Where do you draw the line in terms of supporting the destigmatization of sexual taboos or which taboos would you rather AMSC not be associated with? This is somewhat of a vague topic but I've mentioned in the past that I wanted 'credit' for the fact that a lot of the anti-AMSC taboo (when the minor is pubescent or post-pubescent) or the stigma around significant age-gap relationships between legal adults is rooted in a denial of human biology even though I believe that, from a moral standpoint, whether or not men are generally wired to seek out human females who look as though they could reproduce and bear healthy children or adolescent's bodies are similarly wired to be sexual is ultimately besides the point, the question is will minors or younger partners suffer, for age-related reasons, as a result of being with older people? Could an age-gap relationship be a source of happiness for them? In that same vein, a part of me has often wanted to differentiate infidelity from AMSC even though I believe that both may be permissible in scenarios where no one suffers as a result. That suffering is the only intrinsic bad and happiness should never be sacrificed for any other value is the hill I am prepared to die on but on some level I can 'understand' the grievance with cheating. I genuinely don't understand why people are angered by the sexualization of children or minors or why they on principle would oppose AMSC in at least hypothetically plausible scenarios where the minor not only doesn't suffer from it but for whom it would be a source of pleasure.
There are scenarios where people don't suffer as a result of being cheated on (and obviously the affair can be a source of happiness for the partner who cheats and for their lover. Imagine teenage sweethearts who are separated for whatever reasons, against their will, and they meet as legal adults when the woman at least is in a relationship with someone and the man has to go off to war the next day and might be killed, this is silly but I'm sure some people would see an affair between them as romantic or understand the last chance/forbidden love scenario and I could come up with different scenarios that could make people somewhat more sympathetic or at least understanding of cheating circumstantially. For the record, I only don't have a problem with cheating when the cheater does everything they can to protect their partner from suffering as a result and they have reason to believe that proposing an open relationship would just hurt them) but cheating is never ideal, in my perfect world it wouldn't exist because no one would be in contractually monogamous relationships to begin with (I believe that exclusivity for the sake of exclusivity is immoral, it contradicts valuing the happiness of all people, although it's worth emphasizing that the problem would be with exclusivity for the sake of exclusivity). I realize that some people who would or could be with me on the AMSC issue might be alienated by my view on cheating but I have to bite the bullet and concede that the value of both is tied exclusively to whether or not they cause emotional harm or could be a source of happiness for people. Still, a part of me has wanted credit for the fact that, value judgments aside, they are matter-of-factly not interchangeable. With cheating, a person is in a relationship that they would not have made an informed choice to enter or remain in if they knew that they would be or were being cheated on (this does have some 'slippery slope' concerns, there are some things about a person that they could hide in order to interest prospective romantic partners that we wouldn't see as unjust or morally problematic. I don't want to get into my views on the ethics of cheating in general). Even if you reject hedonism as a theory of welfare, the desire fulfillment theory of welfare that the anti-infidelity grievance is ultimately rooted in doesn't apply to AMSC either because even if it's true that children can't properly consent to sex what's being argued logically implies that they can't develop an informed preference to avoid sexual intimacy with an adult either... So nothing about AMSC necessarily implies doing something that contradicts a child's desires (not being able to properly consent would not mean that one has an active desire to avoid sex with an adult, again; only people who reject the idea that children can't consent to sex can even really appreciate that they CAN have an informed desire to avoid sex with an adult), regardless of where you stand on the issue of consent.
Even non-hedonists should be able to see why the taboo is illogical and that's what I've often wanted credit for (with cheating= the abstract 'frustration,' or non-fulfillment, of a desire for a monogamous/faithful partner. With AMSC- the absence of 'true' consent=/= an active desire to avoid sexual intimacy or, by extension, the frustration of such a desire).
I just wanted to start the topic (I'm somewhat rushing) but, in truth, I've been less uncomfortable with the possible alienation or lumping one taboo that has no logical basis even under certain conventional ethical ideals with another that could be sensibly rejected relative to those ideals lately. It is clear to me that happiness/suffering is what matters (I wouldn't want to take away harmless affairs from people that could be sources of pleasure for them either). I'd also add that rejecting sexual exclusivity for the sake of exclusivity is just as important, in my mind, as rejecting the AMSC taboo because it demonizes something that could be a source of happiness for people, even in scenarios where it led to no trauma, regret etc. A MAP revolution means little to me if it's not tied to the idea that everyone deserves happiness and serving happiness/harm reduction should take precedence above all else.