[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!

[DoreenMichele]

Thailand’s Health System Research Institute reports that children in prostitution make up 40% of prostitutes in Thailand. In Cambodia, it has been estimated that about a third of all prostitutes are under 18.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_sex_tourism

There are many readily available articles on the topic just a Google away if you really want to know more.

[brigandish]

The reference on Wikipedia is from a report[1] by the "UNITED NATIONS INTERREGIONAL CRIME AND JUSTICE RESEARCH INSTITUTE", which is a "desk review" that cites and reviews other research. The quote Wikipedia uses is from a paragraph on page 18:

> Thailand’s Health System Research Institute reports that children in prostitution make up 40 percent of sex workers in Thailand.

I can't find this report even though I've been using the HSRI's own searchable database[2] and search engines (you'll need Google Translate unless you can read Thai). I did, however, see see numerous other reports reusing the same quote in the searches returned by an engine, so it's well used.

If we continue the same paragraph:

> At the other end of this debate many NGOs estimate the number of CSEC victims to be in the hundreds of thousands. Other reports estimate the number of child victims of prostitution to be at least 80,000 but likely to be in the hundreds of thousands (ECPAT International; The Protection Project, 2002: 539).

I can't find any Protection Project report about Thailand in their publications[3], nor do they include Thailand in their list of country reports[4]. I also cannot be sure that either of the reports[5][6] I found on ECPAT's site are the one cited. The larger one, which was published in 2011 (but is the 2nd edition so perhaps it is from 2002) does not include the figure. It does however have this:

> Prostitution is technically illegal in Thailand, but sexual services are sold openly with an estimated 60,000 children under age 18 involved in prostitution.15

This is note 15: > U.S. Department of State, 2009 Country Report on Human Rights Practice, Thailand. Accessed on 13 July 2010 from: http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/ hrrpt/2009/index.htm

This is the statement in the report[7]:

> In 2007 the government, university researchers, and NGOs estimated that there were as many as 60,000 prostitutes under age 18.

No note for that one, it's a dead end.

This doesn't mean the figure is wrong, of course, but it does support the idea that people should be able to question figures, and when challenged, claims should be backed up by something better that circular references, missing reports, and dead ends.

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20070712223227if_/http://www.uni...

[2] http://kb.hsri.or.th/dspace/

[3] http://www.protectionproject.org/publications/

[4] http://www.protectionproject.org/country-reports/

[5] https://www.ecpat.org/wp-content/uploads/legacy/Factsheet_Th...

[6] https://www.ecpat.org/wp-content/uploads/legacy/a4a_v2_eap_t...

[7] http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2009/index.htm

Edit: formatting, a little bit of javascript wouldn't go amiss for the comment boxes!

[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.

[DoreenMichele]

The fact that some adult sex workers are also victims in no way makes child sex trafficking somehow more acceptable or justifiable to me.

From what I have read, even sex workers generally agree that most adult sex workers "made a choice" if they remain in the life and "it's different if they are underaged."

Among other things, I've read a few biographies by sex workers.

I would love to see sex work generally see an improved track record of human rights protections. In developed countries, child labor is generally deemed to be a bad thing, even when the work in question isn't inherently exploitative.

I stand by "raping children is a bad thing" and "underaged sex workers are victims of child rape."