Yes, but knowing that what he did was illegal, a key part of his daring was the confidence that she wouldn't tell on him.

Yet many truly good MAPs would have obeyed the law regardless, all of whom would likely have been a better opportunity for Margaux than Peter.

Dara is gorgeous, strong, assertive and confident. Why would he be frightened of her? Who's frightened of girls and makes them stop rough-housing?

Anyone who knows a formidable personality when they see one. I've known more than my share of girls and women I was afraid of even though I was engaged in nothing illegal with them, nor had any intentions of harming them in any way.

Someone who's worried that if he follows his desires he might end up doing something for which he'll get in big trouble.

Which is not something that only penalizes bad people. And bad people are less likely to care about the law, otherwise there wouldn't be so many criminals in this world!

If it wasn't illegal, he might just say she liked it at the time but later changed her mind.

Which is why disagreeing claims need to be investigated, because someone might be correct when they make this allegation.

Perhaps, but he could first find out whether she wanted his hands on her or not.

Um, yes, he could. And what if she did?

Maybe emotionally strong partners were just not to his taste

Which is why it's good to educate and support girls into becoming emotionally strong, rather than encouraging their "fragile" emotional nature so they are more dependent on us, and more in "need" of our protection. That way, ill-intentioned people will have a difficult time abusing them, and decent people who find assertive and strong girls admirable will be the ones that willing girls -- and only willing girls -- end up with.

-- but that wouldn't make him afraid of her.

It would if he knew what was best for him. Girls can be very intimidating.

And it wasn't total fear -- he had the strength to set limits with her.

Which he did, because that was the way both wanted it, and a strong girl will be far more likely to see that boundaries are respected. But our society does not encourage girls to be strong or self-reliant. Dara became that way despite society, not thanks to it.

It's not an open and shut case, I admit. But I think it's strongly suggestive.

But not of one thing alone.

We could help our kids become strong and confident without changing a single law, and plenty of kids would still be messed up if we changed all of them.

But if we halped them become strong and confident, we wouldn't need to keep pretending draconian laws were good. And there is no reason to suggest they would be "messed up" in a society where they would be strong, confident, not shamed for having sexual desires, fully empowered, and capable of reaching their full potential without being forced into an artificial, standardized time table.

Your "youth liberated society" sounds like a utopian fantasy.

It's only a "fantasy" until it happens, much like a society where people of all races, both genders, and all sexual orientations was once thought to be the same. And only "utopian" in the sense that it would be a better and more equal world than what we have today. The fact that you do not want it in favor of a cynical loyalty to the status quo more or less as it is today does not make it impossible or undesirable. Change is the rule of history, no matter how much every culture at every point in time continues to believe it never will happen, and never should happen.

There will always be bad parents, and kids who don't have the strength to even perceive that there is a problem.

Which doesn't mean a large number of them will not have the fortitude to recognize and extricate themselves from the problem. And in a much less insular society, other members of the community of all ages could intervene in the case of particularly bad parents.

There are issues you and I could even work on together that would improve the emotional resilience of kids a little, but expecting big changes is unrealistic.

As I said before, every culture throughout history assumed big changes never would happen, and never should happen, and were always wrong. Hence, I doubt you will be part of the first set of consensus naysayers in human history to cheat the main rule of the universe. I think it doesn't so much translate into you thinking big change is unrealistic, but that you simply do not want such change, just as the majority of people in every culture in history has resisted major change when they see it on the horizon (and always to no avail in the long run). Hence, your appeal that I agree to work with you on superficial changes that would amount to little actual change at all. But change will come no matter how many people want it to or do not want it to, because it always has regardless.