The AoC is a strange notion. What shits me is that no-one it seems has ever considered that it just might be different to boys than girls. My guess is that it was created to protect girls.

The actual number - the age - has never been researched. Which is why this varies so dramatically from country to country. In other words, it's an arbitrary thing determined by current social thinking.

It's been as low as 10. Some sexless clowns want it to be 25.

Some countries have it such that it's higher if the other person is in a caring situation like being a teacher.
e.g. Australia where it's 16 or 18.

As far as I can work out, the situation in Thailand is confusing. Firstly as the letter suggests, it's a recent innovation anyway. As I understand it, it's 15 so long as you aren't paying any money. And it's 18 if you are. How weird.

I understand too that recently a falang was arrested over a 16 year old. The first time ever. There is debate as to how old the boy actually was.

The American situation - wrt anything to do with sex - is so ridiculous that it's best left alone.

Henry Cate wrote:

TIn America, Mark Foley was hammered by the press and forced to resign, even though all he was doing was trying to have cybersex with a hot Congressional page way over the age of consent.  He had violated that other American taboo, referred to above ("people who are in love with one another must be close matches in SES (Socio-Economic Status) and age").

That is not the taboo he violated.  He violated the taboo about an authority figure hitting on a subordinate.  And there's nothing "American" about it...unless teachers hitting on their students and bosses making passes at their employees is hunky dory where you're from.

Yes, you are not the first to notice that teenage boys tend to regard sex as sport, while teenage girls tend to regard sex as a marriage vow.

But let's have one age of consent for both sexes, since "males and females are interchangeable parts."    :-0

Out to Lunch wrote:

absolutely amazing !!! and spot on.

The ony amazing thing about this is that anyone would take it (and you) seriously.

As you are no doubt aware, Asian culture and Buddhist culture in particular reveres men who look after the welfare of young people, especially boys. They are seen as putting wayward youth on the path of acceptance and tolerance.

Just how a certain Bill Goad (aka Bill Bollocks), dubbed Britain's most prolific serial pedophile, saw his actions.

Until quite recent times there was no such concept in law in Thailand (or elsewhere in South-East Asia, except for laws left over from colonial times), of an age of consent.

Totally untrue. In Thailand there were also laws against sodomy, only repealed in 1956, and the 1954 law classifying homosexuality as a "mental disorder" officially barring gays and transsexuals from serving in the military was only repealed in 2005.
 
Where there was love and harmony, in the space of a few short years, due to the introduction of Westernisation, there is now exploitation and violence.

So until "a few short years ago" there was no "exploitation and violence"? How about prior to the abolition of slavery in 1905 (although Britain has nothing to be proud of in this regard, only finally abolishing it in the colonies as late as 1936)?

Dek Wat wrote:

: What shits me is that no-one it seems has ever considered that it just might be different to boys than girls.
The actual number - the age - has never been researched.

What "shits me" is that you could be so ill-informed. There is enough research on both subjects to keep even the most ardent researcher/statistician busy - sadly it is unlikely to keep them quiet.

Gone Fishing wrote:

......So until "a few short years ago" there was no "exploitation and violence"? How about prior to the abolition of slavery in 1905 (although Britain has nothing to be proud of in this regard, only finally abolishing it in the colonies as late as 1936)? ......

GF, the UK abolished slavery through the entire British Empire by the  Slavery Abolition Act 1833, which came into force on 1 August 1834, that is, an entire century and more before the date you noted, and some 30 years before Lincoln emancipated slaves in the Confederacy in 1862/3 and the USA abolished slavery in 1865.  

Thailand actually abolished slavery gradually by a series of laws and royal proclamation between 1874 and 1911, though 1905 is often quoted as the year in which King Rama V abolished slavery.

homintern is on your IGNORE list.

It's my view, yes. I also said that the West should try to learn a lot from Asian culture.

But how is that relevant to the quote?

homintern is on your IGNORE list.

You seem to be angry. Why would it be expected? How is it inconsistent?

homintern is on your IGNORE list.

Chao Na wrote:

Henry Cate wrote:

TIn America, Mark Foley was hammered by the press and forced to resign, even though all he was doing was trying to have cybersex with a hot Congressional page way over the age of consent.  He had violated that other American taboo, referred to above ("people who are in love with one another must be close matches in SES (Socio-Economic Status) and age").

That is not the taboo he violated.  He violated the taboo about an authority figure hitting on a subordinate.  And there's nothing "American" about it...unless teachers hitting on their students and bosses making passes at their employees is hunky dory where you're from.

Just to add my two cents.

Foley was hammered because he was another HYPOCRITE that was caught.  He voted for the DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE bill.  He refused to challenge the DON'T ASK DON'T TELL policy.  He also voted for and supported the DOPA Act of 2006 (which failed) which would have prevented access to sites like MySpace by anyone under 18.

As one writer stated "Foley has exploded in the national consciousness as a poster boy for anti-gay bias as a “molester” and predator on children. Gay activists have worked hard to draw a bright line distinction between homosexuality and pedophilia ... Foley was focusing at least some of his sexual activity on children." [whcih by the way, were NOT over the Age of Consent].

Foley's chats:  (http://blogs.abcnews.com/theblotter/2006/09/exclusive_the_s.html)

Then he blamed it on being molested (http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/10/3/182047/713)

Foley was gay and it was well known in his close circles.  Had he come out, there is a strong belief that it would not have affected his political career.  Being Gay wasn't his downfall.  

But Foley TALKED THE TALK about protecting the children; then was caught exchanging suggestive IM's with a person that Foley knew was underage.  

By the time it was over, neither side of the fence wanted Foley anywhere near them.  

I'm not trying to turn this into a political discourse, but to infer that what happend to Foley was "un-American" isn't a true representation of what happened.

Something similar happened in Australia. A senior politician who actively sought out and punished users of cp was himself found to have a hard disc crammed full of the stuff.

You think it's hypocritical for a gay man to support a ban on gay marriages?  You better talk to our own homintern about that.

I think it's interesting to see who the experts are on the age of consent around the world, and speculate on why they are interested in being such experts.

cottmann wrote:

GF, the UK abolished slavery through the entire British Empire by the  Slavery Abolition Act 1833, which came into force on 1 August 1834, that is, an entire century and more before the date you noted ...

Sorry to be pedantic, Cottman, but I think those who remained or became slaves in the British Empire after 1833 may have disagreed with you also. The Act not only excluded certain areas, such as " Territories in the Possession of the East India Company," the "Island of Ceylon," and "the Island of Saint Helena", but was not applied in other areas. In 1921, for example, the then Secretary of State for the Colonies, Winston Churchill, stated that "the abolition of slavery could not, however, have any immediate beneficial effect on the finances of the colony", referring to Sierra Leone when the Governor of Sierra Leone requested permission to end slavery there, and at that time it was still practiced in Gambia, Aden, Burma, Hong Kong and also in Northern Nigeria, where it was ended in 1936 - the last British colony to do so.