Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!
Glad I could provide some mirth.
You really, really think that I'm somehow jealous of girls? Or of young women who look younger than I do?
I have no idea who you are jealous of. I just know you wrote that men should only hire sex workers who look as old as you. Which is silly.
Frankly, my dear, I had my share of that type of attention and more than my fill of it. It was creepy when I was a teen and in my 20's and 30's and ridiculous beyond. I will remind you what I've said before, with zero false modesty: On my very best day ever, I was about average looking. My wardrobe of chose is and always has been jeans and a t shirt. Sure, I've worn heels (not too high because they're uncomfortable) and skirts and dresses, etc. I can and do 'dress up' when the occasion or a job demands it. But I'm a very casual sort of person.
You are proving my point about imbalance in the non-commercial sexual marketplace: average-looking women still get a lot of attention form men, but a man has to be exceptionally good looking or have tons of game to be noticed by women. Hell, even less than average looking women can get laid by much better looking men. Like that woman I know. Quite fat, not very attractive. Very sexually active, and always with handsome, fit-looking guys with good hair. Would not give the likes of me any attention whatsoever, at least not sexually.
That is the reason why sex work is very much a necessary profession and why it exists in some form in every human society, and even some non-human ones.
We don't disagree as far as age of consent goes. I think that it is reasonable and realistic to recognize that teens have sex with each other and also to recognize when there's an age disparity of more than a couple of years, there's also a significant disparity in terms of power in a relationship.
Actually Georgia age of consent at 16 is the general age of consent, not the "close age exception".
As far as federal law stating that 18 is the minimum age for a sex worker: I think that is consistent with having a draft age of 18 and voting age of 18. Frankly 18 is too young to be drafted or to be sent into combat.
I think there should be no draft unless the country is in a dire need, at which point 18 is a reasonable age. It should also apply equally to men and women.
The draft age was lowered during WWII because of need--and because so many of the 21-36 year old men were rejected because they were unfit.
There were also many boys of under 17 (17 was minimum) enlisting under false pretenses. And while not great, I do not think the defrauded enlistment officers should be brought up on charges of kidnapping and such. Which is the equivalent of you wanting to bring men who unknowingly sleep with underage sex workers on rape charges.
I think that it is a profound disservice to young men that they can be forced into combat when they are only 18. The 18 year old voting rights came only because many people recognized that if one could be forced to 'die for Uncle Sam' you should be able to vote as well. Drinking ages were lowered---and more recently raised again because it has been recognized that drinking does really bad things to adolescent brains. So does war. So does prostitution.
No, the drinking age was raised because of pressure by the "Helen Lovejoys" of the appropriately named MADD and it had nothing to do with brains but with drunk driving. It is idiotic to prohibit legal adults from drinking alcohol and is just another example of US society infantilizing young people. That is pretty uniquely American thing too. European young adults are not suffering an epidemic of brain damage just because they are allowed to drink.
So do you want to raise age of sex work to 21 as well? Or even higher? And do you still want to pretend hiring a 20 year old sex worker is "rape"?
Then I think we've had some degree of misunderstanding. You want to differentiate between violent rape, preferably by a stranger in a dark alley, what you consider 'real' rape and But she LOOKS 18 rape. Statutory rape is statutory rape. It exists in order to protect girls who could and frequently are exploited by men who do not care that they are actually too young.
Yes, the whole idea of "statutory rape" is highly problematic, and something very unique to puritan US. Other countries have laws mandating a minimum age for sex (usually around 16) but they tend not to conflate it with "rape".
But what you are saying here is even more problematic. You can have an age of consent of 16, meaning that the law recognizes that a 16 year old is old enough to consent. That means that consensual sex with that person is not even "statutory rape" even if money is exchanged. We can acknowledge that even as we agree that a person should be 18 before they should engage in sex work.
Something can be prohibited without a legal fiction that a young person cannot consent to that act. We can set minimum drinking or minimum driving ages without having to pretend that a person under that age cannot consent to that activity.
No, it really should not. It should not be a valid defense anymore than claiming that you didn't know that the watch you bought on the streetcorner was stolen.
Not comparable at all, as legitimate watches are not usually bought on streetcorners.
But here we go to legality of sex trade. If watches were made illegal by some parallel universe version of Toni who hates watches rather than sex work, customers would have to buy watches from street corners and they would not be able to differentiate stolen from legitimate wares.
Same with sex work - legalize it and it becomes much easier to tell legitimate sex workers from those who are underage or may be coerced.
Sex without consent is rape. Someone under the age of 18 cannot legally give consent to be a prostitute. Logically, sex with a prostitute under the age of 18 is rape.
There is nothing logical about this.
A 17 year old should be held responsible or his or her actions. Instead you want to punish people who did nothing wrong.
You assume that someone who might have paid you at age 17 for sex was someone that you were interested in having sex with, not doing it because you felt compelled to because of an age/power disparity or because you were that desperate for cash or had been groomed to believe that selling your body was necessary to help your boyfriend make ends meet or because you did not know how to say no to something you were assumed to want.
I assume nothing of the sort. I merely recognize that a 17 year old is very different than a 12 year old. If a 16 year old can legally consent to sex, then it cannot be rape to consensually sleep with them.
Adults have an absolute duty to not exploit children--which is anyone under the legal age of consent for whatever activity it is the adult intends to engage in with the person under the age of consent.
Adults are not omniscient. If a minor (different than a "child"!) is misrepresenting his or her age, how is the other person supposed to know that?
In the end, 17 year olds are not small children and have agency. That should include responsibility for their own actions.
