If you actually fucking read what I wrote and addressed the actual arguments, you would know that you look stupid as fuck right now and that the logic you are using will also apply to the parent-child context (unless you can successfully special plead) since your logic states that there is a ''position of authority'' once a person is young enough and once an older person is a certain age, which can obviously occur in that context and can be an even greater ''position of authority'' due to the very likely massive age gap. This will apply unless you can successfully special plead, which I will get into now.

Secondly, since you are saying that your logic or rule doesn't apply to the parent-child context and that it only applies to a context that involves sex. So, you need to name the trait or quality that is unique to and present in sex that is relevant to the original argument or that produces the aforesaid ''position of authority'' and its possible practical consequences. This will obviously have to be absent in the parent-child context if you want to successfully special plead and be able to only apply that rule or logic to the former context, otherwise, it is a logical fallacy.

Obviously, there is not some special or exclusive quality about sex that produces your ''position of authority'' nonsense. The same label can be put on any supposed or assumed consensual activity between a parent and their child since the parent is very likely to be significantly older than their child and their child can also be at the same age where you start baselessly and arbitrarily worrying about them being too young, which would be at age 14.

By your logic, if a father is at the age of 40 and their son is 14, that is ''a position of authority'' and any supposed ''consensual'' interaction or activity between them can be called ''predatory'' or ''inappropriate''. The requirements for actual consent are the same for any activity, including sex. The same aforesaid practical consequence of ''being very easy to manipulate'' can also take place in any interaction between a parent and their child. Do you want to initiate force in order to ban these types of interactions? If so, you can use your position to justify using force on and banning all parents from engaging in activities with their children until they reach an arbitrary age. You also can't truly call yourself a voluntaryist if you hold this position. Overall, you just sound morally dumbfounded (look it up) about the idea of 14yo having sex with a 25yo, but obviously can't give any good arguments for being against it.

For the last part of your idiocy, there is no evidence that someone before pre-pubescence is actually having sexual desires and once again, the fact that they are playing with themselves doesn't lead to that conclusion (learn basic biology). The last sentence is just you straw-manning (another logical fallacy) me since I never said that sexual desires are the only requirement and I never said that it should be solely based off someone saying ''yes''.

So, thank you for not responding to any of my actual arguments or even reading most of what I wrote (are you afraid to?), thank you for all of the logical fallacies, and thank you for the attempts to reduce your arguments to absurdity. Due to all of those things (and more) I have no desire to waste any more of my time on you and I also have no desire to see any more of your retarded, non sequitur, assertions about ''position of authority''. People like you are the reason I have so much disrespect for a lot (probably most) of the people in the so-called anarchist and voluntaryist community. The only thing people like you can do is bitch about the government. You have no understand of basic logic or philosophy and whenever this issue, or any issue that requires actual thinking comes up, you people quickly show how fucking stupid you really are and how low the bar is for entry into the anarchist or voluntaryist community.