http://www.nytimes.com/2002/04/30/education/30MISS.html

But he questioned whether some people accusing priests these days were making up stories in search of a payday, and he said he believed that much of what was called molestation was really harmless touching.*

He said he resented that teachers were leery of hugging children for fear they might be accused of abuse. He imagines, he said, most adolescent males have fantasies similar to his, as a 12-year-old delivery boy, of being seduced by a female customer, and he wondered whether it would have been so bad had it come true.

In the article, an 18-page essay with 38 footnotes published in the Journal of Homosexuality, Dr. Mirkin argued that the notion of the innocent child was a social construct, that all intergenerational sex should not be lumped into one ugly pile and that the panic over pedophilia fit a pattern of public response to female sexuality and homosexuality, both of which were once considered deviant.

* For the record, Dr. Mirkin, who has grandchildren 2 and 7, said he had never had sexual contact with a child. Incest and rape, he said, are always wrong. He agreed that priests and teachers who touched children sexually were abusing their authority.

Well, your source credibility kinda walks on shaky ground considering how contradictory he can be at times.

Okay, so I've been trying to hunt down journal articles which discussed the issue of consent from children in a somewhat scientific way and I have been having troubles. Does anyone have any links or leads? I can get into a lot of articles through my University.

If anyone is up for some reading (and can get access), I found the article "What's wrong with sex between adults and children? Ethics and the problem of sexual abuse." to be decently interesting, although it is fairly old (1979) and lacks sources in a lot of areas. It discusses the main arguments against child-adult sexual relations and how they are flawed and suggested instead that the inability to give consent (consent needing both understanding and the ability to say no, the latter is lacking due to the power structure of the adult-child relationship) should be used as the primary argument (which leads me back to trying to find information on consent).

Eh... you really going to waste your time trying to prove something that's pretty much universally agreed upon?

At any rate, you're going to have trouble finding a scientific explanation for a legal phenomena.  What you should look for is the damage that can be caused by child abuse, and brain development as related to decision making.  You could also look into the studies they've done regarding obedience to authority with both adults and children.

i agree people should not be arrested for thought-  no disagreement there

You said the line between homosexuality and pedofilia did not exist-   that is what i was speaking to- 

How many pedofiles exist that claim the tag or are otherwise identifed as such  but have not engaged in their desire?  I bet few if any

They deserve all the negative stigma that exist and more-  there is no defense of the act-   and pedofiles that have not acted are probaly rare, and are ticking time bombs as they relate to chidren -  sooner or later most (probably not 100% but close) will act

I can t imagine anyone that wants to lessen the stigma and offer more rights to pedofiles that isnt actually a pedofile - just calling it like i see it

That is a huge heaping pile of BS-  I dont care how many studies or who dd the studies-  that is just a warped seriously deviant belief/wish

The reason for the bolded is probably due to the underlined sentiment. Just saying.

@Bolded Maybe many of the older ones haven't, but there are many teenagers who struggle with pedophilla who we can reach before they do anything or have done things while perpetuating the culture of child sex-slaves are less than directly molesting a child (such as watching child pornography.) Also nobody is defending the act, we are defending the people before they make any act. This is like saying sooner or later most men who don't get sex will rape women, because they want to have sex with women, but can't get it. 

https://medium.com/matter/youre-16-youre-a-pedophile-you-dont-want-to-hurt-anyone-what-do-you-do-now-e11ce4b88bdb?%3Fc=upworthy

"We have a few go-to archetypes when it comes to pedophilia: There is the playground lurker, the chat-room predator, and the monstrous (often religious) authority figure. These men are usually middle-aged, unrepentant serial abusers who are caught only after remaining undetected for years. But what about the preceding decades? When do these urges first begin to manifest?"

I'm not trying to prove anything, I was just curious. The problem that I've walked into is that it is universally agreed upon despite a lack of scientific evidence, which I find interesting. I have found another article, which speaks more in depth about how the brain develops in regards to decision making and it becomes exceedingly difficult to draw a line due to the fluidity of the brain and the fact that it doesn't fully develop until well past even the highest ages of consent.

As for the potential of damage, the problem is that damage isn't always objectively caused through sexual abuse and due to low reporting statistics, it is difficult to find a number to represent how often damage is caused. The paper I posted earlier suggested that majority may not produce harm. I'd be curious to see a study with the numbers more laid out, which actually controlled for a number of factors instead of trying to use more blanket definitions.

As for the power dynamics and obedience, it is pretty damning. I'd say there is no denying that the power dynamics of the situation severely mess up any possibility for consent.

You really can't make claims like that without backing it up...

Am I the only one who's sickened by the very notion of asking such a  question openly like this?

Probably not, but I'm guessing OP wanted to cause such an effect. Taboo themes generally bring this.