It's all related to the education level of the masses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malbec
Printable View
It's all related to the education level of the masses.Quote:
Originally Posted by Malbec
And the age of consent varies from state to state in the U.S. I've already stated that at least twice, I believe. In one post you suggest that age limits are puritanical, but here you say that 16 as the age of consent "is enforced by law because such things have to be regulated in order to avoid abuse."Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
The underlined portion of your post represents the point I've been trying to make all along.
Citizens of different nations or states will choose the statutory limits that they feel are appropriate. But in your case, if the age limits they choose and the penalties that they apply don't agree with your view, you seem to want to toss around hyperbolic, pejorative terms like "puritanical" and "hypocrisy". As other posters have pointed out to you, even in Europe, it doesn't appear that 16 is a universally accepted age of consent for all situations. There are places in Europe where prostitution (the actual topic of this thread) is legal or at least decriminalized. So is it legal there to bed a 16 year old prostitute? Can they act in adult films? No, well why the heck not?! Why can't they let the teen hookers make decisions for themselves and make some money?! Why are those people being "puritanical" and "hypocritical" and whatever else? :rolleyes:
I'm sorry, but at least if you were arguing for no age limits I could follow your logic. I wouldn't agree with it, but at least your logic would be more consistent. But your position is either not being explained very well (which I simply asked you to clarify before you got testy) or it is extremely fluid.
You've devoted so much effort and time trying to ensure that you don't agree with me, that you seem to have also lost sight of your own position. Look again at the underlined portion of what you JUST posted and what I posted previously.
Quote:
Again, my view is, whatever age of consent the citizens and lawmakers of a particular state want to choose, arbitrary though it may be, some sort of statutory limit MUST be in place. Otherwise you would have certain types of adults trolling playgrounds (with bags of candy) as they look for "dates". And the socially awkward American female teachers who think that they should be allowed to "date" their minor male students, they are more than free to leave here and go teach in your country. They'll wind up in jail here.
My point is that as long as there is an agreed (and needed) reference age for people to be responsible for their own lives then there is no use whatsoever to consider outrageous a relationship between a 16 and a 60 year old person. That's all. I hope it is clear.
Yes there is.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
“Outrageousness” is a subjective view so laws are not the mechanism to pass judgement on such a scenario.
Although it may be legal, it certainly can be viewed as outrageous by some individuals.
Ole - I am buying a ticket right now :) Yes airshifter if a 20 yr old even touched my 13 yr old daughter it would be instant sterilization for him via of Dr Magnum. However if a 20 yr old hottie did my 13 yr old son - I may see if I could get a little too.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
What if the person after your daughter was this 20 year old?Quote:
Originally Posted by Roamy
http://img23.imagevenue.com/loc339/t..._122_339lo.jpg
And the person after your son was this "hottie"?
http://img31.imagevenue.com/loc158/t..._122_158lo.jpg
Hmm, I think this was what Alan Greenspan used to refer to as a conundrum. But hey, maybe Justin will indeed give you "a little" too. Oh, what a tangled web we weave... :D
Though obviously a tongue in cheek post by Jag, I was surprised when I looked up the age of consent laws about a point that he is joking about.
In several places the age of consent is higher in a homosexual relationship. I found this very odd, but at the same time it seems to be a more socially complex issue than a hetero relationship, even today in 2012. So Roamy might not want to push his luck with Justin... he might still legally be off limits. :)
That it may be, but the views of those who seek to perpetuate the difference should simply be ignored. To hell with them.Quote:
Originally Posted by airshifter
Sorry guys but I think it's time to return to the main issue of this thread which is prostitution. Meaning sex on money ( or other material interests ).
At this moment I'm probably the only woman who attends this thread. And I confess I'm disappointed by what I read here.
Looks to me that people around here have more problem with consented sexual relationships than they have with prostitution.