It had to happen of course. An assault on the last taboo. New York author Judith Levine has written a book called Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children From Sex. In the volume she writes that children are sexual creatures and that in denying this we are in fact hurting them. Briefly, kids should be having sex.

“What is a child, sex, consent, pleasure?” asks Levine. Pretty simple questions actually. She goes on to rather predictably attack what she calls the “moral right” who, “boil down very rich, complicated cultural and historical and personal questions to some sort of slogans.” Interesting. Someone who dismisses billions of people with an empty political catch phrase, accusing her opponents of using slogans.

Actually Levine almost gets to the truth in spite of herself. Not moral right, but moral and right. Right as opposed to wrong, that is. Because protecting children from adult manipulation is not the preserve of left or right, but the duty of anyone who understands and appreciates childhood.

The author claims that the issue of consent is blurred. Sorry, you’re wrong. A clear mind sees clearly. No child can give consent to sex, because no child can give consent to something that is intrinsically adult. The reason is that children, whilst possessing a genuine wisdom and insight in some areas, are still developing morally and intellectually. The exact cause of children falling victim to pedophiles in the first place is that unscrupulous people can deceive and manipulate children, but cannot do so with adults.

Because there can be no genuine consent between a child and an adult, sex with a minor has to be rape. So are we to say that the ethics of rape are suddenly blurred, and will we argue that the victim of rape has sexual feelings and so does the rapist? Would author Levine propose, then, that rape is a valid form of sexual expression and that the raped woman simply has to come to terms with her deeper sexuality?

As to children having the origins of a sexual nature, this is a self-evident truth. Just as little boys have the origins of a beard. But until they grow to adulthood these characteristics, both physical and internal, are potential and not active. A five-year-old boy will grow to be a fine, balanced and sexual being – as long as his parents don’t believe Judith Levine. But to pretend to be so at five would be ugly, unnatural and enormously dangerous.

Just as if that same five-year-old walked into the room with a full beard and moustache. We would shudder, and then pity the wretch and wonder who had used diabolical science on him to so horribly damage and twist his little life.

Look, children can fight, but because of this we do not conclude that they should be allowed to take up arms, wear a uniform and shoot and be shot at by the enemy. In fact we have always condemned as barbaric any nation that allows children to be treated in such a manner precisely because they are children.

Kids can also drink alcohol. Some do. And become alcoholics who are generally dead long before their time. The person who gives them their first glass is rightly regarded as an abuser. So much greater the abuse when sex is involved.

One of the fascinating aspects of all this is that the liberal academics and radical feminists who are currently championing Levine seem to think that they are sexually liberated, whilst we who oppose them are sexually constipated and missing something. Odd thing is, we’re the ones with the large families, the laughing children, the obviously fruitful and enjoyable sex lives. Levine and her people seem so, well, so unhappy.