Since Aisha seemed fairly normal and still respected Muhammad even after his death, it is more difficult for me to rage at him than I would another. Sure, I find what he did morally wrong on multiple levels, but the outcome does not appear to have damaged or even harmed Aisha. I believe that is very important in considering how "wrong" something is. Muhammad would not or rather, could not sleep with her until she menstruated. That's a fairly decent biological measure for when someone is "ready" for mating. Don't forget that we are animals. There are specific biological markers to look for: body odor, menstruation, pubic hair, armpit hair, breasts, curvier hips, fuller face and lips, and a deepening voice (I was only talking about female humans, of course). If you view sexuality like a biologist, it becomes less and less taboo to consider what Muhammad did. However...only ONE cycle and he was hitting it? If she looked 14-16 at 9, sure, that's a bit more understandable. But it's highly unlikely she did at age 9. That does not seem to coincide with even a biological assessment of his actions.
Why did we get off on this tangent, again?