honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:

An older person will have autonomy and will decide their own contract. The younger person will not, and IN MY OPINION is therefore more vulnerable to exploitation.


An older person doesn't necessarily have any more autonomy than a 15 year old. Surely you agree that everyone of any age can experience pressure from family, partner, finances etc. If there WERE any barrier - perceived or actual - to a 15 year old refusing to continue with a topless shoot, this could equally apply to an older person.

And now, you're asserting that there is a possible risk (a "vulnerability") of exploitation. At first you asserted that paying a 15 year old for topless modelling was abusive. I've challenged you several times to defend the original proposition and you've not presented any arguments that stand up to scrutiny.

holocaust21 wrote:
I am sorry, I cant make head nor tails of this. guns to heads? killing people?

I'm pointing out that locking someone up for a sex crime is not much different to just killing them. You seem to be advocating locking people up for underage photos. So I'm asking you if you'd be honest about the whole thing and just kill them yourself, or if you'd rather get someone else to do it and why? Or perhaps when I swap locking up for killing does this now make you feel that what you are advocating might be morally wrong? Personally, I think it's a little excessive to kill someone if they unintentionally make you feel "uncomfortable". And I do think that locking up and killing are more or less the same thing in this case, so if you think killing is wrong then you should also think that locking up is wrong.

This is bonkers. I havent mentioned locking people up or killing them either.

Randall wrote:
hedda wrote:
OK I'll ask ny usual question which no-one can give an answer to:

If an adult sleeps with a Japanese 13 year old (legal) or a 14 year old Italian (legal) are they still a pedophile?

And if not why not?

Stand back folks, I got this one.

Whether they are a paedophile or not is unclear, but they are definitely a criminal in the view of the UK authorities.

S72(1) of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 says

If—
(a)a United Kingdom national does an act in a country outside the United Kingdom, and
(b)the act, if done in England and Wales would constitute a sexual offence to which this section applies, the United Kingdom national is guilty in England and Wales of that sexual offence.

So there you have it. A UK citizen can go to the countries Hedda suggested, or any number of other nearby States with a lower age of consent, strike up a relationship with an entirely legal partner, even perhaps getting married, and that's a crime somewhere else, where it didn't happen.

A couple of obvious criticisms from me... This section of the act very arrogantly attempts to undermine or override the sovereignty of other countries with whom we're on friendly terms. It also appears to violate the Article 7 principle of no punishment except in law, because when and where the act was done, there was not a law prohibiting it. Lastly, the UK would no doubt have something to say about a Ugandan or Saudi who engaged in perfectly legal gay sex on holiday in Brighton and then returned home to be prosecuted for something that wasn't illegal where it happened and didn't happen in the jurisdiction which is prosecuting him for it.

very good Randall although I was aware of that and especially since I often travel to Asia and am aware of local laws and Oz laws (not that I do anything illegal) and the fact that British, US and Aust. cops are based in these countries arrogantly doing what you describe- encroaching upon their sovereignty (the local cops hate them but gladly accept the money they bring) .

They are of course called "sex tourism laws".

But that's a legal thing and still does not explain the conundrum :an Italian man (or woman) has ex with a 15 year old and it's entirely normal (?) but in the UK a similar situation in the UK tabloids and the gormless scream "PEDO !!!".

And you wonder why the French think we are uptight prudes.

## and a warning if traveling to Cambodia (never have) - there is a team of very vicious ex Brit & Australian coppers who have formed a sort of vigilante organisation who set up tourists with underage youngsters and bust them.

They receive donations and funding from various ill-informed rich folk (although billionaire Gina Rinehart who gave them $500K a few years ago has. now abandoned them and refuses to discuss the situation- she thought the money was to set up a school for orphaned young females).

Most of the donated money they have received is used to rent luxury villas for themselves and buy expensive cars and they hold their weekly meetings in a notoious "girlie" bar ( and party afterwards).

It's another example of why pedo obsessed vigilantes are highly suspect ..as are their promoters like MWT who said he "understood why they did it" (I don' t)

Yes, I'm not seeing the equivalence between imprisonment and execution either.

However... in the anglophone world the treatment of so-called sex offenders is very much like the civic death concept from the Victorian era. Registration requirements and supplementary court orders creating bespoke criminal offences for individuals, plus lasting difficulties with employment and reputation make life unworkable. It's a kind of internal exile, similar to being sent to the Soviet Gulag except there's no political rehabilitation after a period. The best solution in most cases is to continue life elsewhere.

hedda wrote:
## and a warning if traveling to Cambodia (never have) - there is a team of very vicious ex Brit & Australian coppers who have formed a sort of vigilante organisation who set up tourists with underage youngsters and bust them.



I saw a documentary about vigilantes *ahem* Child Protection NGOs in Cambodia. My impression of one in particular, that was affiliated to an American church, was that there was a religious agenda to what they did. It was very much an anti-gay campaign. The ages of the Cambodian boys were incidental.

Other organisations concentrated on targeting/stinging/entrapping white western men. This made a sharp contrast with the assessment from a very experienced and seemingly genuine child protection operative based there, who had a much more considered view of the problem. The great majority of underage sex customers in the region (I think 96% was the figure) are rich local businessmen or powerful politicians. Westerners are not customers: they are marks to be secretly videoed and shaken down for bribes. This accorded with what I was told many years ago by a South East Asian acquaintance who had local knowledge of such matters.

Obviously, targeting the majority of customers would make the biggest impact, but it wouldn't make such a splash in the papers in the Anglophone world, nor would it attract as much funding. It also runs against the narrative grain of Rich Middle Aged White Man Neo-Colonially Exploiting The Poor Browns.

The expert in the documentary also set the industry in the context of reduced family ties due to the Khmer Rouge regime's policies, poverty, prevalence of gambling debt problems and the relative worthlessness of female children, economically. It struck me that poverty was the key factor facillitating the child sex industry. This is why people sell their children, or the older children need to do this kind of work. It's why bribery can hush up abuse and also why local police can't be bothered to do anything about crime under their noses.

This is bonkers. I havent mentioned locking people up or killing them either.

Honey, you said that photoing a topless teenager is "abusive behaviour". If "abusive behaviour" is against a female or a child then in our political climate that is said to be an "evil crime" of "violence against women and girls" and pretty much mandates a "lengthy prison sentence" so I just assumed that's where you were going. If not, then what punishment are you proposing?

Yes, I'm not seeing the equivalence between imprisonment and execution either.

However... in the anglophone world the treatment of so-called sex offenders is very much like the civic death concept from the Victorian era. Registration requirements and supplementary court orders creating bespoke criminal offences for individuals, plus lasting difficulties with employment and reputation make life unworkable. It's a kind of internal exile, similar to being sent to the Soviet Gulag except there's no political rehabilitation after a period. The best solution in most cases is to continue life elsewhere.

Randall, you pretty much answered your own question in the second paragraph. The reason I compare imprisonment and execution is because they are almost as bad as one another for the reasons you mention. Unfortunately I think you're wrong that one can continue life elsewhere, it was more practical in the past, but as feminism spreads and we exit the EU it's likely to be difficult or impossible. Countries will deny sex offenders permanent residence (or even any entry at all). And even if you get past that you'll then need to learn the language, figure out how to make an income etc. It's very hard in my opinion and for that reason a lot of sex offenders just LDAR (Lie Down And Rot).

holocaust21 wrote:
This is bonkers. I havent mentioned locking people up or killing them either.

Honey, you said that photoing a topless teenager is "abusive behaviour". If "abusive behaviour" is against a female or a child then in our political climate that is said to be an "evil crime" of "violence against women and girls" and pretty much mandates a "lengthy prison sentence" so I just assumed that's where you were going. If not, then what punishment are you proposing?
.

I did NOT say that photoing a topless teenager is "abusive behaviour".

I said that I class it as abusive.
ME.
NOT YOU.
It is subjective.

So I dont care who says it is an "evil crime" of "violence against women and girls" and pretty much mandates a "lengthy prison sentence" because that is one opinion and mine is another.

I am not proposing any punishment at all, thank you. I didnt mention punishment, imprisonment, or killing.

The thing about free speech Holo, is that it applies to us all.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:

I did NOT say that photoing a topless teenager is "abusive behaviour".

I said that I class it as abusive.


What's the difference?

Randall wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:

I did NOT say that photoing a topless teenager is "abusive behaviour".

I said that I class it as abusive.


What's the difference?

One is fact. One is opinion. As I am sure you are aware.

honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:
Randall wrote:
honey!oh sugar sugar. wrote:

I did NOT say that photoing a topless teenager is "abusive behaviour".

I said that I class it as abusive.


What's the difference?

One is fact. One is opinion. As I am sure you are aware.

Which is which?

And why?