Yes, there are many new things that happen all the time -- things that have never happened before. I recognize that, but it doesn't mean that a particular thing you would like to see will in fact happen.

Except emancipation movements and groups who lost their freedom eventually regaining have historically succeeded every single time. This is not something that has "never happened before." History is not on the side of your camp.

But we weren't talking about the future, we were talking about the past.

I think we are very much talking about both.

We were talking about was whether there had been societies in the past to serve as positive models for adult-child sex that you could hope to duplicate those aspects of the past societies today. That's a reasonable question. I contend there are none because all past examples were based on something other than inherent interest in a sexual relationship with an older man by a girl of her own free will because she inherently wanted it.

And you're wrong. In the past, younger people were often not subject to the type of arbitrary restrictions they are today solely on the basis of age. IPCE is full of such studies, including those of aboriginal societies existing into the present time. The idea of children, let along younger adolescents, being a distinct category of officially disempowered individuals is a relatively recent development that came with the onset of the Industrial Revolution, and this has been studied in-depth in works such as historian Phillipe Aries' Centuries of Childhood and youth liberationist/clinical psychologist Robert Epstein's book Teen 2.0. A revisionist view of history that insists modern conceptions of childhood have been more or less static throughout history is part of the common narrative you adhere to, but studies refuting it have been available for those who care to read it for the longest time.

I'm not saying that isolated occurrences of such events have never happened in the past or don't happen today, though I think they are very rare. But they have not had a place of acceptance within that society.

They are very rare today because younger people are forcibly prevented from achieving their full potential and exercising their rights. That is quickly changing thanks to the advent of the Internet, as it's now becoming increasingly difficult for adults to regulate and control the expression, voice, networking, and evidence of competency provided by youths (including pre-pubescents), who are now more sophisticated than they've been since prior to the latter decades of the 19th century thanks to now having such access to information and the ability to share their voice & skills at their fingertips.

And younger people achieving their full potential as soon as they could definitely had a place in past societies where survival of the human species was far more precarious than it is today, and younger people proved capable of rising to the occasion on a regular basis simply because they had to. The type of youth suppression you see today is a conceit only a post-Industrial society can have, since human survival is not as precarious as it once was in most parts of the world. And if kids could rise to the occasion under past conditions, they must certainly could under the more humane conditions that are extant today--i.e., where they choose to, rather than having to.

Your vision of the past as a more primitive version of today's society is historically inaccurate and based on wishful contemporary nostalgia for a time that never actually was.

I'm genuinely interested in what research you would cite in support of this point.

I just cited two above, that of Aries and Epstein. Also read the work of youth liberationists John Holt and John Taylor Gatto. You should also scan the IPCE site for links to such studies. I know you will read them only to attempt to build a case to refute them since you have already made up your mind on this topic long before the two of us ever first exchanged words, but they are still there for everyone who may be willing to read them objectively.