Talk:Child sex tourism

From BoyWiki
Revision as of 20:27, 9 March 2015 by Lysander (talk | contribs) (→‎Morally reprehensible?)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Some comments:

"Child sex tourism is travel, either internationally or domestically..."

"or domestically" -- I don't believe that domestic travel is normally referred to as "sex tourism". There was a 1910 law regarding crossing state lines -- I forget the name (and -- as usual -- my system is so maxed out that I cannot google it... sorry).

"Offenses are divided into three categories: pedophilic offenses, in which the minor partner is under 11 years of age; hebephilic offenses, in which the minor partner is 11-14; and and statutory offenses, in which the minor partner is 15-17."

By whom?

"while North Americans constitute the main customer segment."

I have seen breakdowns which state that Japanese and German nationals are "the main customer segments" -- but, sorry, I can't give a reference just now. You could try googling it.

(NOTE: I'm really busy on other things, and I am way behind in responding to questions you have posed elsewhere on BW -- sorry... I hope to catch up soon.) User4 (talk) 09:43, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Often the legal definitions are different than those used by academics. It's kinda like how cannabis is often classified as a narcotic by statutes, but would probably be considered by scientists to be a mild hallucinogen. Or it's like how feminist academics will consider a broad range of behaviors rape that legislators would be more likely to call "sexual battery".
"In anticipation of DSM-V, Blanchard et al. (2009) proposed three subtypes of Pedophilia: Pedophilic Type (sexually attracted to children younger than eleven), Hebephilic Type (sexually attracted to children aged eleven to fourteen), and Pedohebephilic Type (sexually attracted to both). Blanchard et al. (2000) also introduced the term “teleiophile” to describe the remaining majority of adults who prefer physically mature partners. . . . When evaluating individuals accused of child sex tourism, the authors recommend classifying each purported offense as pedophilic, hebephilic, or statutory, based on the age of known victims". William J. Newman, Ben W. Holt, John S. Rabun, Gary Phillips, Charles L. Scott (March–April 2011). "Child sex tourism: Extending the borders of sexual offender legislation". International Journal of Law and Psychiatry 34 (2): 116–121. doi:10.1016/j.ijlp.2011.02.005.  Lysander (talk) 15:40, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Thanks. Blanchard is, in my opinion, a quack. He wants to criminalize (or "medicalize") adult/sexually mature adolescent sexual activity. He wants to turn almost all males in the world into sexual deviants! User4 (talk) 16:18, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Morally reprehensible?

What would be the reasons why boylovers would view child sex tourism as morally reprehensible? Would it be any different if an adult were to have a sexual relationship with a poverty-stricken minor who lived in the same first-world country? Lysander (talk) 19:25, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. That is not what boylove is about. See "The Philosophy of Responsible Boylove" that is a good place to start. There is some disagreement (because we are BL's and love to argue with each other) I think most BL's would agree that simply using a boy for sex is "reprehensible" if you have no commitment to his well being in the long term. I am sure that user4 could explain this to you better then me or at least add to it. --Etenne (talk) 19:35, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Is it outside the realm of possibility that a boy might prefer no-strings-attached sex to a relationship? Or that, if an adult is only going to be in town for a little while, the boy might still prefer to have a short-term sexual relationship than miss the opportunity entirely? It seems like there's an assumption that a short-term relationship will lead to the boy's feeling bad about being abandoned, while the adult blissfully goes his way and doesn't miss him; and so therefore the adult has acted selfishly. Is there evidence to suggest that this assumption is valid? We could hypothesize that sometimes the adult will get emotionally attached and miss the boy more than the boy misses him, especially if the boy was just using him as a source of material gifts. Given the ambiguities about who is using whom, maybe it's better to leave the matter to individual choice and say "all's fair in love and war"? Lysander (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
You are talking about two different things here. The second one (described above) has nothing to do with children forced into prostitution by adults or their own poverty or both and the second is some kid who wants to have a fling with an older person because he is a horny kid. One is a choice the other less so. --Etenne (talk) 19:53, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Both could be considered child sex tourism, though, if the adult was travelling when he had the relationship. So maybe a blanket statement that boylovers consider child sex tourism morally reprehensible should be narrowed? Lysander (talk) 19:55, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
I don't believe that when most people talk or use the term "Child sex tourism", the second one is generally not what they are talking about. That is the exception rather then the rule as I doubt many of those instances are ever reported. --Etenne (talk) 20:04, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
Well, yeah. It's like the Parable of the Automobile: when automobiles are illegal, what we hear of the most are the incidents of crashes, etc. Plus the illegality of automobiles makes driving riskier than it otherwise would be, because you have to rely on fly-by-night mechanics and such. Lysander (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2015 (UTC)