From an outside perspective, I can see both sides of this argument you all are having here. I agree with you and Blackstone about the reason to not have sex is the spiritual one. However, I do believe that there is some substance to Dakota's point. Firstly, I am sure there are examples of both good and bad when it comes to the sexual component..although I might find it hard to trust what a BL says about such an act unless he has seen the kid out to a much older age..say 20s or 30s.

But secondly, stripping a lot of extraneous things out of Dakota's argument, I think he has a valid point. If you truly love someone, I don't care who you are, you are not going to want to put them at risk of any damage..physical or emotional. There IS a substantive chance of some kind of emotional damage..at a minimum socially, at least in places where such a thing would be greatly frowned upon. And for Blackstone to compare this kind of thing with, getting in a car and having an accident, etc is somewhat of a straw man. In this situation, the adult (the one responsible) is doing something purposefully to a child (the one not responsible) KNOWING what consequences could befall it. It is a difference between random chance and negligence. Using the car analogy, if a parent were to drive a car, not put the seat belt on, then get in a crash(which always has a random chance of happening) and the child gets hurt, that parent would be negligent and responsible for the injuries.

The point is that if you love someone, you are going to want to do all that you can to not be negligent towards their emotional well-being. Which I think Dakota would argue means that you would not have sex with them.