[DoreenMichele]

In most parts of the world, sex workers don't exactly have strong human rights protections. In a poor country, it's generally worse.

A relatively wealthy, privileged person going someplace poor for sex is probably doing it because it facilitates doing rather nasty things in a way that is comfortable for them. They don't need to be ugly about it. Someone else will be ugly about it on their behalf while making them feel great about spreading their money around.

This often means they are raping children or otherwise indulging sexual predilections too unseemly for sex workers in more well-heeled parts of the world.

So sex tourism is generally understood to be a polite term for exceedingly depraved behavior with a veneer of civility.

[pault]

Are you saying that single men who travel to Thailand specifically to have easy access to prostitutes are often in it for the child sex and degrading sex acts? Isn't that like saying people that go to mosques are often terrorists? Sorry if I'm misinterpreting your comment, but as worded it sounds like you believe the majority of sex tourists are pedophiles. In my experience, having spent several years in Thailand, most of them are there to have lots of consensual sex with adult sex workers because there is no legal prostitution where they live. The notion that more than a fraction of a percent of them are kiddy fiddlers is pretty out there. I also disagree with your claim that the term sex tourism is used as a euphemism for sexual exploitation. I've never heard it used that way, at least. A sex tourist is someone who travels to a location for the express purpose of having sex with prostitutes.

[sandworm101]

This. Anyone who thinks they are targeting people visiting Amsterdam's red light district, or Nevada's bunny ranch, needs to read more. This is about people seeking underage sex in countries where it is more accessible than in Canada. Thailand, Vietnam, all of south america ... a single male with no family ties, returning alone from such countries should expect some attention at the Canadian boarder. They are looking for the pictures, the possession of which is a serious crime in Canada.

[brigandish]

> A relatively wealthy, privileged person going someplace poor for sex is probably doing it because it facilitates doing rather nasty things in a way that is comfortable for them

Or simply because it's easier because prostitution is not (as) criminal and/or it's well organised (e.g. red light zones), and not forgetting it's likely to be much cheaper. To assume their choice of destination for something as nasty as raping children is quite a jump.

[DoreenMichele]

It's not an assumption. That's based on reading about the topic.

It may not be universally true, but the fact that it is fairly often true is why the term has such negative meaning for most people.

[brigandish]

What kind of percentage are you talking about? "Fairly often" covers a, erm, multitude of sins.

[DoreenMichele]

I've gone back and reread my initial comment. It has plenty of qualifiers. I think it is adequately clear and stands on its own just fine, without further clarification.

I have no idea why you are nit picking this. I'm not going to discuss it further with you.

[brigandish]

It was a sincere question. You say you've read up on this. I haven't, though I have lived in Thailand and travelled around the region, and from my personal experience (not as a consumer, but I don't need to be a smoker to have some idea (anecdotally) of the level of smoking around me) the vast majority of foreign men that were consumers were not involved in anything to do with children or any such thing.

Hence, I was interested in actual data. That's all. Enjoy the rest of your day.

[DoreenMichele]

You may think I mean straight up pedopholia involving elementary school aged children. That can happen certainly.

But a 17 year old is legally still a child in many jurisdictions. A lot of men in their twenties see nothing wrong with getting involved with a 17 year old.

If you are talking a dating situation, my views on that get a lot more complicated. If you are talking prostitution, a 17 year old sex worker is highly unlikely to be there by choice.

At that point, it is, in fact, child rape, even if you aren't comfortable with the terminology and wish nicer language were used to describe it.

I don't feel compelled to try make it sound nicer given how damaging it can be to the child in question.

Statutory rape doesn't have to be violent. The minor may even have nominally agreed. But the law says they can't actually meaningfully consent as a minor.

If they are a minor and a sex worker, they are likely being trafficked. That's where this gets really nasty. The guy paying for the service may be blissfully oblivious to just how much she is being pressured, has no real choice, etc.

I covered that in my original comment. That's a large part of why this is an ugly thing.

You (the general "you", not you in specific) hand wave away that she's 17 instead of 18 because it's only a few months and he may not have actually known her age etc.

It's a slippery slope that basically says if you can fudge on enough "little" details, it's totes fine to rape children. Traveling to a foreign country for your cheap sex is a very handy way to gloss over those details and pretend it was all above board and nice when it probably wasn't.