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

Do you at least consider the possibility of there being an enlightened pro-contact view (which I think a lot of us here have)?

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.

Why is this always a draconian hard and fast rule? What if the 18 year has the intellectual development of a 9 year old child or even younger? What if the child was actually the aggressor and more mentally advanced in that instance? Why is everything always so black and white and based on nothing but pure ageism?

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."

On the enlightened view, there are severe limits on how much you can punish a child anyway. If a 6-year-old kills someone (with a rock, say), the punishment should still be quite limited because it's just a kid.

Even in our current sociopolitical climate in the US and other Western countries, children that age (6 and under) would be below the age of criminal responsibility. However, we've seen that older children (generally 7+) are charged with sex crimes based on sex play (which didn't happen during the generally much more repressed 1950s) or with adolescents they are charged with child pornography offenses for self-produced images of themselves (and their peers who receive such images can be charged with possession). And if it's considered valid that Jenny "didn't mind' when her same-aged peer touched her, why does it all of us a sudden become a crime when someone above a certain age does it, even if Jenny still "didn't mind" it? That makes no logical or moral sense.