy for someone who fits and therefore supports most of those norms to say. Otherwise, the U.S. comes off as pretty strongly stigmatizing.

This may be difficult to recognize at times, however, precisely because our culture places such a high value on the right to violate norms that even relatively mild restrictions (compared to most cultures) seem extreme to us.

It's easy to say if, again, you are not heavily penalized for the norms you happen to violate. And I am not simply talking about the pedophilia/hebephile thing. And let us not forget how the U.S. is the absolute ringleader of the pedo hysteria, and the world leader of youth rights oppression.

I certainly see your point here, but I think the answer is simply that qtns and myself know enough about these cultures to know that such marriages are both very rare at the lower end of the range and typically consented to by the girls involved.

So, it was not okay to clarify it for the many individuals who are either not familiar with those cultures, or the many who believe the absolute worst about them (again, note my friend Lensman over at Consenting Humans).

The fact that you presumed otherwise says a lot about the narrative pushed by western media and just how strong it is:

Which is all the more reason that this matter needs to be clarified, and not assume that widespread ignorance of it should be ignored or dismissed. This is why I do not expect the typical Non-MAP to just understand things that they are typically kept ignorant of.

first that women in Islamic cultures are seldom given any choice, and second that no one under the age of 18 has an opinion worth listening to on whether they consented, and third that every child marriage must therefore be against the will of the child.

Thus, for qtns and myself consent was presumed as the norm and we were happy to see recognition of a girl's right to choose for herself, while you presumed non-consent.

I presumed the following 3 things: 1. It was not clear; 2. Ignorance on this matter should be expected; 3. Clarification of the matter for the many who are ignorant should not have been considered unimportant.

Those, in a nutshell, were my gripes.

Also, what if Lensman actually ends up seeing this? Things will go nuclear to the point where I will actually end up feeling sorry for you and Qtns (and you know I'm not one to pity anybody!).