XQ
The laws do not prevent abuse they declare abuse.
I didn't say they prevented abuse, I said what they were designed to prevent abuse.
Being an adult sexual predator is already illegal. Everyone is already protected by law from adult sexual predators.
The original post refered to a set of goals, one of which was the reduction of the age-of-consent. This did not specify if it was a wholesale change (from 16 to 12) or a change to a stepped rule (like those I gave as examples). Obviously a wholesale reduction would remove the protection from adult sexual predators currently enjoyed by those currenty defined as under-age.
These laws are bigoted because they allow "children" to have sex with each other, but not "adults".
Why is that bigoted? Is it bigoted that featherweight boxers can't fight heavyweight boxers? Is it bigoted that Formula One races are not open to F16 jet fighters? Is it bigoted that you are only licensed to drive when you have proved you are competant?
First I think you're approaching this from the assumption sex is wrong. It isn't.
If sex isn't wrong, then the legal involvement in sex should be reduced to that of minimising and protecting from harm.
As adolescents, no matter how clever they think they are, are in need of protection from adult sexual predators, it is right there are rules to help protect them.
However, there is no equivalent need for protection from what is arguably (and there is plenty of anthropological evidence to back this up) natural sexual exploration by and between adolescents PROVIDED it is between approximate equals and there is a suitable educational background.
I think you really need to be more careful about how you phrase things XQ; you clearly stated that you thought "In the rest of the no so nice word prostitution is not exploitation. It is work for men, and women.". I responded to that. If you don't mean that, don't state it. And as regard the relative numbers of men and women in prostitution, if you wanted to you could find facts and figures of this and show whether your claim is true. Just saying that you can't prove your stance is sheer laziness; the stats are out there.
You also can't prove that other forms of nonsexual work are not exploitative in an area where one source of employment is the only option for that area such as mine towns in Russia.
Ah, so I can't prove that things I didn't mention aren't things I didn't say they are? Why not try making your own statements accurate, rather than attributing claims I didn't make to me?
As regards the policy of sentencing people for having sex with children when outside of the country of residence, you should realise that the USA has more-or-less the same law as the Netherlands in this regard. Your ignorance of your own countries legislation makes your ill-informed rant about the Netherlands hilarious.
They are ignoring the right of a sovereign state including the USA.
And you are ignoring human rights.
Also it is the countries job to enforce its laws already in place.
And if the country has those laws in place but doesn't have the infrastructure to enforce those laws, or has police of judicary that are easily bribed?
The age of consent in Thailand your example is 15 just like Colorado. What is wrong with having "having vaginal, anal and oral sex" with a 15 year old if it is legal?
Your lack of honesty is depressing; I specified a 14 year-old sold into slavery. As you cannot (without seeming reprehensible) condemn sex-tourism laws using that example you simply change the argument to one I did not make.
With your talk of sovreign states et. al. you ignore the rights of humans to be treated a certain way even if they come from a country that doesn't afford them protections they should have. So, to you, a country's sovreignty is more important than human rights? I don;t really think you think that, but I could be wrong.
And the examples you give really reveal how little you've thought about this subject. Someone smoking pot on holiday is only (arguably) harmning THEMSELVES. Someone paying to have sex with a child sold into or kept as a slave whilst they are on holiday is harming ANOTHER. Clear enough difference?
These laws do not prevent abuse or exploitation of children. They just declare everything abuse if it is under a certain age. They are doing it because it politically feels good.
If we could PREVENT abuse it would be wonderful. As we can't, trying to protect against abuse has to do.
Also arrange marriages are not wrong in fact it has been practices for thousands of years and people are still thriving in places that practice them.
It is very easy for a Westerner to feel fine with illiterate girls being married-off to men they don't know, and whom they will have to obey for the rest of their lives. I happen to think that that is wrong. I care more for the person than the damn laws in another country used to dehumanise and disenfranchise women.
Face it you are just in a gruff with me because I tell it like it is and I am not so elitist or idealistic.
No, I am 'gruff' with you because you don't know what you are talking about to the extent your arguments are offensive; if they aren't offensive why did you change the details of the example I gave to make it look like you are reasonable?
Most of these laws age of consent laws do zero good.
Of course, you will have a complete inability to back up your opinion with facts.
It is like declaring spam a crime.
Are you seriously comparing the rape of minors (sex without consent is rape and minors can't give informed consent) to sending spam email? Think XQ, think! That's one of the things you have to learn how to do if you leave a cult.
Addadon if you wish explain in detail how a 15 year old having consensual sex with a 15 year old should be legal, but a 15 year old having consensual sex with a 30 year old should be illegal.
The key word is consensual. 15 year-olds are similarly experienced; there will be a spectrum of abilites etc., but normally if two 15 year-old have sex it is a largely mutual affair.
A 30 year-old is far more experienced. It is quite possible for a 30 year-old to specifically target 15 year-olds and use their age and experience to get them into sitautions the 15 year-old would not otherwise want. Whilst there would be some occasions where there would be informed consent, often there wouldn't be, it would just be a young person being exploited by an older one.
If you are happy with a future daughter of yours being persuaded to have sex by some adolescent-chasing 30 year-old, and regretting it bitterly afterwards, if you're okay with older people exploiting younger people for sex, fine. That's your choice. I'd rather try and look after the young people.
Amusingly, evil bad wicked Holland has a legal system that would ONLY come into play in that above scenario of yours IF there was a complaint by parents or the child involved. In most of the USA the above scenario would be regarded as statutory rape regardless of whether the 15 year-old 'consented' or not.
Do you support making sodomy illegal again too? Or abortion? Or interracial marriages? There is no difference with these gap laws. Just more modern porneia.
Look, why not try and make a decent defence of your arguments instead of using the strawman (and very cultish) technique of trying to attribute (even if it's just by asking view-point questions) arguments to me that I did not nor would make.
Sodomy between two people exercising infomed consent is non-harmful (or at least less harmful than most extreme sports!). Interracial marriages are non-harmful. Abortion is non-harmful, if done early enough so that the fetus has no real self-awareness.
An adult taking advantage of a minors sexually IS harmful; do you really want to debate that?
