Consent is remarkably difficult to define, well, definitively, let alone prove, disprove, or effectively enforce. It is absurd to leave such a complex endeavor to busybodies and bureaucrats of the State, who routinely mangle even the simplest of tasks.

That said, the rationale for age of consent, child pornography, and child prostitution laws stems from a literally sex-negative premise: each child must have the “right” to say no to sex, but not the freedom to say yes.

If forcing a child to have sex is abuse, why is forcing a child not to have sex any less abusive?

For that matter, if forcing a child to have sex is abuse, why not forcing a child to ride in an automobile, which is usually far more dangerous than almost any sexual activity? How about forcing a child to eat foods replete with sugars and complex carbohydrates, arguably raising numerous health risks by a large margin? How about forcing a child to attend public school where he or she will be forced to pledge allegiance to the State and will be indoctrinated in “patriotic” pro-government, nationalistic, and militaristic ideology? What might constitute abuse depends on one’s perspective. Yet when it comes to sexuality and especially the sexuality of young people, one sex-negative moralist perspective is violently imposed upon everyone.

Why should we trust the State to protect children? The most powerful State in the world somehow cannot afford to install seat belts on school buses, yet manages to budget billions upon billions to maim and kill children across the globe. It is not plausible that those who rape children’s sexual freedom are motivated largely by a genuine desire to protect children. Rather, such “protection” is functionally a protection racket and serves as a cover for ulterior motives such as power and profit.