Pedophiles and the twinks who operate webcams.

[RockHard]

For all you pathetic lovers of underage twinks, it seems there's a serious Federal investigation underway and anyone who has purchased a product from a website promoting underage use of webcams is vulnerable. You can check a portion of this story out here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/19/national/19kids.ready.html?hp

[seattlebottom]

Very sad article.

[woodlawn]

>For all you pathetic lovers of underage twinks, it seems

>there's a serious Federal investigation underway and anyone

>who has purchased a product from a website promoting underage

>use of webcams is vulnerable. You can check a portion of this

>story out here:

 

 

As a matter of fact we have several regular posters here, including Juan Vancouver, who have from time to time expressed the opinion that sexual relationships between boys as young as 14 -- that was the age of the boy profiled in the NY Times article to which you referred -- and adult men should not be illegal in every case. I am curious to know whether they have anything to say about this case.

[seattlebottom]

>As a matter of fact we have several regular posters here,

>including Juan Vancouver, who have from time to time expressed

>the opinion that sexual relationships between boys as young as

>14 -- that was the age of the boy profiled in the NY Times

>article to which you referred -- and adult men should not be

>illegal in every case. I am curious to know whether they have

>anything to say about this case.

 

This article left me so sad. I suppose that we should never doubt the ability of people to destroy themselves.

 

I'm not sure exactly what Juan was advocating, but this seems more like a case of abuse rather than consensual sex. This boy setup a situation where he could come into contact with men for the purposes of exploiting their desires and therby gaining material rewards. The tragedy here is that he, as most teenagers are oft to do, failed to realize that these men had a greater capacity and propensity to exploit him rather than vice-versa, and that while he might have felt in control of his situation, he certainly was not. Therein lies the problem with much older/much younger relationships. One party always has more power over the other and that does not make for a healthy relationship.

[FourAces]

>Therein lies the

>problem with much older/much younger relationships. One party

>always has more power over the other and that does not make

>for a healthy relationship.

>

 

Well according to the article I read, the boy commented several times about the power he held over the adults. At one point he bragged he would ignore them for hours as "they have no lives." He knew they weren't going anywhere according to him.

 

I do agree that this is not an age of consent issue as you already mentioned. It is clearly an issue of abuse. But just when did the abuse stop for this boy? After all he too became an abuser.

 

The sickest part of the article, for me, was that his own Father assisted him in the cam business after the boy informed him what he had been doing.

[seattlebottom]

>>Therein lies the

>>problem with much older/much younger relationships. One

>party

>>always has more power over the other and that does not make

>>for a healthy relationship.

>>

>

> Well according to the article I read, the boy commented

>several times about the power he held over the adults. At one

>point he bragged he would ignore them for hours as "they have

>no lives." He knew they weren't going anywhere according to

>him.

>

>I do agree that this is not an age of consent issue as you

>already mentioned. It is clearly an issue of abuse. But just

>when did the abuse stop for this boy? After all he too became

>an abuser.

>

>The sickest part of the article, for me, was that his own

>Father assisted him in the cam business after the boy informed

>him what he had been doing.

 

Definetely one for Law and Order:SVU to do an episode on.

[Guest zipperzone]

>The sickest part of the article, for me, was that his own

>Father assisted him in the cam business after the boy informed

>him what he had been doing.

 

That turned my stomach too.

 

What I found intriguing was that the kid claimed he had earned several hundred thousands of dollars. Now that's a lot of coin for a teenager to have. Even if he told his mom that he was buying his computer upgrades and accessories from a web venture, what would he do with the rest of it. And wouldn't his mom realize that although he was only a kid, he should have been filing a tax return when the income became that large.

 

Either the mom was as thick as a post or she was quite preprared to turn a blind eye.

[Luv2play]

This subject has been discussed before on this site. However, to refresh memories, the age of consent for sexual contact between individuals varies widely between different countries and even within countries in different jurisdictions. For instance, the age of consent for all sexual relationships (male/female, male/male, female/female) is 17 in New York and 18 in California.

 

In Canada, it is 12/14/16, meaning two individuals under 14 but over 12 can engage in consensual sex, and sex between an adult over 16 and one over 14 of either sex is permitted if there is no relationship of trust or authority. These provisions apply only to consensual sex which are not commercial in nature.

 

There used to be an exception in the case of anal sex between males where 18 was the age of consent but these provisions have been struck down by the courts in Canada's major jurisdictions including Quebec and Ontario as unconstitutional in that they discriminated between the sexes.

 

Obviously, where you live or visit is the law you must respect. People on this board live in different jurisdictions and express views that reflect their own situations and laws that apply to themselves. As this site is international in scope, people on it should respect the fact that people participating in discussions live in different countries, although this might not always be apparent.

 

In the case of Juan Vancouver, it is obvious from his name that he lives in Canada. He therefore probably has expressed views that reflect the situation where he lives, although I can't recall what he has said on this subject. I also live in Canada and have expressed views in the past that reflect the situation here.

 

Some members have taken the position that what applies in their jurisdiction should apply everywhere. This makes no sense, of course, but there you have it. It also applies to the issue of prostitution or escorting, which are legal activities in some jurisdictions and illegal elsewhere. Some posters seem to assume it is illegal everywhere in the nature of the comments they make. As a result, we always seem to have lively discussions on these matters!:7

[woodlawn]

>In the case of Juan Vancouver, it is obvious from his name

>that he lives in Canada. He therefore probably has expressed

>views that reflect the situation where he lives, although I

>can't recall what he has said on this subject. I also live in

>Canada and have expressed views in the past that reflect the

>situation here.

 

You seem not to understand the distinction between what the law allows and what actually transpires between people. No one who reads the article referenced in this thread can come away thinking that the relationship between the boy and the men who paid him to expose himself and for sexual contact was a healthy one. Would that have been different if the boy had resided in Canada? It's absurd to suggest that what is unhealthy and destructive for a child becomes healthy and positive if he merely crosses a border.

 

>Some members have taken the position that what applies in

>their jurisdiction should apply everywhere. This makes no

>sense, of course, but there you have it.

 

What makes no sense is taking the position that sexual exploitation of children is different in Canada than in any other country. Unless people in Canada are members of a different species with a different psychology than the human race, a difference in the law has nothing to do with the effects on those concerned. Either sexual relationships between children and adults are generally destructive no matter where they take place, or they are not. Location makes no difference.

[+ Lucky]

A good discussion of the journalistic merits and demerits of this story is at Slate:

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2132702/nav/tap2/

[Luv2play]

In my post I tried to lay out some essential differences between the law in Canada and elsewhere governing sexual relations between people. There are sources where one can look up the details if one is so inclined. However I did point out that one would be transgressing the criminal code in Canada if an adult were to have sex with someone under 18 if there were commercial aspects to the relationship, as well as cases involving authority (eg. teachers) or trust (eg. uncle or family friend).

 

What was dealt with in the referenced article would be illegal in Canada as well since monetary payments were made. I believe what the law tries to ensure is that young adults (post-pubescent) are protected from criminal sanction where there are age differences that in other jurisdictions would cause problems. For instance a 17 year old boy having sex with a 15 year old girlfriend. In many if not most US jurisdictions, I believe the boy could be sent to jail.

 

If one looks at the situation objectively, by protecting young people from sexual predators who have undue influence either through their relationships or money, you have dealt with virtually all of the cases where exploitation could take place. Most 14 year old girls (or gay boys) socialize (and have sex if they are so inclined) with boys within their age group or somewhat older. Some have sex with men (and sometimes women) much older who are not in the category of client, uncle or teacher. These are often one-time experiences. You seldom read of cases in the criminal courts that involve such occurences. What you read about are the exploitative cases which, as I have indicated are also illegal in Canada.

[Luv2play]

I should have made clear that when I listed a few examples of people with influence or authority I could also have included family friends, priests, boy scout leaders, athletic coachs and others who would not be permitted to have sex with young people in Canada under the age of 18. We are not really so different than other people on the planet, including the USA, except we don't throw as many people in jail.

[+ Lucky]

Slate follows up with info that the Times reporter and his young "victim" had a closer relationship than was revealed:

 

http://www.slate.com/id/2133905/

[Juan Vancouver]

Dear Woodlawn,

 

Even if I haven't been a very active poster in the message centre in the past month, I consider myself very lucky to have stumbled upon your post.

 

I can't imagine how you could think that what I once posted about the legal age of consent in Canada and other countries is in any way related to (or could be construed as showing support for) this sad incident, but I am sure that it must be just a misunderstanding; I am sure that you don't have any intention to misconstrue my words, or hurt me in any way with your innocent post. So, please allow me to clarify:

 

I have NEVER supported, lusted after or tolerated any kind of underage sex-trade or child abuse in any way.

 

I believe that a young person deserves to receive respect, guidance and the absolute certainty that Us -society- will protect them against any attack to their emotional, intellectual or physical welfare.

 

I assume that what you are referring to was when we were talking about age of consent in different countries. What is child abuse in one country, is nothing but consensual sex in another. I did mention that in Canada, the amazing, progressive country that I am very proud to call home, the age of consent is much lower than in most of the states in your own country.

 

That is a fact, not a personal opinion.

 

And of course, we are talking of -consensual- sex. As others have already mentioned, in order for the minor to give his or her consent, there are a series of conditions that have to take place; To mention a few, there can be no power imbalance between them, (which would be a relationship of the kind of teacher-student, parent-son, priest-parisioner, etc.), the minor has to be informed about the age of the adult, neither can be under the influence of any substance, there cannot be any exhange of money under any circumstance, etc.

 

I believe, Woodlawn, that this scenario and that of the sad article that Rockhard shared with us are diametrically opposed.

 

I thank you for the opportunity to clarify what in your mind must have looked as very unsettling. I know that until now we have very often agreed to disagree on almost every subject. However, be sure that neither of us tolerates, promotes, supports or justifies child abuse or child exploitation in any form.

 

Respectfully,

 

Juan Vancouver

[Guest zipperzone]

>I am sure that you don't have any

>intention to misconstrue my words, or hurt me in any way with

>your innocent post.

 

If you truly believe that then I have some swamp land in Florida I'd love to sell you!

[Juan Vancouver]

That sounds great!

I have always wanted to build a house for myself in the tropics!

[+ Tom Isern]

Damn...I remember when I was 12 and discovered that I got hard for guys. There were at least a dozen older guys--including a few of my teachers--I would have given my right nut to sleep with. And if I had met a nice and caring guy of 18 (yes, it would have been illegal--as almost all the sex we've had during our lifetimes has been) and had great sex, it probably would have helped me deal with my own self-loathing and shame. I carried that shit around way too long!

 

My ex-boyfriend, who spent his adolescence blowing half the guys on his highschool basketball team (with which he had some kind of official "bench warming" and "leg bandaging role") came out of his adolescence much better adjusted than I did. I was astonished--shame just wasn't a part of his sexual makeup. I'm sure some of his sex was across the legal divide--and perhaps more enjoyable because of it.

 

To say that sex across generations or across the arbitrary line of legal enforcement is always damaging is simplistic and narrow minded. To label all those who enjoy it "pathetic" is, well, pathetic itself.

 

The Lesbian and Gay Studies Reader (ed. Abelove, Barale, and Halperin) contains a terrific article by Gayle Rubin: Thinking Sex, which address this issue in a constructive and thoughtful way, if anyone is interested.

[RockHard]

"To label all those who enjoy it "pathetic" is, well, pathetic itself."

 

The label for those "who enjoy it" is pedophile. Any adult who lustfully preys on underage children is sick and pathetic.

 

One could argue that teetering near the legal edge is a gray area, when sexual discovery and hormones are bouncing off walls. Even I, at the age of fifteen, played "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" with my hot, nineteen-year-old neighbor brothers. They were both straight and they never touched me, and they didn't ask me to touch them (even though I wanted to).

 

Pedophiles don't know when to say no or where the crossed-line is. Out-of-the-closet-nineteen-year-olds aren't mature enough to analyze psychological harm. As a father, I always wanted my son to have a healthy, open-minded attitude toward sex, which is why we talked about sex as soon as I knew he was getting hard-ons. He had a very clear idea of how a predator behaved, no matter what sex. I taught him to make his own thoughtful decisions.

 

No child under 16 should have to endure the lustful longings of someone older. There's a fine line between self-discovery and mutual curiosity and wrongfully imposing the lustful self on others. God help those who don't know the difference.

[woodlawn]

>

>I can't imagine how you could think that what I once posted

>about the legal age of consent in Canada and other countries

>is in any way related to (or could be construed as showing

>support for) this sad incident,

 

I'll be happy to explain how I could think that. I could think that because you have responded to threads about the exploitation of children by adults by saying that in your opinion a relationship between a 14-year-old and an adult should not be per se illegal, but that such relationships should be judged on a case by case basis and that the "maturity" of the child should be one of the elements considered. You seem to be assuming that some children are indeed mature enough to consent to have sex with adults -- otherwise your past statements make no sense at all. That's how I could think that.

 

>but I am sure that it must be

>just a misunderstanding; I am sure that you don't have any

>intention to misconstrue my words,

 

I don't believe I have misconstrued anything you have said, intentionally or otherwise.

 

>I have NEVER supported, lusted after or tolerated any kind of

>underage sex-trade or child abuse in any way.

 

On the contrary, I think your past posts could fairly be construed in just that way.

 

>I believe that a young person deserves to receive respect,

>guidance and the absolute certainty that Us -society- will

>protect them against any attack to their emotional,

>intellectual or physical welfare.

 

That's peachy.

 

>I assume that what you are referring to was when we were

>talking about age of consent in different countries. What is

>child abuse in one country, is nothing but consensual sex in

>another.

 

The above is an excellent example of the things you have posted that could be construed as support for the exploitation of children by adults for sexual purposes.

 

 

>That is a fact, not a personal opinion.

 

But it is a personal opinion that your country is for that reason "amazing" and "progressive."

 

>And of course, we are talking of -consensual- sex. As others

>have already mentioned, in order for the minor to give his or

>her consent, there are a series of conditions that have to

>take place; there cannot be

>any exhange of money under any circumstance, etc.

 

How is the exchange of money relevant to the issue of consent?

 

>I believe, Woodlawn, that this scenario and that of the sad

>article that Rockhard shared with us are diametrically

>opposed.

 

The article Rockhard referred to is one about a teen who consented to sexual displays and, eventually, sexual contact with adults in return for gifts and payments that he demanded. How is that not consensual? If children have capacity to consent to sex, he certainly consented.

 

>I thank you for the opportunity to clarify what in your mind

>must have looked as very unsettling. I know that until now we

>have very often agreed to disagree on almost every subject.

 

I wasn't aware we had agreed on anything whatsoever. For future reference, it takes at least two parties to make an agreement.

 

 

>However, be sure that neither of us tolerates, promotes,

>supports or justifies child abuse or child exploitation in any

>form.

 

Given what you have included in your most recent post on this subject I am not at all sure about your position on the subject.

[+ Tom Isern]

There are at least three problems here, Rockhard. First is the assumption that early 21st-century American sexual mores are trans-cultural and trans-historical. Our ideas about appropriate sexual behavior arrived on the world stage rather late. For instance, throughout history, many people married as early as 14, and frequently did so for financial and political reasons--not for love. Often they weren't even close to the same age. The Greek tradition of man/boy love is easy for us to scorn, but they didn't consider it "sick and pathetic." It's naive to assume that we've arrived at a place of enlightenment; that our values are good for everyone, everywhere, in every time; and that they will never change. It's also naive to claim that every single sex act between a minor and an adult is going to be psychologically harmful to the youth. That is so obviously not true.

 

Second, there's something very destructive and ugly about the way you toss around stereotypes. Lumping every single person attracted to young men together and generalizing--they are all "sick and pathetic"--they "don't know when to say no or where the crossed-line is"--is illogical and facetious, even if it makes you feel good to stand on your high horse and condemn others. I've known several "pedophiles" in my time--men very attracted to the twinks--and some of them struggled very painfully with their orientation. Most of them behaved responsibly. Any who happen to be members here don't need your moralistic bullshit hitting them in the face. You sound like Jerry Falwell--in fact, this is the same kind of hateful language and specious argumentation he deploys.

 

Third, sex workers and people who hire them (ahh, that would include YOU), and gay men and lesbians, and many other types of human beings, are still subject to the kind of stereotyping you deploy here. It's unethical, it's obnoxious, and it's offensive.

 

By the way, just so you know, I generally am not attracted to people under the age of 30...well, make that 25.

[RockHard]

Denial

 

Tom Isern, you can justify pedophilia and defend pedophiles all you want. Clearly you have some empathy for this illness.

 

Spare me your Greek man/boy love fantasies. I'm sure they'd go over well in modern day Greece. I guess you'd prefer we turn the clock back so we can justify your BS. Maybe you and Tom Cruise should get together and celebrate the uselessness of psychiatry.

 

"Lumping every single person attracted to young men"

 

An underage child is NOT a young man. But I'm sure you and your pedophile friends feel differently.

 

"You sound like Jerry Falwell"

 

Now that's funny! I can't stand that asshole: sort of how I'm feeling about you right now because you sound like a pederast. Frankly, I sound more like a father and a doctor who treats sexually abused children. But you'll never know.

 

"...are still subject to the kind of stereotyping you deploy here. It's unethical, it's obnoxious, and it's offensive."

 

You defend pedophilia over stereotyping? What the fuck? Thanks for speaking your mind and saving me money because I will never hire you.

[+ Lucky]

RE: Denied

 

"What the fuck? Thanks for speaking your mind and saving me money because I will never hire you"

 

Whoa! Send in the ambulances! Tom Isern must be crushed...just crushed, that Rock Hard won't be hiring him! Take that for free speech!

 

How can we encourage escorts to post here when they get a response like that?

[Juan Vancouver]

Woodlawn,

 

Normally I never respond to inflammatory posts that are intended as a mere provocation for futile and one-sided polemics. However, due to the seriousness of this subject, and the gratuitous "interpretations" that you are freely making out of my posts, I feel that I have to respond to this.

 

We seem to be talking about two different things, and in your posts, those two things seem to be merging into one murky, confused whole.

 

On one hand we have exploitation of children by adults.

 

ANY kind of exploitation of children by adults, either labour exploitation, sexual expliotation or emotional abuse is wrong and should be punished. I do not -in any case- condone or support or try to justify it. That is final.

 

On the other hand, (And you seem to have a lot of trouble discerning the difference between these two absolutely different subjects) we are talking about legal age of consent, for nurturing, respectful and mature relationships between an adult and a non-adult.

 

As we speak, there is a huge number of highly specialized professionals all over the world trying to reach consensus on what is appropiate, healthy and wholesome when it comes to age of consent. (And what consent itself means and in which conditions it might be given by the minor). I believe that they are far more qualified than myself to determine -in their humanly fallible way- what is appropiate and healthy.

 

In some countries age of consent is lower than in some others. Yes.

 

So far it seems that giving a teenager the information and responsability to take care of himself (herself), has proven more successful than just treating them as sex-less little children. In a country in which a 17 year old teenager having sex is a crime, that teenager will have fewer ways to educate himself (herself) about the responsible way to deal with his/her sexuality. In a country in which a teenager having sex is a criminal offense, the teenager will have no way to even buy a condom and make sure that his (her) health is not compromised, if he (she) decides to engage in any sexual activity.

 

You repeatedly state in your posts that the fact that I mention that age of consent varies from country to country can be construed as support for child exploitation. If that was the case, then my words could also be understood as my confession of being a martian or a woman. Nothing in my original statement has any relationship with your free interpretation.

 

I wholeheartedly respect the fact that due to your cultural upbringing, religious background and personal beliefs you consider teenagers to be children. (In some places a 19 year old person would be considered a minor). I would never attempt to modify or alter your personal beliefs in any way. I also have to respect what seems to transpire through your posts: That sexual relationships seem to have a very negative, damaging, abusive, denigrating connotation. Since I live in a culture that embraces differences and respect, all I can do is try to understand you. What I cannot allow is for you to infer that I support child abuse, just because our moral, religious and cultural backgrounds are different. The fact remains: we both agree that abuse (no matter what age, or what circumstance), is always wrong.

 

And since you seem to be missing the point here, consent is not just the ability to say "Yes". If that was the case, consent would be given as early as one can speak. Consent in this case, refers to the young adult's ability to reach an informed, mature, healthy, safe and responsible choice about the way in which they explore -or not- their sexuality. I strongly recommend that instead of coming here to impose your overtly-emotional, one-sided assumptions of what consent -in your head- is, you should go and read a bit about it. Even if you will never consider accepting those laws as "healthy", knowing about them and what they really mean will give you much better insight into what we are all talking about.

 

And lastly, I do respect and admire the country that I live in. Lower age of consent is not the reason for which I love it, it is just a symptom.

 

To me a country that promotes embracing diversity and cultural differences, sexual diversity, respect to individuality while striving to homogenize education and quality of life, a country that recommends dialogue, not confrontation, negotiation, not subjugation, curiosity, not bigotry, is -in my personal opinion- one of the most accomplished social experiments that we have been able to witness until now. (And it works as an economic model, go figure.)

 

This is not a personal attack; I just had the responsibility to make sure that whoever comes to this site can read what I really think about this sensitive issue.Since I don't come here to fight, this will be my last response to you on this matter. Unless, of course, you have something interesting and different to offer.

 

Finally, I just want to make sure that it is absolutely clear for all those who stumble upon this thread: I do not support, endorse or justify paedophilia.

 

Sincerely,

 

Juan Vancouver

[augustman]

With this thread I will tread lightly, but I do have several opinions because I believe we are talking about a couple of different subjects under a similar heading.

 

To the article, the adults who participated in the webcams have issues that they need to deal with and soon I hope and should be dealt with criminally, as well. I view each website carefully to see if children may be involved or not. Usually if boys are in the title or subtitle it is gone from view.

 

Second, the parents bare some responsibility here. I have a boy and young man in the house. The over 18 young man has his own computer as he is off to college. The other computer in the home is in the family room for us to view and the internet is disconnected when I go to bed. Computers like TV's have no place in the bedroom. It is not foolproof as not all the parents of his friends have the same rules but it is a good first step.

 

Third, I believe age of consent is first a family choice and second a community choice by law and prosecution. But it is a subject that has many varied opinions much like age of consent for alcohol. Both issues require maturity. However, the timing between physical maturity and sexual maturity do vary siginificantly from person to person. As a parent, how does one discuss openess about one's sexual identity. I believe there is lots of room for opinion here, there is no absolute right way of doing it other than best not to plan more than a year two down the line for your kid. But I digress just a moment.

 

Age of consent I believe has room for opinion. A major story in a neighboring area is a mom has been arrested because she knew her 15 year daughter was having sex on a regular basis with the daughter's boyfriend who is also 15. The boy's mother turned them all in but not right away only after she found out it was continuing. The boy would be at the girls house when they got ready for school, you would think the boy's mother would notice him missing for breakfast. Apparantly the girl's mother provided condoms. I guess the debate of age of consent continues and we all have different opinions about that no matter where we live.

[RockHard]

Juan Vancouver's Reply

 

"However, due to the seriousness of this subject, and the gratuitous "interpretations" that you are freely making out of my posts"

 

It seems a few posters remain who love to engage in "gratuitous interpretations." I wish Daddy would purchase a stronger vacuum cleaner and finally suck these jerks away.

 

"And since you seem to be missing the point here, consent is not just the ability to say "Yes". If that was the case, consent would be given as early as one can speak. Consent in this case, refers to the young adult's ability to reach an informed, mature, healthy, safe and responsible choice about the way in which they explore -or not- their sexuality."

 

Beautifully and intelligently expressed, Juan. In fact, the entire post was a pleasure to read. :-)