"no penalty at all for sexual activity with a kid if there is a reasonable doubt about consent (an implication of the pro-contact ideal)"

Then we just differ on what constitutes reasonable doubt.

The default you hold in reserve is "They say it, but I doubt they mean it." You apply it to law abiding pedos, to pride communities &tc. Every time you hear someone utter a statement you wouldn't make or choose something you wouldn't choose you manufacture "reasonable" doubt.

For most others the belief ( absent of any proof ) that others are deluded ( and that you aren't ) is just not "reasonable."

Its not pro-contact, its pro-choice. But again, here you have to put words into others mouths and cast aspersions about their sincerity when they choose their words for themselves.

The pro-choice position implies only that her choice is hers. And that the same threshhold to demonstrate delusion or madness applies to all.

Since it does apply to all, it applies to you, her parents, the LEOs. And just as agency applies to her, it applies to you, her parents ( and to a lesser extent LEOs; who enter a clear contract to assent to every detail of the law as written and to contradict none of it. )

The AoC isn't about a yes a no or any ambiguity, it is about age defining everything as a no.

Parental veto may take into account those things but only to the degree that someone outside of a transaction understands the mind of the party within the transaction. ( And it cannot trump AoC so long as AoC remains without endangering the child further. )

TOM ought to tell you that the parties closest to the choice understand the elements of the choice better that third parties.

---

Digression:

P.J. O'Rourke had an economic piece on the four ways to spend money. He summed it up this way. You can spend your money on yourself, your money on another, another's money on yourself or another's money on another.

In the first case you're going shopping with your own money. You have every incentive to spend wisely and to only purchase what you know you want.

In the second case you're buying your brother a present. You still have incentive to not spend what you can't afford, but you might end up duplicating a CD he just bought for himself or buy him a book by an author he can't stand.

In the third case the gift card from gramma may incentivize you to splurge on something you want but never thought was reasonably priced when it was your hard earned cash.

The most foolish way to spend is to get money from one stranger to spend on another. You can neither know what they want for sure, nor do you have any incentive for thrift. We call the idiots who do this last and most foolish form of spending "Congressmen."

---

Anyhow Theory Of Mind is understood by all when they know that their parents might be well intentioned in their meddling, but that they ought not determine which spouse is selected or whether to have children or even how to raise them.

Advice is acceptable. And if the advise is consistently useful, the folks may be regularly consulted. But they have no firsthand understanding of anything between the two parties involved in the relationship and making the choices.

Dante