All she has to say is "Gimwinkle fondles my fun button" and Gimwinkle is no more.

Practically.

As long as she is as aware of this, she holds implicit power over Gimwinkle and I suspect that if she continues to refrain from exercising it, it's probably because Gimwinkle has quite a lot to offer and she doesn't want him to go away.

Laissez-faire.

It doesn't need to be explicit power that she holds over him. Apparently, according to the stereotyped image, he is exercising his explicit power over her and exploiting another person being for sexual pleasure.

But the truth is actually opposite: he is implicitly giving her power over him, downplaying the explicit power in the process. It's love.
The true pedophile gives himself up to the child. He doesn't expect any form of repayment, although he'll take whatever is offered. Those exchanges are meant to remain private and they should.

It's much, much, much more than "I'll give you a nickle to lick your pussy". THAT is child molestation. What Gimwinkle experienced is child love, and the difference should be quite clear.

Have you ever experienced child love? You write as if you have not.

When thinking about pedophilia, people are often blinded by imagery of child molestation and they can subconsciously disregard children's capacity to function in meaningful, reciprocal relationships that go way, way beyond titles.

If you assume that the person you're talking about is decent, and allow for the concept of love to be established as the key element, then the answers become embarrassingly clear.

Don't be misguided by prejudice and bigotry against you.

~ RBL