Ah...but what comes first? The chicken or the egg?

Did the 'abuse' cause harm, or was the harm created my society's condemnation of the activity and his struggles to understand it all?

There are just as many cases where 'victims' claim that the contact was not harmful. And just as many where the harm isn't 'understood' until therapy begins. (no actual numbers, just throwing this out)

The 'harm' comes from societies brainwashing; when you experience something that does not coincide with society, it creates a dilemma that the brain has great difficulty coping with.

But yes, of course there is still real abuse that happens.

Having sex at a young age will make anyone a pedophile. At best it will keep them more open minded about child sexuality, because they have the experience to think above the society norm.

So you are equating innocence with ignorance? Are you stating a child of 9 that has had sex is not innocent? If so you are harming the child by making them a less valuable child than the one next to her that had not had sex.

Innocence is not about that. It is about the free thinking and curiosity they have that is unmarred by the dogma of religion and society. Innocence is the freedom of their mind and thoughts.

Education in any form can only help to preserve the innocence, not kill it. Innocence dies when a child is found to be sexually active then condemned and kept quiet about it. Exposing children to sexuality and educating them properly and openly would simply lead to less cases of real abuse, because they would be more aware of it and be more cognitively capable of avoiding such situations.

If you never teach a child not to play in the streets, how does that keep them safer?