6:00pm Curfew for men

[Metaphor]

I am well aware of the difference.

You seem to be aware of your own reflection riding a broken hobby horse.

You were not aware of the difference. This is betrayed by your previous post that conflated sex and gender.

It must be difficult to ride multiple broken hobby horses at the same time.

It must be difficult to be a feminist and not understand the difference between sex and gender.

 

[Derec]

It must be difficult to be a feminist and not understand the difference between sex and gender.

Maybe Toni is a TERF in addition to being a SWERF ...

 

[Derec]

Not at all. I think it would be rare for a rapist to be indifferent to the gender of his victim.

Which is why I qualified with "just because".

Factually, rape is defined by law. If the law defines something as rape, then, legally that is rape.

True, but that varies by jurisdiction. In any case, your indignation suggests to me you also think it is morally the same as rape.

Also, laws can be nonsensical. A law could in principle declare that people may not consent to sex with people they are not married to. Or just declare that people are not allowed
Does that mean that all the people who factually consent to such sex (even if they are legally not able to) are factually rapists because of some legislative fiat? Would you refer to those people as rapists on here just because of the letter of some law?

In the US, a person under the age of 18 cannot legally consume alcoholic beverages, get a tattoo or get a drivers' license without parental permission, cannot sign a legal contract, cannot (in most cases) agree to their own medical treatment, cannot rent an apartment, take out a credit card, or engage in lots of different kinds of employment or enlist in any branch of the US miliatry or open a bank account in their own name, or get married without parental consent. For starters.

Yes, but in all those instances we know that some minors do, or try to do, those things. We do not pretend that they are somehow incapable of choosing those things of their own free will. We are simply saying that they should not be allowed to make that choice. There is no real difference to sex work.

A 17 year old can make all sorts of (illegal) choices. We're talking about federal law here.

So you admit that a 17 year old can freely make a choice to engage in sex work? That they are not allowed to is a different question.
If a 17 year old can make that choice, that means that he or she is not necessarily forced into anything, least of all by the client who may not even be aware of the age.

Depending on the state and the age of the other person, it may or may not be classified as rape. Again, what is and is not rape is defined by law.

Which contradicts your absolutist statements form earlier.

Btw, would you classify it as "rape" even if the customer had no knowledge of her (or him for that matter) being 17?

Yes. I think that one must perform due diligence. A customer who 'purchases' a motor vehicle has the duty to ensure that the vehicle he is purchasing belongs the the person who is selling it and that the sale is legal and in accordance with the law.

How is a person realistically supposed to do that, especially since fake ids are so easy to come by.
Also, if I buy a car from a dealer, what am I supposed to do if the dealer commits a crime by selling stolen cars? Any criminal responsibility should be on the dealer, not buyer.

I do not think it is in any way just to punish a person who did nothing wrong. A client who hires a sex workers he or she believes to be an adult did nothing wrong. The sex workers who misrepresented his or her age did wrong here. Your views are fundamentally unjust.

This is another instance where legal sex work would help things immensely, as you could have government-issued licenses with age checks.

I think people are a lot more important that cars.

They are. Including people you want to throw in prison for "rape" even though they did nothing wrong.

An employer has the legal obiligation to determine that any employees are able to be legally employed in whatever industry and under whatever conditions the employer is offering employment. This includes being of age, as determined by law, and being a US citizen, if required by law or having papers that allow the individual to be employed.

A customer is not the same as employer.

You seem to be hellbent on punishing men just because you dislike men who hire sex workers. Even if these men did nothing wrong.

To be continued ...

 

[Toni]

It must be difficult to be a feminist and not understand the difference between sex and gender.

Maybe Toni is a TERF in addition to being a SWERF ...

As ridiculous as this makes me look, I actually expect better from you, Derec. No matter how much we disagree, I do not expect you to descend into dishonest namecalling.

 

[Derec]

No, I am stating the law. You want wiggle room to have sex with underage prostitutes. There is none, legally.

That is a horrible thing to allege! And you often make such statements against people who disagree with you.
No, I do not want such wiggle room. At the same time, I do not think that anybody should be prosecuted for wrongful and fraudulent behavior of others.

Actually, there is significant violence against prostitutes in Nevada and across the US and throughout the world. Whether prostitution is legal or not.

Which means that Prohibitionism doesn't make things safer for sex workers. Probably the opposite.
And Prohibitionism has other negative consequences, not least being significant reduction in individual liberty for both providers and clients.
Somebody who fancies themselves a "liberal" ought to care about that. Instead you seem to believe that unless a man is in a sexual relationship or one of the 10-20% of men who can get casual sex at bars and night clubs, he should just resign himself to a sexless life.

You've nicely summed up our differences. FWIW, I would feel differently if I believed that legalized prostitution made prostitutes safer. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to nor does it seem to reduce the demand for trafficked women (sex workers agains their will) or minors.

Even if legal sex work does not reduce demand for such things (and you have not shown that - your sources are all flawed in that they define "trafficking" much more broadly than you do here in order to dishonestly inflate numbers) how is that an argument for Prohibition?

Prohibition does not make anything better, but makes a lot of things worse. Including ability to have sex work licenses where age is verified.

Actually, that's not at all true. First of all, there are a lot of women who are lonely or just horny and have trouble finding a sex partner, either for casual sex or for a relationship.

LMAO!

Secondly, I do have sympathy for those who have difficulty in finding satisfying relationships where they can engage in sex, whether those relationships are 15 minute hook ups in a bar parking lot or long term relationships. I think in most cases, people can find the type of relationship they want if they are willing to take more chances and actually put themselves out there, instead of hiding in a room with a computer screen.

You are sadly mistaken. Only maybe top 10-20% of men by looks and charm can find random hookups in bars etc.
In any case, that is not even an issue. If a willing adult wants to sell sexual services for X dollars and another adult wants to buy that service for X dollars, why should that be illegal?
If two people are allowed to hook up because some Chad bought some girl a drink or two, why is leaving money on the dresser a big no-no?

I have both brain science and the law on my side.

No, you don't. There is no 18th birthday switch in the brain and as far as laws, we agree that minors should not be allowed to engage in sex work. We disagree in that you want to prosecute people who had nothing to do with fraudulent behavior.

I have no desire to see consensual sex between a 17 year old and someone within 2 years of their age criminalized.

And yet there are laws that do that. For example in faux-liberal California.

Engaging in sex for mutual pleasure is vastly different than engaging in sex as commerce.

Sure, there are different. Which is why I agree that 18 should be the limit for sex workers. But people who had nothing to do with the fraudulent behavior should not be punished for it.

Also, who says that all 17 year olds who have sex do so for pleasure? There may be different reasons people have sex.

I think they picked a low end for age, myself, based upon what I know about the growth and maturation of human beings.

I disagree. American society infantilizes teenagers and young adults enough.

I think it is very difficult to discern what constitutes 'consent' for prostitution. I'm much less concerned about whether a 40 year old is making a rational decision about how to earn her living than I am about a 17 or 18 year old who may make a decision that puts their life and health in significant danger. And yeah, I'm not keen on 18 year olds being able to enlist in the military, either.

I think it is easier than you claim. You just want to hang to the fantasy that prohibiting people from choosing certain kinds of work is somehow noble.

 

[Derec]

It must be difficult to be a feminist and not understand the difference between sex and gender.

Maybe Toni is a TERF in addition to being a SWERF ...

As ridiculous as this makes me look, I actually expect better from you, Derec. No matter how much we disagree, I do not expect you to descend into dishonest namecalling.

Says the woman who is casually accusing me of wanting to bang 17 year old hookers.

And, aren't you a SWERF?

 

[Toni]

Which is why I qualified with "just because".

One could make an extremely good case for rape to be a hate crime. It is a crime of violence and it is directed specifically against someone of a particular sex or gender.

True, but that varies by jurisdiction. In any case, your indignation suggests to me you also think it is morally the same as rape.

Rape is defined by law. Statutory rape attempts to take into account reality: teenagers readily agree to have sex with one another. When they are close in age, there is not a large imbalance of maturity and power, making it sex between equals, assuming there is no coercion involved.

Having sex in context of a relationship is certainly different than having sex as a way to earn money or paying someone money in order to avoid having do deal with niceties as having your sex partner like you and be attracted to you. A prostitute is expected to have sex with customers whether or not they are physically attracted to the customer, whether or not the customer smells bad, is physically unappealing, rude, unpleasant, married, old enough to be their father or grandfather, drunk, or whatever. Customers who believe that prostitutes have sex with you because they are sexually attracted to them are deluding themselves.

Sex work is inherently risky. No matter whether good quality condoms are used, adequate birth control is used, any sex worker is at significantly higher than average at risk for contracting a sexually transmitted infection, including one that is incurable or only treatable with very expensive medications, mostly outside of affordability for sex workers. Sex workers are also at much greater risk for violence and abuse. They are much more at risk for substance abuse than average, and so on. It's difficult, risky work. Teenagers are not mature enough to be able to adequately assess the risk/benefits of engaging in this work and are much, much more likely to become prostitutes due to physical and economic coercion. Personally, I think that 18 is too young to consent to sex work just as I think 18 is too young to enlist in the military. Too risky and it preys too much on economically vulnerable people, at the risk of their own health and very lives.

Also, laws can be nonsensical. A law could in principle declare that people may not consent to sex with people they are not married to. Or just declare that people are not allowed

Laws forbidding sex work for those under 18 are not nonsensical just because you prefer younger prostitutes. Such laws, in fact, are too liberal in my view because 18 year olds are still not mature enough to make many important decisions, as is evidenced in the number of statues that limit the types of contracts someone under 21 can sign.

Does that mean that all the people who factually consent to such sex (even if they are legally not able to) are factually rapists because of some legislative fiat? Would you refer to those people as rapists on here just because of the letter of some law?

In the US, a person under the age of 18 cannot legally consume alcoholic beverages, get a tattoo or get a drivers' license without parental permission, cannot sign a legal contract, cannot (in most cases) agree to their own medical treatment, cannot rent an apartment, take out a credit card, or engage in lots of different kinds of employment or enlist in any branch of the US miliatry or open a bank account in their own name, or get married without parental consent. For starters.

Yes, but in all those instances we know that some minors do, or try to do, those things. We do not pretend that they are somehow incapable of choosing those things of their own free will. We are simply saying that they should not be allowed to make that choice. There is no real difference to sex work.

A 6 year old can choose to drink a beer or light a match or drive a car or order a lot of toys from Amazon if mom and dad are not careful with their computers. That does not make it wise to allow them to make such decisions. Indeed, minors are often protected from the consequences of actions that they willingly take without understanding or being able to deal with the legal repercussions of such decisions.

A 17 year old can make all sorts of (illegal) choices. We're talking about federal law here.

So you admit that a 17 year old can freely make a choice to engage in sex work? That they are not allowed to is a different question.
If a 17 year old can make that choice, that means that he or she is not necessarily forced into anything, least of all by the client who may not even be aware of the age.

Anyone who chooses to purchase the services of a prostitute should perform due diligence to ensure that the sex worker is willing and of legal age to consent. Failure to do so, especially when it is a well known fact that many too young girls and boys are coerced into sex work, is unconscionable and should be met with the full force of the law.

Depending on the state and the age of the other person, it may or may not be classified as rape. Again, what is and is not rape is defined by law.

Which contradicts your absolutist statements form earlier.

No, it doesn't. For instance, a 12 year old cannot normally be considered to willingly agree to have sex with a 30 year old. But if they are married, as some Massachusetts allows, it is legal and expected, no matter how despicable such laws allowing children to be married are. Unfortunately, some states still allow child marriage, although a number of states have raised the age in recent years.

Btw, would you classify it as "rape" even if the customer had no knowledge of her (or him for that matter) being 17?

Yes. I think that one must perform due diligence. A customer who 'purchases' a motor vehicle has the duty to ensure that the vehicle he is purchasing belongs the the person who is selling it and that the sale is legal and in accordance with the law.

How is a person realistically supposed to do that, especially since fake ids are so easy to come by.
Also, if I buy a car from a dealer, what am I supposed to do if the dealer commits a crime by selling stolen cars? Any criminal responsibility should be on the dealer, not buyer.

I do not think it is in any way just to punish a person who did nothing wrong. A client who hires a sex workers he or she believes to be an adult did nothing wrong. The sex workers who misrepresented his or her age did wrong here. Your views are fundamentally unjust.

This is another instance where legal sex work would help things immensely, as you could have government-issued licenses with age checks.

I think people are a lot more important that cars.

They are. Including people you want to throw in prison for "rape" even though they did nothing wrong.

I don't believe that I've said anything about wanting to throw anyone in prison. As for doing nothing wrong: rape is morally wrong and against the law. It is damaging to its victims in ways that you have never troubled yourself to even consider.

An employer has the legal obiligation to determine that any employees are able to be legally employed in whatever industry and under whatever conditions the employer is offering employment. This includes being of age, as determined by law, and being a US citizen, if required by law or having papers that allow the individual to be employed.

A customer is not the same as employer.

Then blame it on the pimp. People have an obligation to perform due diligence when they purchase or sell a car, hire an employee, offer something, including services for sale. People are required to perform due diligence to ensure that they do not sell cigarettes or tattoos or alcohol to underage persons. They can certainly perform due diligence when they are about to have sex with someone to ensure that person is of legal age, and is consenting willingly, without coercion or duress.

You seem to be hellbent on punishing men just because you dislike men who hire sex workers. Even if these men did nothing wrong.

To be continued ...

When did I say I wanted to punish men? When did I say I dislike men who hire sex workers? Hiring an underage sex worker IS wrong and is illegal, if that's what you mean by 'nothing.'

What I really do dislike is people who exhibit zero empathy or compassion for others, for people who do not care in the least that someone may be coerced into providing intimate sex acts...because the guy is horny and too lazy to develop decent social manners to engage in actual dating. Or too selfish to be concerned about other people, including whoever he just paid money to stick his penis into.

 

[Toni]

As ridiculous as this makes me look, I actually expect better from you, Derec. No matter how much we disagree, I do not expect you to descend into dishonest namecalling.

Says the woman who is casually accusing me of wanting to bang 17 year old hookers.

And, aren't you a SWERF?

You seem to think that there's nothing wrong with raping a 17 year old prostitute.

And really, Derec. I use the entire LGBTQ when the subject arises and am happy to include the I and A since those are now part of the inclusion umbrella. Metaphor has made a hobby of accusing me of all sorts of things. It's tiresome and childish and I really generally think you engage in a higher level of discourse than that most of the time, no matter how much we disagree. But if you wish to be lumped in with Metaphor, I'll be happy to oblige.

 

[Derec]

One could make an extremely good case for rape to be a hate crime. It is a crime of violence and it is directed specifically against someone of a particular sex or gender.

No, one could not. Not for most rapes.
As far as it being a crime of violence, that is true for real rapes, but you want to define "rape" to include non-violent acts.

Rape is defined by law. Statutory rape attempts to take into account reality: teenagers readily agree to have sex with one another. When they are close in age, there is not a large imbalance of maturity and power, making it sex between equals, assuming there is no coercion involved.

Actually calling otherwise consensual sex with somebody below an arbitrary cutoff age any sort of "rape" is not an attempt to take into account reality, but quite the opposite.
And as far I know, this kind of nomenclature is uniquely American. While other countries do have a minimum age for sex, they do not call it a form of "rape".

Having sex in context of a relationship is certainly different than having sex as a way to earn money or paying someone money in order to avoid having do deal with niceties as having your sex partner like you and be attracted to you.

It may be different but it does not make it illegitimate.

A prostitute is expected to have sex with customers whether or not they are physically attracted to the customer, whether or not the customer smells bad, is physically unappealing, rude, unpleasant, married, old enough to be their father or grandfather, drunk, or whatever.

Actually sex workers can refuse customers for things like being drunk or lacking hygiene. But yet, the whole idea is that it levels the playing field so that guys outside the 10-20% of "players" can have casual sex. Almost every woman can have causal sex, but all women tend to go home with the best looking guys and or guys with most "game" because there is a big disequilibrium in men vs. women seeking casual sex. Sex work is merely a mechanism to equilibrate that disequilibrium.

Customers who believe that prostitutes have sex with you because they are sexually attracted to them are deluding themselves.

They are not sexually attracted to me. But so what? Other, amateur, women are not sexually attracted to me either, but at least hookers will blow me and/or have sex with me, which is a million times better than the alternative.

Sex work is inherently risky. No matter whether good quality condoms are used, adequate birth control is used, any sex worker is at significantly higher than average at risk for contracting a sexually transmitted infection, including one that is incurable or only treatable with very expensive medications, mostly outside of affordability for sex workers.

Life is inherently risky. You act like other jobs don't have risks attached to them. And keeping sex work illegal is increasing risk to sex workers (as well as to customers) needlessly. There are very low rates of sexually transmitted diseases in Nevada brothels for example.

Sex workers are also at much greater risk for violence and abuse. They are much more at risk for substance abuse than average, and so on. It's difficult, risky work.

Far less so than say being a commercial fisherman but you are not seeking to make commercial fishing illegal. And I am sure you are enjoying commercially caught fish on occasion despite the fact that it is result of a risky job.
Note that I am all for making sex work less risky. And Prohibitionism is counterproductive here.

Teenagers are not mature enough to be able to adequately assess the risk/benefits of engaging in this work and are much, much more likely to become prostitutes due to physical and economic coercion. Personally, I think that 18 is too young to consent to sex work just as I think 18 is too young to enlist in the military. Too risky and it preys too much on economically vulnerable people, at the risk of their own health and very lives.

Nah, I think 18 is not too young for either one of those things. If 18 is the age of majority, our society needs to act like it. I also think drinking age should be lowered - raising it to 21 was a hare-brained idea of appropriately named MADD, who are really a bunch of Helen Lovejoyesque harpies.

A 6 year old can choose to drink a beer or light a match or drive a car or order a lot of toys from Amazon if mom and dad are not careful with their computers.

We were talking about 17 year olds, so why are you shifting to 6 year olds? Toni's trademark dishonest arguing.

Anyone who chooses to purchase the services of a prostitute should perform due diligence to ensure that the sex worker is willing and of legal age to consent.

And how do you propose that be done in practice?

Failure to do so, especially when it is a well known fact that many too young girls and boys are coerced into sex work, is unconscionable and should be met with the full force of the law.

Let me just let this sit here next time you claim you are not advocating for draconian penalties. If a teenager misrepresents his or her age, the customer should not be met with full force of the law.
I think to you protecting minors is just an excuse to impose draconian penalties on men hiring sex workers.

No, it doesn't. For instance, a 12 year old cannot normally be considered to willingly agree to have sex with a 30 year old. But if they are married, as some Massachusetts allows, it is legal and expected,

As I said, laws are often nonsensical. As are the laws you keep advocating for here.

I don't believe that I've said anything about wanting to throw anyone in prison.

So being subject to "full force of the law" does not include prison? Note that you want "full force of the law" to apply to somebody other than the person who did the fraudulent action.

As for doing nothing wrong: rape is morally wrong and against the law. It is damaging to its victims in ways that you have never troubled yourself to even consider.

It is only morally wrong if it is really rape. A lot of things you call rape are simply not morally rape.
A 17 year old lying about her age and sleeping with somebody for money is not a rape victim. Not morally, and should not be legally either.

Then blame it on the pimp.

Most hookers do not have "pimps" but are independent providers.

People have an obligation to perform due diligence when they purchase or sell a car, hire an employee, offer something, including services for sale. People are required to perform due diligence to ensure that they do not sell cigarettes or tattoos or alcohol to underage persons. They can certainly perform due diligence when they are about to have sex with someone to ensure that person is of legal age, and is consenting willingly, without coercion or duress.

Again, how do you propose that be done, especially under the Prohibitionist model when the whole sex trade is pushed underground?
When sex work is legal, at least you could have sex work licenses where some sort of county regulator makes sure the provider is of legal age and not coerced. You cannot expect every client to run a background check before every sex act. That's just silly and unrealistic.

When did I say I wanted to punish men? When did I say I dislike men who hire sex workers?

Many, many times.

Hiring an underage sex worker IS wrong and is illegal, if that's what you mean by 'nothing.'

If the client doesn't know the sex workers is underage, then he or she has done nothing wrong.

What I really do dislike is people who exhibit zero empathy or compassion for others, for people who do not care in the least that someone may be coerced into providing intimate sex acts...because the guy is horny and too lazy to develop decent social manners to engage in actual dating. Or too selfish to be concerned about other people, including whoever he just paid money to stick his penis into.

I have a lot of empathy for sex workers. What you fail to realize is that what you want, i.e. keeping sex work illegal, makes it impossible for do the kind of checks you want.
Making sex work legal is making sex trade far safer for both sex workers and clients and allows a regulator to do checks for legal age and lack of coercion in order to issue a license.

 

[Derec]

You seem to think that there's nothing wrong with raping a 17 year old prostitute.

This is your typical arguing tactic, and is borderline libelous. You allege bad motives to everybody disagreeing with you.

Again, no I was not saying anything like that.
1. 18 should certainly be minimum age for sex work
2. People who did not do the fraudulent act should not be punished for it. It also cheapens the word "rape" to refer to a 17 year old having sex with somebody of her own free will as a "rape victim". Sorry, something can be prohibited without having to engage in hyperbole.
3. Personally, I prefer sex workers around 25-30 or so. Still good looking but much more mature and usually providing far better service. So I am not in any personal danger of your rape inflation. I still don't think it makes sense.

And really, Derec. I use the entire LGBTQ when the subject arises and am happy to include the I and A since those are now part of the inclusion umbrella. Metaphor has made a hobby of accusing me of all sorts of things. It's tiresome and childish and I really generally think you engage in a higher level of discourse than that most of the time, no matter how much we disagree. But if you wish to be lumped in with Metaphor, I'll be happy to oblige.

So you deny being a TERF but admit to being a SWERF?

 

[laughing dog]

Statutory rape is nonforcible sexual activity in which one of the individuals is below the age of consent. It is legally considered rape regardless of anyone's opinion of the law. It is not libelous to use legal terms in referring to legal matters.

 

[Derec]

Statutory rape is nonforcible sexual activity in which one of the individuals is below the age of consent. It is legally considered rape regardless of anyone's opinion of the law.

This is a political discussion forum. Opinions about insanity of certain laws is perfectly good topic for discussion here.

It is not libelous to use legal terms in referring to legal matters.

It is libelous to suggest I want to engage in such conduct instead of me simply arguing that defining it as "rape" is illogical.
Unfortunately alleging certain motives to people disagreeing with her is typical Toni modus operandi.

 

[Elixir]

Statutory rape is nonforcible sexual activity in which one of the individuals is below the age of consent. It is legally considered rape regardless of anyone's opinion of the law.

This is a political discussion forum. Opinions about insanity of certain laws is perfectly good topic for discussion here.

It is not libelous to use legal terms in referring to legal matters.

It is libelous to suggest I want to engage in such conduct instead of me simply arguing that defining it as "rape" is illogical.
Unfortunately alleging certain motives to people disagreeing with her is typical Toni modus operandi.

There is much lower hanging fruit out there if one is questing for illogical laws. For instance,
In Arizona, it's illegal for a donkey to sleep in a bathtub. But it's perfectly legal in neighboring New Mexico. Why?

 

[DrZoidberg]

[insult removed]

 

[laughing dog]

[insult removed]

 

[Jarhyn]

Statutory rape is nonforcible sexual activity in which one of the individuals is below the age of consent. It is legally considered rape regardless of anyone's opinion of the law.

This is a political discussion forum. Opinions about insanity of certain laws is perfectly good topic for discussion here.

It is not libelous to use legal terms in referring to legal matters.

It is libelous to suggest I want to engage in such conduct instead of me simply arguing that defining it as "rape" is illogical.
Unfortunately alleging certain motives to people disagreeing with her is typical Toni modus operandi.

Except sex with minors.

Derec, I am of a whole community that enjoys art and fiction pertaining to sexual illusions involving apparently young persons. As such, I have had to disabuse my own desires more than most to understand the ethics here: consent must be a function of symmetry of information and awareness and power, and anything that spoils that symmetry spoils the consent. Having sex, as an experienced sex-haver, with someone who barely knows how to operate their own dick? That's just never going to be ok.

Even I, someone who freely admits to being attracted to some very "minor" seeming pornography (art and fiction), isn't going to stand on that landmine.

It's rape to do that to someone because the consent is spoiled by an asymmetry of information.

 

[Derec]

Even I, someone who freely admits to being attracted to some very "minor" seeming pornography (art and fiction), isn't going to stand on that landmine.

I am nor even attracted to such people, but you do you.

It's rape to do that to someone because the consent is spoiled by an asymmetry of information.

So is it your opinion that it's "rape" whenever there is an "asymmetry of information", however you want to define it?

As far as minors, here is the logical problem with Toni's view.
In Georgia, and many other states, age of consent is 16. A 16 year old is deemed capable of consenting to sex with a partner of any age.
So while there are very good reasons to say that sex work should be limited to those 18 and over (and fully legal for them, something where I and Toni also vehemently disagree!), it does not make any sense to pretend that those slightly under 18 cannot consent to paid sex and that thus this is somehow "rape".

It is a false dichotomy to say that something is either legal or else must be classified as "rape".

 

[laughing dog]

Statutory rape is nonforcible sexual activity in which one of the individuals is below the age of consent. It is legally considered rape regardless of anyone's opinion of the law.

This is a political discussion forum. Opinions about insanity of certain laws is perfectly good topic for discussion here.

Unresponsive to the point. Your opinion of the law does not negate that it is not libelous to call what is legally considered rape "rape".

It is libelous to suggest I want to engage in such conduct instead of me simply arguing that defining it as "rape" is illogical.

Not really. You admit you have no aversion to breaking the law against prostitution in your state. It is not out of bounds or reason to ask how far you are willing to break that law.

Unfortunately alleging certain motives to people disagreeing with her is typical Toni modus operandi.

It is also your MO.

 

[Toni]

Even I, someone who freely admits to being attracted to some very "minor" seeming pornography (art and fiction), isn't going to stand on that landmine.

I am nor even attracted to such people, but you do you.

It's rape to do that to someone because the consent is spoiled by an asymmetry of information.

So is it your opinion that it's "rape" whenever there is an "asymmetry of information", however you want to define it?

As far as minors, here is the logical problem with Toni's view.
In Georgia, and many other states, age of consent is 16. A 16 year old is deemed capable of consenting to sex with a partner of any age.
So while there are very good reasons to say that sex work should be limited to those 18 and over (and fully legal for them, something where I and Toni also vehemently disagree!), it does not make any sense to pretend that those slightly under 18 cannot consent to paid sex and that thus this is somehow "rape".

It is a false dichotomy to say that something is either legal or else must be classified as "rape".

The two bolded parts contradict each other.

Anyone with an ounce of integrity or any concern for self preservation would take care to ensure that they did not commit a felony by having sex with a prostitute under age 18.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I am nor even attracted to such people, but you do you.


So is it your opinion that it's "rape" whenever there is an "asymmetry of information", however you want to define it?

As far as minors, here is the logical problem with Toni's view.
In Georgia, and many other states, age of consent is 16. A 16 year old is deemed capable of consenting to sex with a partner of any age.
So while there are very good reasons to say that sex work should be limited to those 18 and over (and fully legal for them, something where I and Toni also vehemently disagree!), it does not make any sense to pretend that those slightly under 18 cannot consent to paid sex and that thus this is somehow "rape".

It is a false dichotomy to say that something is either legal or else must be classified as "rape".

The two bolded parts contradict each other.

Anyone with an ounce of integrity or any concern for self preservation would take care to ensure that they did not commit a felony by having sex with a prostitute under age 18.

And how would someone do that? They're not going to tell their clients their true identity and thus there's no way to verify age.