The knowledge is out there. The science is out there. I've presented only a slice of it. Some of it requires a handy library for access to the better research journals, but most of it's pretty well available to anyone who wants it, so your pretending that there's no established correlations or whatever amounts to you making things up to suit your needs. You refute without presenting any evidence that refutes, and the one study you present - you manage to misunderstand. You talk as if your opinion alone is enough to refute the body of evidence against you. It isn't.

That kind of a debate gets old fast, rather like me trying to argue with someone who claims the world is flat and who then denies that anyone's ever actually launched a satellite, ignoring all evidence to the contrary.

You made the claim, "In the US children are regularly prosecuted for sexual interaction with other children and being sent to prison and required to register for life as a sex offender. These are children as young as 10." I've asked you to present a case of a child prosecuted and registered for sexual interaction with a peer, as opposed to someone prosecuted for a violent act or some older teen prosecuted for seducing a child. You don't respond to that.

Instead, you switch subjects to the number of registered offenders below age of consent on Texas' sex offender registry. "How can a child ... be found guilty of a sexual offence if he lacks the mental capacity to understand the consequences?" Good question. Try asking a Texas prosecutor because most people in the civil rights community don't get it. They are outraged by the idea that the children we're trying to protect could be prosecuted as adults. Texas is also the place famous for incarcerating the mentally ill and mentally retarded, so that's a poor example if you're trying to make a point about the legal system.

There is nothing "highly contextual" about the number of people harmed by sexual abuse. You keep ignoring that point. By your own admission, two in three females reported negative feelings to childhood sexual experiences. You blithely toss that off as the result of force or coercion without examining the report details. Examine them. You'll find quite a lot where force or coercion is not the issue. No, the prevailing social attitude is NOT the primary cause of psychological distress - it's the feeling that the person who supposedly professed love for them was in fact using them, the feeling that their value in the relationship was as an object to satisfy someone else's needs, the feeling that the statements of love were just a lie to achieve an end.

That is the harm, that the victims of such relationships can come to see love as false, a claim people make to get what they want and therefore a thing to be instantly doubted. Adults understand that some people lie and others don't, but when a child comes to love and feel loved and then begins to think that the love is false or contrived to achieve an end, the results are devastating and long-lasting. There is a fundamental breakdown in the ability to trust which persists into adulthood and which evolves from the child's normal doubts about the nature of the relationship: "Does he/she love me for me or for what he/she is getting from me?" Doubts about the nature of the relationship can manifest later in life as the child matures and becomes aware of the range of manipulative skills available to adults: "Was I used? Was I tricked?" Some come to see themselves as only worthy of love if they can satisfy someone else sexually, or they come to see sex as a tool for gaining and holding love. The correlation between childhood sexual abuse and adult pathologies is unmistakeable.

http://www.aaets.org/article120.htm

http://books.google.com/books?id=UedMYBLqDrcC&pg=PA49&lpg=PA49&dq=Correlation+between+Adult+mental+health+and+childhood+sexual+abuse&source=bl&ots=SuVzfR4pZo&sig=-VjuUyyDlput3zYARvebFVTma5Q&hl=en&ei=P_sXSp_KM5bisgPd6pmqDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4

Even in the most benign contacts, you have absolutely no control over how the child will interpret the contact, which is where the chief danger lies.

More to the point, let's draw a comparison. Let's say I built one truly stunning haunted house for Halloween. A real wowser, the kind of thing that might give you nightmares a year later - and did. People love to be scared after all, but there are some things that hit a lot deeper in some people as our war vets will attest. "But," I argue, "2 in 3 of the people who went through reported no long-term negative experiences!" Uh huh. Try guessing how long the authorities would let me keep operating on that basis.

I keep saying this, you keep ignoring it - it isn't about certainty of harm, it's about potential. It isn't about certainty of harm because YOU DON'T GET TO ROLL THE DICE WITH OTHER PEOPLE'S LIVES, not for something so tawdry as getting your rocks off. It's the 21st century, there are ample avenues for you to get laid if that's what you want. Move to Nevada, go rent yourself a really petite hooker if that's your taste, and keep the kiddie relationship platonic.