the truth will out -- if it is the truth

Because we all know 10-year-olds can speak openly about their sexual desire and love for much older guys. They have not been indoctrinated in anti-pedopilia since before they even knew what a clitoris was for.

Some of them would speak out. Some parents are very accepting, and some girls are largely undeterred by bad consequences. What about autistics, who often don't master social rules so well? Some women would say, "You know, when I was a girl I wanted to do sexy things with that grown man, and I was terrified of saying so, and we ought to fix that!" Somehow we don't hear those things. Here's another, simpler explanation: Very few girls speak openly about sexual desire or love for older guys because (drum roll)... very, very few feel such a thing, and of those who do, few feel it is important -- perhaps a passing crush like others. They might feel affection and want to express it in nonsexual ways. That is legal, and society's hysteria on that point is a separate issue.

This second explanation would strike at the foundation of hopes for requited girl-love, so I can see it's an upsetting possibility for many here. But it's also by far the simplest explanation.

You could believe that girls ought to be able to choose sex with older guys as a matter of principle even if there are very few of them. That's a consistent position. But when you are making laws with cost/benefit ratios, "prior probabilities" are vital.

If you insist girls face no negative consequences of any kind for speaking out for love and against anti-pedohpilia...

I never said that. I said that some would speak out despite negative consequences -- even if five percent spoke out we would hear a noise we do not hear.

I'm also very confused as to why you insist on bringing up math, when you obviously reject mathmatical logic and proofs.

I cannot recall that I have ever been presented with anything resembling a formal mathematical proof or logical syllogism, perhaps informal ones have been implied. But such things are only valid if you accept the premises on which they are based. When I reject the premises people bring to such arguments, you cannot say I reject logic or proof.

Beyond that point in your post, I can't follow your reasoning very well.

Is deep compassion for exclusive pedophiles consistent with saying they must never do sexual things with prepubescents? Yes. Surely you all would agree that such compassion would never excuse sex with unwilling girls, right? Now go to the more complicated case where they are apparently willing. My premise is that such relationships rarely have a (small) benefit and much more often have a (big) cost to the girl. You might not accept that, but don't infer that I have insufficient sympathy for exclusive pedophiles.