The answer, of course, is no. However, there is a Ryerson journalism teacher who begs to differ. Gerald Hannon believes "intergenerational sex" is not only quite all right, it can also be healthy.
And he holds those beliefs out to his students as an example of how your convictions can make you a better journalist.
"I could never understand ... how children's hockey differed from an organized child-sex ring," he wrote in a 1994 essay. "Both involved children and adults. Both involved strenuous physical activity (adult coaches taking the role of the adult lover). Both involved danger. Both involved pleasure. Yet we approve of children's hockey and deplore child-sex rings."
But it shouldn't be just any kind of sex, he qualifies. The child's desires must be considered.
"Penetration, for example, might be of little interest to most children (though I recall watching some pornography in which two 10-year-old boys f...ed each other, apparently with gusto) and we must find some way to balance a child's needs, an adult's needs ...
"It makes good educational sense to push a child's limits, much as we do in sports or academics, by requiring of them things they might at first feel incapable of doing."
You might say, so what? He's teaching young adults, not children. (He's not attracted to children, anyway, he says.) Besides, he's an award-winning journalist, hired to teach freelance writing and who cares what he thinks on his day off?
That's the problem. Hannon hasn't checked his beliefs at the door. By his own admission, he's raised the issues of child pornography and "intergenerational sex" - a code word for pedophilia - in his classroom.
"I don't think any of my students were shocked, they are friendly and continue coming to class."
In fact, there has been an impact on the young people who, despite his charismatic personality and obvious writing talent, are profoundly unsettled by his beliefs. "Teach me what you have to teach me and let me get out of here," said one.
Recently, Hannon was taken to the Ontario Press Council over an article he wrote about how the London police investigated allegations of a child sex ring. He used his trip to the press council to springboard into a classroom discussion on his beliefs.
The students aren't the only ones revolted by Hannon's view. At least one of his colleagues has grave reservations about Hannon's beliefs - both as a teacher and a parent.
"I don't think academic freedom gives you the right to spout off about anything," says teacher Kathy English.
And there will be those who cite academic freedom to defend Hannon's right to proselytize.
But freedom isn't the issue here. The issue is whether the institution should grant him the power and the platform to influence young minds. With power, there is automatically responsibility, which no one seems to be exercising in this case.
Finally, Hannon's influence reaches beyond his own students. The community at large tends to hold university teachers in high regard. Hannon (and, by extension, Ryerson) is now in the position of appearing to validate the perversity of the pedophilic view. That's the one that says the child benefits from (and craves) sexual congress with an adult.
Two outside organizations are now contemplating formal complaints to Ryerson over Hannon's employment. Both the Learning Enrichment Foundation and the Metro Toronto Special Committee on Child Abuse are deeply dismayed over his statements.
Still, journalism chair John Miller continues to support his teacher, going so far as to suggest anyone who questions Hannon's right to be in the classroom is "homophobic." That's not true. This is not a gay issue. It's about whether adults of either sex should be allowed sexual contact with boys or girls.
"Gerald Hannon is not causing harm to my students," says Miller.
Are you sure about that?