And I'd agree with that sentiment. I can't accept adult-child sex, because it's inherently exploitative -- even if the child "consents" -- just like capitalism; but I'm willing to discuss child-child sex.
This smacks of religious dogma to me. There is nothing "inherently" exploitative about sexual contact between a child and an adult, the problem is when adults use their social status to
coerce children into having sex with them. It is theoretically possible for an adult and a child to have non-coerced, consensual, safe sex, however unlikely you may think it would be.
As or capitalism, I wouldn't see a problem (as in it wouldn't be blameworthy, it could still be exploitative) if someone who needed human hair to survive worked for someone else in exhange for their hair. The problem with capitalism is that capitalists claim 'ownership' of means of production that they don't even use and appropriate money generaed by labor they didn't perform. The idea of humans 'owning' natural resources is absurd, modification (which requires the luck of discovery and first claim) doesn't change that. Nobody owns land, air, water etc. It's even more indefensible when you accept the realty that human behavior is determined rather than 'self-authored' and thus, no one 'deserves' the product of their labor anymore than they 'deserve' punishment.
Saying "I'm willing to discuss it" may sound authoritarian, but so be it: the role of adults is to protect children and teach them how to navigate the perils of the real world. Little kids don't fully grasp sex,
What you mean by this (the bolded) is that they haven't yet been socialized to hold the same arbitrary, cultural attitudes about sex that you do. It isn't "true" that sex is anything more than physical contact. By all means, you can explain to a child what the possible, negative ramifications of sex are but
you've no right to decide who they are allowed to have sex with.
so they should be taught about it. I'm all for openness there. There's nothing to hide about sex, but it does have its perils.
You still haven't gone into detail about these 'perils'.
By African_Prince's reckoning, we should allow Alzheimer's sufferers to wander onto the highway rather than get all authoritarian on their asses and restrain them. I say that those of us who possess fully-developed & intact faculties have a moral obligation to look out for those who do not -- even if that means becoming a benevolent dictator and telling them what they can and cannot do. Within reason, and for their own safety, of course. These things are not black and white. It's juvenile to say that it's always wrong to control others. We have to be very careful about it, that's all. Unless of course we want to be shoveling toddlers and elderly people from the pavement.
In this case, the Alzheimer's suffers don't realize what can happen to them if they wander into the highway but what can happen to them isn't the result of interpretation or applying the situation in an emotional or cultural context. What can happen to them can be explained in physically tangible terms (ie. they will literally be injured). With sex, the 'ramifications' you talk about are subjective and possible, physical injury is guaranteed if one is hit by a car.
