Alright, what stances do I know? Let's start with the mainstream stance on adult-minor sexual or romantic contact. Since it doesn't seem like anyone with this stance is present, this commentary will be entirely comprised of unfair slander, but I think it'll be interesting and fun anyway.
When it comes to children, humans face a fundamental dichotomy inside themselves; something that's very difficult to resolve. Children are generally pretty pathetic, especially compared to when they have grown fully into adulthood. Humans have a strong instinctual aversion to holding this patheticness against them.
Humans also feel a very strong sense of wrongness about the idea of a human having a romantic or sexual relationship with someone or something that's incredibly pathetic. However, if being willing to have that kind of relationship with someone is a big compliment, then not being willing to have that kind of relationship with a child because of how pathetic they are is holding their patheticness against them.
Therefore, the collective human consciousness invented and promoted a second, entirely fictional reason not to have sex with kids. They call it "the age of consent". Children under a certain age, due to magical reasons that are above your pay-grade, are simply incapable of consenting to sex. Therefore, people can tell themselves they aren't against sex with children because children are pathetic, they are against sex with children because that's statutory rape!
Most people I don't think actually care a whole lot about the specifics of the age of consent. Understandably, thinking too long about the topic is very uncomfortable for most people. Rather, the age of consent acts as a very good unspoken test of character for others in society. If someone willingly thinks too much about the age of consent, then it's a strong sign that the other person does not recognize how pathetic children are, and should not left with minors.
Of course, the average person can not and will not say this explicitly. Instead, they will say "you sound like a pedophile. There is no good reason for you to examine the age of consent so closely. You probably want to statutory rape a minor." The underlying meaning of these kinds of accusations is very far removed from the literal meaning of what is said however, and so it is stupid to try to refute the literal meaning. Not because normal people aren't openminded and rational, but because that kind of arguing is completely missing the true underlying point. *Ahem* nostr:nprofile1qqsd5dvsmttefnq0axgcg23g3yszf9txvtssfx5dp60sq3wdjzha72qpz4mhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumt0wd68ytnsw43qku7g3d
My position is that avoiding a relationship with someone pathetic shouldn't be counted as holding their patheticness against them. It's a show of faith in that person's ability to grow, and it's a show of respect in that person's right to face the truth. Especially if the person is cute and attractive and you have a good platonic relationship with them, choosing not to fuck them because they are pathetic does not need to stifle their growth.
Also, adults are stinky and ugly and all used up, so in the event that a kid is actually competent and responsible for themselves (which every kid's parent should encourage) it's still much better for them to date kids similar to them than date an adult.