The article is pushing, pushing HARD, on a particular point of view: "Sex is normal and okay and should be enjoyed well before marriage and age 18".
Well, in the US in this year 2011, heavily this point of view is in actual fact DANGEROUS.
Before explaining some of the danger, notice, the article is EXTREME: To see how extreme, just look at the picture where the girl is somewhere between age 9-12, my guess would be 10 or 11. Below I will illustrate a little of why 9-12 is, here in the US in 2011, so extreme.
We need a fact of life, mostly about politics and religion and not just about sex: In the US, there is an extremely strongly held and very restrictive norm and a significant fraction of the population that believes very strongly in this norm and wants very much to have this norm ENFORCED on others and to bring serious, severe, even lifetime, public retribution to anyone who violates that norm. The norm is close to the traditional teachings of some religions, especially Roman Catholics, Baptists, Orthodox Jews, and Muslims, that sex should be ONLY within marriage. The idea that sex should be 'fun' between two people, like, say, playing tennis, is frowned on. That's the norm. To enforce the norm, there can be various cases of 'religious police'.
Now on to the danger: Anyone in the US who is publicly accused of violating the norm can be in very deep trouble in their job or marriage or legally.
E.g., without a doubt, one of the greatest dangers to the career of a politician is an accusation that they violated the norm. That is, there is a long list of once powerful politicians who, just because of accusations that they 'fooled around', were thrown out of office or had their political careers seriously hurt. Forgot Governor Spitzer? What about Chairman Wilbur Mills? The Little Wiener Representative Weiner? The news media is talking more about Herman Cain's (A) 999 plan or (B) he said-she said?
Outside of politics, there is a great danger of a person being accused of being a 'sexual predator' and, thus, having to 'register' for the rest of their life.
Violations of the norm can be taken more seriously than robbery or even murder. I.e., some people who follow the norm are REALLY 'uptight' about sex.
There are so many people who believe strongly in the norm, especially in Texas and the Bible Belt, that the Republicans toss out little hints about abstinence-only sex education, leaving sex education to the parents and holding down any role in sex education in the schools, repealing Roe v. Wade, etc. and get some significant election advantage.
Any suggestion or hint of improper behavior about sex at work can result in law suits, being fired, etc.
One of the crimes taken most seriously is rape, but, if sex were just like a game of tennis, then why lock people up for years because of rape? Because according to the norm, sex is very much NOT just like a game of tennis.
If the boy is in college and the girl in high school, then have to do some careful calculations about their birth dates and state laws to decide if the boy should be locked up.
Heck, the people with the norms don't even like standard sex within marriage: E.g., why in the US has there been a long tradition of June brides? Because it was long standard that a girl would get married in her first June after high school graduation. Then there was a good chance that she would be a "teen mother", married but still in her teens. But the people with the norms keep screaming about the evils of "teen pregnancy". Gee, Princess Di was a "teen mom". The norms are so UPTIGHT about sex they don't even want a married woman of 18 or 19 to be a mommy.
Heck, some of the laws enforced as desired by former US Attorney General John Ashcroft would have most of the US male population in jail -- literally. E.g., just take a picture at the beach where the picture has a girl under 18 and let a digital version of the picture get distributed at all. JAIL. According to Ashcroft, even a cartoon image would do. We're talking UPTIGHT. By the way, parents: No baby pictures!
For the case of the picture with the article, the public repercussions, especially for the boy, from any suggestion that that couple, with the girl likely well under age 13, even engaged in just some 'touching' could be horrendous. E.g., if the boy's father were a politician, then the news media could go wild for weeks.
The news media knows very well about the norms and how uptight many people in the US are and takes huge advantage to 'sell newspapers' or, now, get eyeballs for ads.
Sex outside of marriage, any touching related to sex, just talking about sex can have consequences that can ruin lives. At work, a woman can get a man fired, and his career ruined, just by complaining "He looked at me in a way that made me feel uncomfortable.".
Net, in our society, sex, nearly anything about sex, outside of marriage is DANGEROUS -- politically, legally, financially, etc.
The article is ignoring the strong norms and pushing a very 'liberal' view of sex maybe more like in, say, Sweden. At one time in the US, the age of consent was 10 -- NOT NOW. Maybe the US should return to the age of consent 10 or have something like Sweden (or maybe not), but currently that is very much NOT how the US is.
As dangerous as sex has been in the US, now with DNA testing it's much more dangerous. E.g., consider the DNA testing of the stain on the little black dress of that White House Intern during the Clinton Administration. Then consider how that stain was the 'seed' of a full impeachment process with all of the US Federal Government seriously distracted for months. Clinton was seriously throttled in what he could do as the leader of the US. We're talking SERIOUS and DANGEROUS.