I'd say Peter and Christine are two kids being kids.  Hopefully they've been raised to be smart about what they do.  Teenagers having sex with each other has gone on as long as there have been teenagers.  That's radically different from this:

So who or what was protected by this collection of absurdities? Peter or Christine? Hardly. Some sexual mores that require marriage and the wish to procreate, but these mores had become controversial. That's why their defenders tried to claim they were protecting children. These mores were challenged by the concept of self-determination. This is what DCB argues when he writes about children touching him: they wanted it, and they were free. All sexual mores necessarily had to be questioned. Only after self-determination became (at least ostensibly) the criteria for banning sexual behaviour, could the debate move on to limiting this self-determination, but that happened later. DCB wrote exactly in the time when one set of sexual mores had lost all credibility, but wasn't yet replaced by the new consensus.

The bits about self-determination are, I'm sure, all very interesting if one wishes to engage is deep philosophical discussion of sexual evolution.  More often than not, much of the talk of "they wanted it," "they were free," "self-determination," etc, simply strikes me as adults rationalizing their own or others behavior.

Also, writing of five-year-olds "wanting it" -- and I'll grant the assumption of the account being fictional -- and defending such a statement as merely a means of being provocative strikes me as (1) not very provocative and (2) sick.

Also, too, Roman Polanski should be in jail and the French elite have no taste in film.

Be nice to America. Or we'll bring democracy to your country.