Britain’s NuLabour party may no longer be in government, but its members are still seeking to further criminalize male sexuality, even from the opposition benches. John Mann, the Labour M.P. for Bassetlaw, has introduced a bill for an amendment to the 2003 Sexual Offences Act which would criminalize men who pay for sex with young adults between the ages of 18 and 20.
“I beg to move: That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Sexual Offences Act 2003 to create an offence of paying for sexual services of a person under the age of 21 years; and for connected purposes….
…There is an important debate to be held on the rights and wrongs of prostitution and the laws that should have an impact on it, by my Bill does not deal with that. My Bill does one thing: it raises the threshold for the illegality of paying for sex. Of course there is a threshold, which is currently 16. Where someone is under 16, the huge consequences of the criminal law and imprisonment are involved because of the age of consent. But the moment the victim becomes older than 16 there are no punitive powers to deal with the person who is paying. I wish to see this Bill adopted by the Government at some stage solely and simply to raise that threshold, because by raising the threshold one raises the threshold. That may sound like a truism, but this approach will change the behaviour of those choosing to pay. The behavioural implication is there for those worried about breaching the criminal law and risking 14 years in prison because someone could be a minor of 15 and a half years old. On that borderline, threshold behaviour changes, so I would like Parliament to change that threshold to 21. In essence, that will take all the teenage years out of the real threshold and will change the behaviour of people who are paying. I am not making moral judgments about what people do as adults.
My Bill seeks solely and simply to raise that threshold. I think that raising the threshold will have a huge impact because the age group involved—older teenagers—must be given the space in which to turn around their lives. Our current legislative framework makes them the victims as, in reality, the powers available to the police, even though they are often wisely and deliberately not used, are to arrest and criminalise young people, which worsens their life chances and their chances of turning around the situation.
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2012-01-17b.618.0
Notice the part of his speech that I have highlighted in bold – at first it reads rather like gibberish, but he appears to be saying exactly what I’ve always stated here as the true motivation behind higher and higher age of consent laws. The threshold must be raised to 21 so that men won’t even go near anyone who even could be under 21. I’ll quote him again :
The behavioural implication is there for those worried about breaching the criminal law and risking 14 years in prison because someone could be a minor of 15 and a half years old. On that borderline, threshold behaviour changes, so I would like Parliament to change that threshold to 21.
In other words, we are now entering the world in which I have always predicted that feminists and their mangina puppets would be leading us into – where men are beginning to face legal risks (from ‘child protection’ laws) for even seeking out adult women in their early twenties.
And given that most females in the UK complete puberty by the age of 16, how exactly can you distinguish between a 20 year old adult woman and a 21 year old adult woman? Obviously, the only sure way would be to only seek prostitutes who have obvious signs of aging – women in their late twenties or thirties.
This bill, if it becomes law, will have numerous consequences. A line will have been crossed in the sexual demarcation between ‘children’ and adults (already ridiculously defined by feminists at 18). Even young adult women over 18 can now fall under the ‘protection’ of anti-paedophile and child abuse laws. Just as the raising of the minimum age for prostitution and pornography to 18 has made having sex with 17 year old girls morally and socially dubious, even though the age of consent is still 16 in the UK and most other countries (or lower), soon simply having sex with 20 year old women will carry connotations of paedophilia and child abuse.
Note also that it will become legally hazardous to buy a 20 year old woman a meal before having sex, or even buying a young woman a drink in a nightclub, lest you be accused of ‘paying for sex’.
And this, of course, is the real intention. This is better for the average woman than the complete criminilization of paying for sex would be. With this law, with this discrimination between women under and over 21, the sexual market price of the older woman is again raised.
Thanks to Human-Stupidity for notifying me of this bill – I can only find it on two sites online – the link given above, and Adult World News, which appears to be related to the excellent Melon Farmers anti-censorship/sex positive (male and female) news website. But I can’t find it on any mainstream media site.
This is how politics works in the UK, especially the never ending barrage of anti-male sexuality legislation. A bill is introduced into parliament, the House of Commons and then the House of Lords debate it, and shortly after, the new law is announced on page 9 of the Daily Telegraph. There is no public debate – 99% of the public probably won’t be aware of it even when it has become law. And of course, in the present climate it is almost impossible to repeal sex laws (apart, of course, from those relating to homosexuality and trans-genders).
Quite astounding. Your prognostications are vindicated.
I will be linking to this tomorrow.
I suppose an eighteen year old boy paying for sex with a twenty year old prostitute would be abusing a child under this system of ‘logic’.
Your criticism of how the mainstream media carefully ignores these stories is also one of my pet peeves. They can find plenty of time to cover “Kim Kardashian’s Nightmare Hair Disaster” but can’t find the space to tell half the population that their balls are about to become illegal. The real world and the media’s coverage of it are two entirely different things. I can only hope that more people will wake up to what they are NOT being told.
Could this be the start of the slide up to an AoC of 21???
Nahh. NEVER!!!
All they want is to control our gonads telling us what to do and what not to do with them.
It’s like as if it’s the end of the world if two people under the age of 21 have sex.
You Men stick to women your own age!
(sarcasm)
What?
Most numbering systems in recent millenia just happen to be based on a decimal system, thus often as a matter of course, a sequence of integers in many languages would share a similar part word for a sequence between 10 to 20.
http://www.archimedes-lab.org/numeral2.html
Teen numbers (& their names) have no association, relationship or INVENTION related to female consent, puberty, span when “balance of power” ultimately takes place, maturation or life-cycles… even indirectly. Puberty was the only historical across the board marker in all cultures (outside of other cultures allowing for wider flexibility to insure satisfaction of male sexual desires). We don’t know if our Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal or Homo Erectus ancestors had a numbering system based on female puberty, age of consent, or maturation to “balance of power”, and called their #14 “good to go”, their #16 “ripe”, their #18 “spinster”….
“Teenagers” is just a coined, brain fart of the 20th Century only… that spread having neither historical or current relationship with biology, historical criminal law & full adult punishment, or even subsets of socialization – of the minority who go to University they are 17 year olds in the West upon entering… are University students not Adults?
Aside from a year being a term describing the point at which a round rock of mostly iron & silica hurtling in a near vacuum around a hot hydrogen mass approaching a spheroid form comes back again… what has that got to do with female biology, pheromones & female sexual desire?
A move to make all women stay in school & graduate from college so they can fulfill themselves, enter the marketplace & compete against men too? Sort of like NGO feminists (invariably with U.S., UK & EU sister connections) in the Far East “rescue” sex workers so they can train them to make clothes, sneakers, knit, work in sweat shops for Western Multi-National corporations profits… as if these women aren’ythorny or don’t have a sex drive.
Sounds so much like the Religious Right/anti-sex feminists of the USA Meece Commision of Reagan in the early 1980s, which had a goal of outlawing all soft-core porn (and even Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition). Their recommendation to Congress was to make all erotic material of under 21s illegal, to protect Minors because some 15 year olds look 17, and some 17 year olds look 15…
paralleling that UK politician’s pronouncement. The age for production of erotic materials was until then usually 16 in the USA (contributing to the delinquency was only a state law of some States for a citizen of that particular state only), with the age of consent particularly for non-virgin/married/divorced women being usually 15 or 16, very rarely 18 or 21, but sometimes 12 or 14 in the American South. Of course they knew if the age was set to 21, virtually all pornography would become illegal.. including most past issues of Playboy, outside of their anti-Playbot convenience store/7-11 crusade.
But the American Congress balked at that, so they all reworked the compromise at 18 years of age – that is how the magical number so-called of 18 was introduced into the public consciousness as the CP marker.
Prior to that the Christian Women’s Temperance Movement simply just lobbied for as high an age (of consent) as they could get away with in that particular state. Whether it was 16, 18, 21, or even 25 years of age. Then the UN femnazis in following seized upon that “magical number” of 18, which has no bearing to anything, except the old typical age at which females, if they graduated High School, would turn coincidently. Keep em’ in school & not pregnant & barefoot I guess (aside from all the other Sexual Trade Union reasons & envious pussy begging politicians desperate for the middle-aged female vote to keep them in office.
The only time a “picked” number was historically used prior to the rise of feminists in the late 19th Century was for instance (Judaism) decreeing the age of 20 for professional soldiers to minimize ass-woop of under 19s in brutal hand to hand combat – because peak physical strength in males does indeed significantly increase toward twenty on; the age of 25 or 30 (USA) for certain elected offices to gain enough life experiences in order to govern wisely; or ancient Rome (age 12 & 14) for state citizen Patrician marriage tied to @puberty/education in which the man could recognize the responsibilities of representing & being a citizen of the State. The few laws historically that covered female ages (outside of elite citizens classes where the “Matron” represented the state in the Motherhood Cult.. ie Elite Citizen marriage), were a few reactionary laws by corrupt political leaders (Caligula, Domitian) in deflecting negative public opprobrium from themselves to curry the favor of mothers in particular in protecting girls who have no sexual desire & unacommodating anatomy (& Jew bashing).
This will be bad news for Pakistani pimps. No customers.
@theantifeminist
I tried 3 times to send a comment to this but it won’t go through. (maybe all moved to spam?) if you find them in there, could you please post the latest one to the thread?
Gender hypocrisy is the core of sex offender laws, most of these laws are male hatred and feminism biased. These laws are not for protecting the society.
Pingback: 26th Jan 2012 « Men's Voices
so let’s get this straight – an 18-year-old soldier can under UK law legally be deployed to the battlefields of Afghanistan or Iraq and have his (or her!!) body shot to smithereens, return home as a paraplegic for life with the odd limb missing, or gruesomely be killed in action… but heaven forbid somebody wants to have consensual sex with that same 18-year-old for money??
What is potentially more harmful to a 20-year-old’s well-being… being under hostile fire 24/7 and having it hang over your head that every day might literally be your last, or being able to enjoy casual sex with strangers just because you swing that way, and turning a profit in the process?
I have friends who served on the front lines in Afghanistan. The amount of permanent emotional damage their tour of duty has done to them dwarfs any kind of adverse effect voluntary prostitution could ever have. And they are in their late 20s to mid-30s. Grown men who can take a beating, you would think.
I know that the argument is that somehow 18-to 20-year-olds “aren’t mature enough” to prostitute themselves and deal with the harsh realities of the trade… but again, if that is so, why do 18-year-olds get shipped out to war, facing the above mentioned perils, and why can 18-year-olds be jailed for life for capital crimes (and potentially end up getting raped in prison, which happens a lot especially to boyish-looking teenagers), but somehow not be grown up enough to have sex for money out of their own free will??
This defies any logic, if there ever was any. And it is evidenced in the bill’s proposal to raise the age “just for the sake of raising it”. No other reason, except that’s how they want it. Because there is no logical argument for raising it. Well, not that that has ever stopped feminazis and manginas so far.
Yes, but those are BOYS, don’t you know?
Actually, to tackle both issues, the voting age should go down to 16.
I just wonder what would happen if somebody proposed a bill to raise the “combat age”, the age from which you can be sent to fight (and possibly die) in an armed conflict to 21. Of course nobody has ever come forward with anything like that, or at least hasn’t had much success with such a proposal. Because the armed forces need young, impressionable, naive cannon fodder who can be duped into giving their life “for their country”. The same government which has no qualms sending them to die in foreign countries somehow feels it’s its duty to make sure they don’t enter the much less (if at all) perilous sex trade?
Why is it “heroic” and “brave” to die for your country in the prime of your life, why is that such an honorable sacrifice, while on the other hand young people must be protected from using their peak physical attractiveness for personal gain by sleeping with other people for money??
It can be inferred from the bill that Mr. Mann wants to keep young people from entering the sex trade because he thinks that the older and more mature they are, the less likely they will be to become victims of sexual violence, or even less likely to become prostitutes altogether. But on the other hand – prostitution, although restrictions apply, is legal in England, it is a legal business. Why keep people from it, if they are legal adults in almost every other respect of the law?
As antifeminist rightly concluded – this bill is intended to kill two birds with one stone, one being to make it illegal for middle-aged men to sleep with young adults for money, but the other being to penalize anybody who approaches a person in the 18-to-25 age group.
While it is no secret that middle-aged feminazis have had something like this at the top of their wish list for years, I guess the frustration of some middle-aged manginas over the fact that they can no longer get young pussy must also not be underestimated.
Im sure you ll love this
http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/289088/20120128/demi-moore-kiss-general-hospital-boy.htm
http://www.imdb.com/news/ni0070582
The News Flash above is Safe For Work & UK, EU, Sweden safe (grin).
You know what they say about some women look their hottest at early teens, while another looks hottest at mid teens, another at her late teens, while another was a wallflower in HiSchool but is hot 5 to 10 years later in her mid twenties?
Having seen many a year ago all the pics of Demi from the European/German editions of Playboy magazine & OUI magazine… including the one where she looks like she is giving birth to a black bear cub & a gorgeous “doggy style” shot … MAGNIFIQUE!… three guesses into which category she fits.
I might add that I have seen pretty much all of her movies, so my judgment is considered.
At the time they were published, the US was just about that time the first country to raise the age of porn production from @16 years of age to 18…. but that left Playboy class magazines in a gray area since they were as much or more Art or “gravure” beauty of the female form than “sexually explicit masturbatory material”. The European countries including the UK still used 16 & 17 year old “Playmates” in Mens magazines & porn for decades to come (& no one thought anything of it – as their age of sexual consent to have sex with middle aged men was 13 to 16 variously). With Spain & Italy using age 11 thru 15 year old nude models on occassion.
MSM commented
“…Demi doesn’t date a guy barely older then her kids cause she’s normal and well adjusted. Truth is, her life has been sort of a trainwreck. She was born and raised in Roswell, New Mexico. Her biological dad was only married to her mom for two months, and she believed her step-dad was her real dad until she was 14. That guy killed himself when she was 16, and it was about that time she moved to Europe to become a nude model…. At 18 she married musician Freddy Moore, who was 30 at the time. That’s where the ‘Moore’ comes from incidentally, her real name is Demetria Guynes.”
Well looking at the video, I’d say that it was totally consensual on the 15 year old’s part. As the data suggests that 96% of teenage young men masturbate, and whoever they fantasize about they would do it in real life with… I’d say that (& all of recorded history until the Sexual Trade Union of the 20th Century) is consent too for a higher level of intimacy… Come on now, being with a co-star like that on a regular basis…. The most fun activity in the world & what makes the World go round & the source of all life doesn’t scar people.
Even the Sexual Trade Union crazy spike of the 20th century was never meant to “protect” young male, only females.
Of course the USA Hysteria is unique in that at 19 if Demi flunked a Grade, she could still be a Senior in HiSchool, while the young man at 15 could be a Freshmen or Sophomore in HiSchool.. in spite of females developing ahead of males a couple of years early on average…. The USA hysteria is unique even compared to batshit UK, in that ANY interest by someone over 17 toward someone under 18 is cut and dried Pedophilia & French Kissing/a first date goodnite kiss is classified as sexual assault of a minor.
But unlike a 19 year male, Demi Moore will get a free pass from the Sexual Trade Union… after the day’s gossip is done.
@theantifeminist
I tried several times to send a comment to this but it won’t go through. (maybe all moved to spam?) if you find them in there, could you please post the most recent one to the thread? (I tried altering the text slightly in each unsuccessful attempt to post, hoping that ssome word or character might flag it as spam). Last attempt (most recent) probably Jan. 29th.
Sorry Alan, I’ll take a look right now.
UPDATE : Sorry about that Alan, I’ve approved the most recent comment : http://theantifeminist.com/undercover-cops-pose-as-prostitutes-arrest-186-johns/comment-page-1/#comment-19868
I’ll have to re-think how I deal with spam as the filter (the most popular and highest rated WP spam filter) keeps putting the odd comment of regular readers like you into the spam folder. The only solution I can think of is to require that all readers create an account in order to post comments, and then I could probably drop the filter.
Thanks – doesn’t really matter which thread it’s under, the comment is still pertinent to criminalizing johns hiring prostitutes as well.
That could create Anonymity issues.