Re: What about the parent's right

You are right.

But you are also culturally and historically delimited.

For 99% of history, for 99% of the people (a) most dwellings were single room, without internal divisions (b) even where there were internal divisions, the dwellings were made of materials which did not permit a hermetic level of privacy.

It is very recent that dwellings where commoners live (not kings, regional princes and barons, or people who owned more land than the size of some European countries,) are made of materials permitting hermetic levels of privacy, unlike bamboo or buffalo skin, or have enough internal divisions as to have personal rooms for different family members.

This is one of the most radical changes brought about by the Industrial Revolution, on par with public schooling and clothing reaching de facto post-scarcity, but it is a complete historical exception.

For 99% of history, for 99% of the people

If you want young kids to be more free in their sexuality, then you must demand their parents to be very free in expressing their sexuality with one another in front of their child. Let the child witness you having sex rather than shutting the door, hiding underneath the covers during those first five years.

the option was absent of doing this any other way. The parents couldn't not be free in sexual expression in front of their children, they couldn't avoid being witnessed by the child, and they couldn't hide beneath locked doors or covers. It just wasn't possible materially. Unless they only planned to have one child and decided to abstain after that birth. Which was rare too.

Which only goes back to the main point argued: that we are a historical exception, not the rule.

Indeed, in a lot of the Third World, people still live like that. Not the middle and upper classes in the modern cities of any continent, of course. But plenty of people, poor, rural, or still living in traditional communities (*) do.

And you know what?

It's one of the very first things Western missionaries fuck with. They insist in modernized dwellings with harder, thicker materials and internal divisions creating personal rooms.

And by Western missionaries, I don't only mean Catholic and Protestant. The Globalist and Socialist missionaries coming with the UN and various NGOs do the same thing too.

(*) It's hard to say a word that is universally understood, unambiguous and offensive nowhere. I mean here populations like the un-Westernized and un-Latinified Native Americans or Australian Aboriginals, or the Middle Eastern Bedouins and the European Roma. "Native" is more or less neutral, same as the preferred international law term "indigenous." However they aren't really very precise: modernized Indians, Chinese and Africans are no less native or indigenous to India, China and Africa than populations in their countries still living traditionally, for instance.