Correction: "[only against the contention that "simple consent" mitigated the initiated aggression]"
Sorry. -Mark ++++++++++++++ Kiddledee, I only wish I had the power to "not allow" others to insert extra factors like INFORMED consent into the original question, but yes you are correct, I tried to keep it on track. But that supports my claim (that I was not arguing against informed consent [only against the fact that "simple consent" did not mitigate the initiated aggression]), not yours. I simply tried to stick to the original question. (But no matter; I estimate that 90% of this topic's bandwidth been spent on these kinds of off-topic / peripheral / irrelevant discussion, and only 10% on directly-relevant discussion. But we will continue.) I don't believe I ever argued that "pre-adolescents" were incapable of giving informed consent - simply by virtue of their age. I challenge you to quote where I said anything even similar. (Take the challenge. I haven't gone back to look either.) I think I posted the ages of preadolescence as "1 to around 11" in response to other's requests to do so. I'm at a loss to see how that's advocating an arbitrary age limit. But prior to that and since, I repeatedly stuck to the "pre-adolescent" label in an attempt to stick to a biological condition rather than resort to an arbitrary age limit. You really should go back and realize that my original question did not include any of those things. -Mark +++++++++++++++
