[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.

[Dylan16807]

How about we avoid that slippery slope entirely, by using a very expansive definition lumps in sex with anyone under 21 as going in the 'depraved or otherwise a problem' category.

Now will you please consider giving some data or some kind of percentage or explain why you said "probably"?

No one is trying to claim this kind of horrible behavior doesn't exist. But I want to understand the scale of the problem. Trying to figure out if it's 10% or 90% is not nitpicking!

[brigandish]

It's nice that you made the clear distinction with the general "you" but it'd be good if you worked a bit harder to cut out the other insinuations. For example:

> 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.

- Where did I say or imply that it wasn't child rape? - Where did I say or imply I wasn't comfortable with that terminology? - Where did I say or imply I was wishing nicer language were used to describe it?

I'm not sure how you hope to have an adult discussion on a sensitive topic if you're going to insinuate that asking you a question is tantamount to defending child rape.

I for my part have tried to find out more from someone who says they know more. I'm reading the research from one of the Wikipedia references you gave and questioning some of my assumptions while trying to remain sceptical and clear headed enough to analyse it.

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

I think it's unlikely that most people in this discussion are condoning or defending this behaviour (or maybe they are but they should still get a chance to give their point and be challenged). Since we know most people will say they're for the protection of children wouldn't it be better to take them at their word, play the numbers and realise the majority here will be the same, and, if not tone down the description, tone down the attitude?

It's Hacker News, not Twitter.

[GoblinSlayer]

>If you are talking prostitution, a 17 year old sex worker is highly unlikely to be there by choice.

That's true for most workers of all ages.