"I think in today's society, in meting out whatever punishment might be warranted, a judge looking at sexual activity between two 11-year-olds would take a different view if one of them was doing something to a struggling partner as opposed to mutually desired activity."

That falls under the heading of a "criminal enhancement." Robbery vs Armed Robbery vs Armed Robbery AND kidnapping by taking hostages.

"So yes, on this view if a 9-year-old plays sexually with a consenting 9-year-old, even if one of them later regrets it, parents won't try to punish the other one. But if an 18-year-old plays with a 9-year-old, the 18-year-old is in for some punishment."

I still don't see how different in age nullifies what same in age allows here.

And why wouldn't allowances for later regret not be pertinent when applied to the 9 year old.

Over in the real world the realization that you've been defrauded nullifies the contract alone; there is no get-out-of-jail-free card based on the accidental demographic features of the parties involved.

"Remember in this context I am talking about an enlightened anti-contact view, not the current societal norms."

And yet your examples still refer to what the parents want.

"Father to prosecutor: "I want 5-year-old Johnny in prison because he touched my 5-year-old Jenny between the legs". Doesn't fly.

Father to prosecutor: "Then I want his parents in prison because they didn't supervise him enough". Doesn't fly.

Father to Johnny's (sex-positive) parents: "I want Johnny punished because he touched Jenny."

Johnny's parents: "But it looks like Jenny didn't mind. If Johnny had done it when Jenny didn't want him to, we'd punish Johnny, but not if Jenny didn't mind."

Father to prosecutor: "They say all this but they don't know my girl at all. I can tell she's been hurt and is scared to show it. If you won't stand up for her, who will?"

So long as the parents hold a trump card then the trump card is all that matters here.

Imagine what would happen if the children had agency.

Judge: "Bailiff, remove these squabbling outsiders from my court.

Now since nobody was able to demonstrate intoxication, mental illness or a demonstrable disregard for safety to the satisfaction of the Court; I will ask each of you to come into my chambers separately to tell me what you want."

................

Judge: "Since both parties consent and nobody can demonstrate any impediment, then let the third parties suits be dropped. Further the parent who brought the allegation will be found in contempt of Court for knowingly bringing a nuisance suit to impede consenting partners."

If parents were reduced to the level of "character witnesses" I wouldn't object. Although Westermarck makes most children less likely to inform their parents of details of their love life than it does for best friends. At least that's how it works where I come from for adults and children alike. Friends might know whether I've ever tried anal sex, but my parents are out of the loop.

I know that most parents desperately want to be involved in such decisions. But their level of bias ( Westermarck among other factors ) means that they cannot be ask knowledgeable as their children's friends. Most cops know that they make lousy character witnesses.

Dante