Re: not the greatest analogy

If you want to make a better argument, start with how restricting children from engaging in sexual activity is damaging to them (I can guess, but it'd make your statement more logical.)

But that is why I made my plot of land compatible with several goals. Neither is completely harmless; neither is completely harmful either.

And now you're complicating it by adding the child's desires, too, which you didn't in the previous post (hence why an inanimate object was adequate). In that case I would easily argue that the simple violation of the child's desires (which do not cause harm to others; nor direct and irreversible harm to themself) is already misuse, and I wouldn't need the analogy.

Restricting equals using because in both cases you are overriding the child's own decision.

Sometimes there might be a "greater good" argument, I admit that. But if you are going to generalise, then you have to generalise beyond the "greater good" set of cases. And once you do that, the overriding character is the same.