We can leave it to our readers to decide which vision they would like to support.
That, I would argue, depends upon how much of a value the individual reader places on principle over personal moral beliefs; and how logical they feel your extreme hypothetical examples are to occur if the readers in question are not easily led by their emotions.

The alternative I suggest to a radical youth liberation argument is not youth enslavement or unlimited state power. It is one where liberty is the assumption (especially in cases where parents and children agree), and we carve out specific exceptions to reflect our most basic moral values as a society. Something like a girl choosing genital mutilation isn't an extreme example -- it could be the basis for a law specifically prohibiting people from performing such surgeries on minors. Each of these cases I mention can be addressed separately. But all it takes is a person's clear conviction that ONE of them is a valid cause for state intervention to undermine radical youth liberation.

From my perspective, the question most directly relevant to this group is whether prohibiting adult-child sexual activity is one of those cases. My position is "yes", though with qualifications and without the venom society brings to the issue. There are subtle points to be discussed.

In contrast, winning hearts and minds against radical youth liberation is easy with an appeal to moral intuitions (not emotions).