That's interesting, and of course I agree with you.
But why is sex special? Why does it require a greater degree of maturity to legally consent to sex, than to consent to a foot-massage or a shoulder-rub or even a ride in a tilt-a-whirl?
With children pre-puberty, the unwanted-pregnancy risk does not exist, nor does it exist for an older child if the sex is confined to the usual sterile copulatory perversions; and if the adult perp is either infection-free or condom-equipped or otherwise shrink-wrapped for freshness and quality assurance, the STI risk does not exist either.
(But excuse my use of the disrespectful "perp". Now they call themselves adepts at intergenerational love, sexuality mentors, or even activists for children's sexual rights.)
So, prescinding from pregnancy and infection, what reasons are there for protecting children from sexual access? And if those reasons are not really compelling, will they not necessarily be dropped in favor of equal rights, the liberty interest, and (no doubt somebody will call this a means of free expression) The First Amendment?
Conversely, if sexual exposure really IS harmful to children -- as these scrupulously agnostic Icelandic "experts" say it is --- wouldn't that justify curbing the universal (including childrens') access to adult porn, which is the Internet status quo?
I think this is a very interesting discussion, because it involves both liberty and morality. The First Amendment is not absolute, and I don’t think the founders would have permitted what’s freely available today. They would have said we’re crazy to think the First Amendment protects any kind of speech or expression, including perverse sex.
I prefer community standards, letting groups decide what is best for themselves. However, I also see the liberty point of view, that adults should be able to choose to see what they want to see, and I worry about a government strong enough to ban whatever it thinks is obscene (Are guns obscene? Some libs would probably say so!).
I can only imagine what’s available online these days. I don’t see myself as a prude. I’m not offended by nudity or natural sexual relations between a man and woman, although I prefer it be kept private (seeing a nude woman doesn’t mean I must lust after her, but it could lead to that. Therefore, it’s better to avoid even mild stuff). However, I think we’re way, way past that.
So where do we draw the line? Who gets to decide?