Sex in front of a child is "child abuse"

[Inspector]

Hippies like public sex (as well as private sex???), and the "hippie sexual philosophy" is wrong, therefore having sex in front of your children (qua public sex) is wrong? I really wasn't trying to cause a problem for the sake of a problem or trick you into a debate, but your proof doesn't follow.

You're mistaken on what I'm proving. Here's a hint; my concluding statement is:

Therefore, Objectivism is against sex in front of your children (qua public sex). (with the standard context disclaimer and all that)

A more analogous example would be one where Rand says "blue is a color for irrational people", and someone taking that as a philosophical statement.

If she actually said that in all seriousness, describing how blue was caused by a bad philosophy, and followed from irrational premises, then it would be a statement of Objectivism.

If what you are presenting as Rand's idea (concerning sex in front of your children) was presented as merely being Rand's personal (subjective) preference, I doubt there'd be any argument. But that's quite different from presenting it as Rand's view of philosophy which objectively applies to everyone.

There is a difference between the two (although I wouldn't lump the personal in with the subjective if I were you). The way to discern this difference is in the philosophical terms the statement was given, the philosophical argument (however brief) presented, and the fact that she was discussing this idea qua philosophy. In other words, all the stuff I pointed to earlier.

[blackdiamond]

Then what acts of romantic love are not irrational to expose to a child?

How about the non-sexual ones?

The kind that you can freely do anywhere in public (assuming you are not an Objectivist hippie )?

The kind that you can even do to (with) the child?