That's not being pedantic. If what you say is true then it's stunning information. It certainly makes a mockery of the recent celebrations in the UK to mark the end of slavery.

Gone Fishing is on your IGNORE list.

Dek Wat wrote:

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.

Yes, the different ages for money and non-money, amuses me too.

It's a little known fact that the same situation exists in England and Wales though.

When the AOC was dropped/equalised to 16 there it became possible to slip all kinds of things in of course hee hee, but one legal nicety which was slipped in was the provision that prostitution even over the AOC was illegal under 18, oh and also the "person of authotity" clause.

When the "money" issue was told to me during a discussion I didn't believe it because there had been no flagging up of it in the gay press at the time. However I then took the time to read the legislation and it's right enough.

Still find it weird that I can have sex with a 16yo boy but I can't buy him a lollipop!  

I'm assuming 16yo's suck lollipops these days - my experience is very limited.

Quote:

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.

Oops, you're quite right to point this out.  My mistake.  Sorry.

And I have nothing to say in defense of his hypocrisy.

Thanks for refreshing my memory. I picked a bad example.  I do remember noting at the time that this fool was being very severely punished for a "sexual crime," especially when no sex took place.  But he certainly asked for it and absolutely had it coming.

More information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Foley.