child-sex protest, and yet in this case they seem to be arguing the exact opposite position: We should not interfere when an adult has sex with a child. And yet, what does that imply: That children have the ability to "give consent" to sex? If this argument is pursued, it would mean the removal of all statutory rape laws, and if a grown man has sex with a 5-year-old girl, for example, prosecutors would have to prove that it was forcible rape -- or "rape rape" according to the eternally discredited Whoopi Goldberg -- otherwise the adult would walk free. Since the act would likely happen in private, and any good defense lawyer would tear the 5-years-old's testimony to shreds, then we'd enter into a free-rape zone, in which adults could rape children at will. Yup, that's the way they are going. Of course, the ability of defining who is free to give "consent" (sexual or otherwise) is pretty darned garbled since for years the feminists have argued that women could not exercise free "consent" because they are so overwritten by cultural forces that they can only act in ways defined by the patriarchy that oppresses them. That deconstruction stuff really cuts all ways, doesn't it? Thus we end up with the anarchist desire for a continual revolution where the "powerless" would be forcibly placed in positions of power in order to "empower new voices to change the narrative." Sounds just yummy, doesn't it. Oh and if you ask me