Like some others, I remember when I was 10. Methinks thou dost protest too much ;-)
The highly publicized case of Mary Kay Letourneau raises some interesting questions of "perversion" vs. control (parental and governmental), does it not? When age of consent was first set in western societies during the middle ages, it was in fact ten for many centuries. Even then, the issue began as one of control rather than any outrage over perversion. Very young marriage was by no means common before the mid-teens but it happened. Early in the last century, there was marriage in the very early teens, with laws allowing it as young as twelve, and with a few states having no fixed limit other than what a court would allow. Such marriages at the extreme limit raised eyebrows but not hackles of outrage. Laws removing the ability of children to work outside the home rose hand-in-hand with the age of consent. But that would be expected as a practical matter since people unable to be legally employed would of course be unable to set up an independent household. And a relationship in which only one partner could work or indeed be allowed to function outside the home is an inherent inequality established by law, not by nature. Only after the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1939 became entrenched during and after WWII did the concern over perversion begin to apply all the way up to age 18, when a person by law becomes independent. Natural protectiveness hardened into control and then progressed to a moral outrage that simply did not exist 100 or 200 years ago, particularly in rural states. The case of Jerry Lee Lewis' marriage to his 13-year-old second cousin, long legal where it was performed in Tennessee, provided an opportunity for the the public in England and then in America to vent on this newfound sense outrage.
Of course, no one wants their child to become involved romantically or sexually with older men (or women). It interferes with the parental prerogatives in the lives of their children until they are full adults. The law has eliminated any concept of a gradual progression of children to independence based on maturity, ability or personal views and has set a fixed date for a sudden and complete break at the maximum age possible, ostensibly to protect children, often from themselves. And the issue today often devolves to one of secret casual sex due to lack of morals and draconian legal consequences rather than open marriage under the family's and society's watchful eye. But one must understand that the source of outrage stems more from loss of control, for which the recent and novel concept of young sex as a "perversion" was invented as a justification after-the-fact.
And yes, I've heard of, but never read, the Judith Levine book. But I remember when I was 10.
I did read Judith Levine's book. She made some good points and lots of bad points.
She was right, in my book when she discusses the fact that children and teens are sexual creatures who initiate and enjoy sexual contact.