New Zealand First: hates sex work, loves rape culture

Written By: - Date published: 9:00 am, March 28th, 2013 - 346 comments
Categories: nz first - Tags:

Prohibition.  It has a long and noble history of totally working exactly as intended.  So it’s not at all telling when a group says “we need to ban X to save the people who are doing X!”

Case in point:  New Zealand First’s latest bandwagon-jump, onto the eternal tribulations of South Auckland street corners.

“So far the New Zealand Prostitutes Collective has received about $8.6 million from the Ministry of Health to help tackle these issues. But there is another way that would prove to be effective.

“Our Prostitution Reform (Control of Street Prostitution) Amendment Bill would ban all street prostitution and confine sex work to brothels.

Or the men of South Auckland could stop picking up sex workers on street corners, like they’ve been doing since long before prostitution was decriminalized in New Zealand.

But clearly Lole-Taylor is on to a serious issue here.  After all:

Of major concern is the growing prevalence of girls as young as 13 offering themselves for sale on the streets of South Auckland.

Um, hang on.

13-year-olds can’t consent to sex, much less to sex work.  But Lole-Taylor isn’t saying “we’re concerned about child-abusing pimps trafficking young girls”, she’s saying it’s concerning that so many young girls are slappers.

By using the phrase “offering themselves”, Lole-Taylor clearly implies that they are consenting, and that their behaviour is the cause for concern.  She further goes on to refer to them as making “a choice”.  We don’t let 13-year-olds sign binding employment contracts to deliver pizza, Mrs Lole-Taylor.  Why is it suddenly okay to act like underage sex workers are entirely to blame?

Not to mention the fact that apparently Mrs Lole-Taylor knows of many 13-year-olds being forced into sex work and thinks the correct response is “holding a forum”, not “calling the police“.

It’s a tired old story.  Drum up social panic.  Hold a town hall meeting.  Listen to the Good Men Of The City decry the Plague of [anti-sex work slurs] Upon Our Streets and advocate for Law Which Recognises The Community’s Needs.

Pay no attention when they sneak out at 2am to cruise Hunters Corner and rape 13-year-olds.

[Image courtesy of Hoyden About Town]

346 comments on “New Zealand First: hates sex work, loves rape culture ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Matthew 1
    28 March 2013 at 9:11 am

    Correct me if im wrong, but didnt the Prostitution Law Reform Bill only legalise prostitution in a licensed brothel? I was under the impression that street walking was still illegal.
    & instead of having a meeting, as you said, call the cops…. arrest a few of these men…

    • Ugly Truth 1.1
      28 March 2013 at 9:23 am

      “call the cops…. arrest a few of these men”

      More fuel for the great kiwi protection racket. Are you going to argue that these girls suffer harm when they inititiate the act?

      • just saying 1.1.1
        28 March 2013 at 9:36 am

        Yes.

        Are you saying that the state should allow adults to rape children if and when a child “consents” to be raped?

        Have you ever thought about why these children end up on street corners? Or do you like to think it is because they enjoy being fucked by gross old men?

        • Ugly Truth 1.1.1.1
          28 March 2013 at 9:56 am

          “Are you saying that the state should allow adults to rape children if and when a child “consents” to be raped?”

          Do you make a habit of asking profoundly stupid questions?

          Possible reasons for them being there are greed or a sense of necessity.

          • rosy 1.1.1.1.1
            28 March 2013 at 9:59 am

            Possible reason for them being there are greed or a sense of necessity.

            Is that the buyers you’re talking about there, Ugly?

            • Ugly Truth 1.1.1.1.1.1
              28 March 2013 at 10:10 am

              I was talking about the girls’ reasons, Rosy.

              • rosy …
                28 March 2013 at 10:16 am

                I was being sarcastic there, Ugly.
                But the question can go both ways.

                So who do you think is the responsible party for consent then.. and when does their responsibility end? They’re not illegally having sex with 13 year-olds as an act of charity, are they?

                • Ugly Truth …
                  28 March 2013 at 10:28 am

                  Mutual consent implies mutual responsibility.

                  • rosy …
                    28 March 2013 at 10:37 am

                    You’re missing the idea of what consent is. A child, in law, can’t consent.

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      28 March 2013 at 11:10 am

                      A child can consent when the child understands what the outcome is. Some outcomes are easy to understand, some are not. The idea that a child cannot consent if they are less than a certain age is a fiction.

                      [QoT: There are fairly obvious reasons why our law determines an age of consent. Consent has to be meaningful, which is why we don’t honour contracts signed at gunpoint. I’m just catching up on the comments to this post now, but rest assured future rape apologism which blames victims of sexual abuse will not be treated lightly.]

                    • rosy …
                      28 March 2013 at 11:22 am

                      Once again, you’ve missed the ‘in law’.

                      If a child of 13 has sex, freely, with another child of 13 then I might agree (might). A separate issue completely. Even then they have no idea about what that means in the long term. Still – a different issue.

                      The idea that a child understands the consequences of being bought by some adult for sex is not the same as two young people thinking they have some sort of emotional connection that may turn physical.

                      The idea that an adult who buys a child for sex has no more responsibility than the child belies the notion of what an adult is.

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      28 March 2013 at 2:03 pm

                      “Once again, you’ve missed the ‘in law’.”

                      No, you’ve been misled by the state about what the law is.

                      Lex terre Ileks tehriy I . The law of the land. The common law, or the due course of the common law; the general law of the land. Equivalent to “due process of law”. In the strictest sense, trial by oath; the privilege of making oath.

                      Blacks dictionary of law, 5th edition.

                      Legislation, called “statute law”, is not the law of the land.

                    • Matthew Whitehead …
                      28 March 2013 at 10:04 pm

                      Now you’re playing semantics, which is funny because you were talking about implications. The implications of what you were arguing were as clear as they were clearly unnecessary, and definitely crossing the border into the Land of Things That Apologise for Rape.

                      The fact of the matter is that legally protecting children from the consequences of decisions they might make before they’ve finished growing up by saying they can’t consent to sex under a certain age is a reasonable simplification of the fact that they can’t meaningfully consent with a reasonable expectation that they have or ought to have knowledge of the full consequence of that decision. There might be the occassional really mature thirteen year-old who is more emotionally equipped than most sixteen yearolds to consent to sex with say, someone of a similar age to themselves, but that’s not an excuse for anyone significantly older than them to be preying on them.

                  • Colonial Weka …
                    28 March 2013 at 10:45 am

                    “Mutual consent implies mutual responsibility.”

                    Not sure how many other ways this can be said in this thread. Thirteen yr olds cannot legally consent to sex with adults. If an adult has ‘sex’ with a thirteen year old, legally that is rape. The adult has responsibility for this, not the child.

                    “Mutual consent implies mutual responsibility.”

                    Let’s look at it another way. A 30 year old man having sex with an 8 year old girl. Is mutual consent possible (leaving aside the legal issues)? Are both people mutually responsible?

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      28 March 2013 at 11:15 am

                      Legal consent is not the same as actual consent. For your example of an 8 year old girl, I think that she most probably couldn’t consent because she most probably wouldn’t have any knowledge of what was involved.

                    • Colonial Weka …
                      28 March 2013 at 11:23 am

                      “she most probably wouldn’t have any knowledge of what was involved.”

                      Do you mean the physical act? Are you really that naive? Let’s take an 8 year old that’s already been sexually abused multiple times, and her father has been selling her to his mates as well. You think she has no idea of what is involved? Can she consent to sex with an adult man or not?

                      But even if she didn’t have that history, how is she any different than a 13 year old that’s never had any education about what sex is? Or a 16 year old?

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      28 March 2013 at 11:48 am

                      “Do you mean the physical act?”

                      Are sexual acts simply physical ones?

                    • Draco T Bastard …
                      28 March 2013 at 12:22 pm

                      It’s educating watching as the idiots try not to answer a direct question.

              • David H …
                28 March 2013 at 10:35 am

                Maybe they had no choice in the matter. I mean you should look to your relatives for protection, not exploitation.

                http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10874035

          • just saying 1.1.1.1.2
            28 March 2013 at 10:02 am

            Describe precisely how the question as written is “profoundly Stupid”, Mr Humbert

            • Ugly Truth 1.1.1.1.2.1
              28 March 2013 at 10:13 am

              You question is stupid because it is obvious that nobody should promote rape.

              • Colonial Weka …
                28 March 2013 at 10:27 am

                And yet you have.

                • Ugly Truth …
                  28 March 2013 at 10:32 am

                  You interpret my statement that girls may initiate an act of prostitution as being equivalent with the promotion of rape?

                  • rosy …
                    28 March 2013 at 10:36 am

                    “You interpret my statement that girls may initiate an act of prostitution as being equivalent with the promotion of rape?”

                    Short answer – Yes.

                    • Colonial Weka …
                      28 March 2013 at 10:52 am

                      Longer answer, UT you are saying that 13 yr olds can consent to sex with adults (despite that not being legally true), and that in such ‘sex’ both people are mutually responsible. That is promotion of rape culture ergo promotion of rape.

                      I’m guessing what you are trying to get at, is that some thirteen yr olds are biologically and socially capable of having sexual relationships without being damaged by that. I would agree. But we’re not talking about that. We’re talking about 13 yr olds who are doing sex work on the streets out of need because society has abandoned them. Choice (ie consent) is not available to them.

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      28 March 2013 at 11:19 am

                      Isn’t your consent implied if you make the first move?

                    • Colonial Weka …
                      28 March 2013 at 11:50 am

                      *facepalm*

                      No.

                  • Colonial Weka …
                    28 March 2013 at 10:46 am

                    Do you know what rape culture is UT? Do you understand that this conversation is about rape culture?

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      28 March 2013 at 11:23 am

                      What I understand is that the system will mislead people through ambiguous language, or by attempting to redefine terms.

                    • Colonial Weka …
                      28 March 2013 at 11:24 am

                      I’ll take that as a no, and a no then.

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      28 March 2013 at 11:49 am

                      You don’t get to define what this conversation is about.

                    • Colonial Weka …
                      28 March 2013 at 12:02 pm

                      “You don’t get to define what this conversation is about.”

                      Maybe not, but QoT, the author of the post does, so let’s wait and see what she has to say about it.

                    • QoT …
                      28 March 2013 at 12:56 pm

                      Thanks, CW.

                      UT clearly has an axe to grind in this argument, so I’m happily to leave this thread as is – it’s a great example of how some people simply will not acknowledge fairly basic facts of law and culture.

                  • Psycho Milt …
                    28 March 2013 at 11:59 am

                    You interpret my statement that girls may initiate an act of prostitution as being equivalent with the promotion of rape?

                    Well, yes we do, but more importantly the laws of New Zealand do – which is what actually counts. If you feel strongly that adult men should be allowed to fuck 13-year-olds if said 13-year-olds are desperate enough for cash, by all means start a movement to promote a law change. Expect your public meetings to occasionally result in your hospitalisation, though.

              • just saying …
                28 March 2013 at 10:29 am

                People do promote rape. Some people rape.
                Others try to minimise it, deny it, support and sympathise with, rapists, reframe the narrative and reality (a la Mr Humbert), blame victims, victimise victims, or claim it is just an inevitable, unalterable, and rather trivial, fact of life.

                Welcome to rape culture.
                You really are soaking in it.

      • Matthew 1.1.2
        28 March 2013 at 9:40 am

        I would suggest that these girls have already been severely harmed in their life already. Girls from well established, caring, nurturing families dont end up as street ho’s as a general rule. I do take objection to the idea that a 13yr old is showing completely free will when they ‘initiate the act’. I would suggest that they really would rather not be asking money for sex from strangers.
        What I am going to suggest is that anyone picking up a 13yr old street hooker is breaking the law in at least two ways. First by using a street prostitute (still illegal) & second by her being underage (if in fact she is). Do you suggest we just lay the blame on the girls themselves?
        they need to be encouraged to use a licensed, tax paying brothel if they feel the need to pay for sex. Thats what the original intent of the law was, but it is not being enforced. The law does not need to be changed, just how it is enforced.

        • Ugly Truth 1.1.2.1
          28 March 2013 at 10:08 am

          “Do you suggest we just lay the blame on the girls themselves?”

          No. I blame NZ society for endorsing prostitution through legislation, the South Auckland community for not finding a remedy before it became a national issue.

          Licencing prostitution makes the state a whore.

          • Chris Miller 1.1.2.1.1
            28 March 2013 at 10:13 am

            Actually the most effective solution seems to be criminalising the buying of sex but decriminalising the selling of it. We’re never going to get rid of prostitution but at least that way we’re targeting the people with the most choice in the matter – there are some women who are doing it entirely by choice, but there’s also a hell of a lot of “no other options” and outright sex trafficking and the community doesn’t have the power to do much about that.

            • grumpy 1.1.2.1.1.1
              28 March 2013 at 11:03 am

              Can’t see the logic. Selling would be legal but buying illegal????

              This is just wishy washy political gender politics. The whole thing is already illegal, just uphold the law! FFS

              • Colonial Weka …
                28 March 2013 at 11:10 am

                I think Chris is talking about adult sex work. I find the idea worthy of consideration and I’d be interested to know if this has been tried anywhere, or if anyone has seriously looked at it as an option.

                There are obvious negative implications for sex workers too.

                • grumpy …
                  28 March 2013 at 11:35 am

                  My understanding is that Chris’ scenario is the law in a number of countries.

                • rosy …
                  28 March 2013 at 11:40 am

                  It’s the law in Sweden. Also Norway and Iceland.

                  The final report of the commission was submitted to Justice Minister Beatrice Ask in July 2010. The report stated that the law worked, and had achieved its objectives but suggested that the sentence for purchasing sex be doubled. It stated that since the introduction of the ban on buying sex, street prostitution had been halved and that: “This reduction may be considered to be a direct result of the criminalisation of sex purchases.” It was also found that there had been no overall increase in prostitution in Sweden. “People working in the field do not consider that there has been an increase in prostitution since the ban was introduced”. It also stated that the law has had a positive effect on human trafficking. “According to the National Criminal Police, it is clear that the ban on the purchase of sexual services acts as a barrier to human traffickers and procurers considering establishing themselves in Sweden”.

          • locus 1.1.2.1.2
            28 March 2013 at 10:25 am

            Ugly T .. you are blatantly failing to answer the question, which was:

            “Do you suggest we just lay the blame on the girls themselves?”

            Please answer it straightly if you possibly can.

            And you think that your uniformed sneering opinion on a separate topic – legalisation of prostitution – is an answer?

            • Ugly Truth 1.1.2.1.2.1
              28 March 2013 at 10:34 am

              What part of “No” did you not understand?

              • locus …
                28 March 2013 at 11:11 am

                so Ugly T… “No” you don’t ‘blame’ a child who has sex with a paying adult who is acting illegally and immorally and with complete disregard for the emotional and long-term consequences of their paedophilia

                • Ugly Truth …
                  28 March 2013 at 11:25 am

                  Comprehension fail, locus.

                  The question was about about the entire blame, not partial blame.

                  • locus …
                    28 March 2013 at 11:33 am

                    explain “partial blame”

                    no, on second thoughts, don’t bother….. i can’t stomach any further discussion with someone who, it seems to me, is an apologist for having sex with children.

                    • Colonial Weka …
                      28 March 2013 at 11:38 am

                      They’re pretty good at avoiding giving clear answers in this thread.

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      28 March 2013 at 12:01 pm

                      What point do you want clarified, CW?

                    • Colonial Weka …
                      28 March 2013 at 12:03 pm

                      None. You’ve made it clear that you think adults having sex with children is ok at least some of the time. The rest of your posts where you’ve not given clear answers aren’t that important after that.

                    • grumpy …
                      28 March 2013 at 12:08 pm

                      locus…..I think you are taking a simplistic view, full of generalisations

                    • locus …
                      28 March 2013 at 1:07 pm

                      indeed grumpy…. i am taking a simplistic view because i’m relying on my naive generalisation that the existence of laws regarding rape and sex with children reflect the wishes of society to counter the opportunism and self-justification of paedophiles or rapists (e.g. your Honour, ‘you have to understand the context’ – ‘it was consensual’ etc.)

                      From your comments on this thread you’ve pretty much said ‘rigorously enforce the law and lock them all up’ – I instinctively support you in this, but we’ve got to do a lot more than that to address the causes

                    • grumpy …
                      28 March 2013 at 1:22 pm

                      locus, it’s like mould in the jam jar, take the lid off and it starts growing……..

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      28 March 2013 at 1:26 pm

                      No harm means no crime. The point is that by getting up in arms over pedos who cause no harm you avoid confronting the real issue of child abuse and criminal paedophilia and its institional nature, eg the Windsors, the Thatcher administration, the Catholic Church, and the White House.

                      [QoT: Unfortunately for you, most people are actually capable of understanding that an adult having sex with raping a child is harmful. Future comments denying this will be moderated.]

          • Matthew 1.1.2.1.3
            28 March 2013 at 10:48 am

            YEs because making it illegal will make it go away. The State needs to enforce the law, that says buying sex is legal within the confines of a licensed premises. Anything else is still illegal.

            • Draco T Bastard 1.1.2.1.3.1
              28 March 2013 at 12:38 pm

              The State needs to enforce the law, that says buying sex is legal within the confines of a licensed premises.

              Which part of the law states that?

              • QoT …
                28 March 2013 at 1:03 pm

                Yeah, I can’t find anything to support this statement either …

              • Matthew …
                28 March 2013 at 1:45 pm

                On closer inspection, it doesnt ban street soliciting. As far as i remember though, wasnt it promoted as such, a ‘get them off the streets’ approach by legalizing brothels? I must be going loopy because i remember arguments about ‘allowing girls to work safely & legally in brothels, as opposed to unsafely & illegally on the streets’…….
                My mistake, & i am dissapointed that the Act doesnt stipulate that it is legal only in a brothel … but the fact remains, these men are arrestable due to the (apparent) age of the girls….

                • Matthew Whitehead …
                  28 March 2013 at 10:25 pm

                  Why should prostitution only be legal in a brothel?

                  Shouldn’t sex workers be allowed to work from home? (or at their clients’ homes, for that matter) What’s so bad about sex workers soliciting people on the street?

                  If people under 16 are selling sex, we have more problems than that their rapists (whether knowingly so or not) might be arrested. Nobody is going to be selling sex below the age of consent without being in some pretty desperate circumstances, so let’s address those instead of playing a game of What About The Straight Priviliged Mens bingo.

          • Draco T Bastard 1.1.2.1.4
            28 March 2013 at 12:27 pm

            There’s nothing wrong with prostitution. There is something wrong with people being forced into it.

            • Colonial Weka 1.1.2.1.4.1
              28 March 2013 at 12:34 pm

              I would also say there is nothing inherently wrong with sex work, but there are forms of it that are damaging to individuals and society (including where there is no force).

          • Roy 1.1.2.1.5
            28 March 2013 at 3:58 pm

            I blame the johns. They should be arrested, tried and locked up for statutory rape.

        • AsleepWhileWalking 1.1.2.2
          28 March 2013 at 5:07 pm

          Girls from well established, caring, nurturing families dont end up as street ho’s as a general rule.
          That is simply not correct. Anyone can end up in this situation but the prevalence of backgrounds is higher, you need to understand the social pressure for young girls to work and other factors that lead to this situation. Front and center is the demand for underage sex workers or “barely legal” which often is a euphemism for let’s pretend she actually is the age of consent because it’s convenient for all involved.

      • locus 1.1.3
        28 March 2013 at 9:42 am

        Ugly T….. apart from having no respect for the law you seem to think that adults exploiting a child is somehow okay if the child ‘initiates the act’? and if an adult can say that a child ‘initiates the act’ that it changes the balance of power so that the adult can absolve themselves of responsibility?

        Actually on reflection i think that people like you and views like yours are utterly contemptible and if you put your thoughts into action in any kind of way with a thirteen year old you are a criminal – and i’d call the Police

        • Ugly Truth 1.1.3.1
          28 March 2013 at 10:26 am

          locus, I do have respect for the law, but it is the law of the land that I respect, not municipal law, which is based on fraud and dishonour.

          I don’t condone exploitation of children, in fact I’ve spend time publicising the involvement of the house of Windsor in the abuse and murder of Canadian children. What I’m saying is that norms about the age of consent are social are are pretty much unrelated to the issue of harm.

          • locus 1.1.3.1.1
            28 March 2013 at 10:33 am

            the reason that we have laws of the land is that socially we understand the harm done to children

            – by the way it is the law of this land…NZ… that it is illegal to pay for sex with somebody who is under 18 …and it is also illegal to have sex with someone who is under 16 – a child

            • Ugly Truth 1.1.3.1.1.1
              28 March 2013 at 10:48 am

              Locus, what reason is there to think that a child is harmed when he or she initiates a sexual encounter?

              Statute law is not the law of the land, although you could be excused for thinking that when the state lies about the common law.

              • locus …
                28 March 2013 at 10:55 am

                so let’s get this straight: you are saying that a child who initiates (what does that mean by the way) sex with a paying adult can’t be harmed?

                as for your comments about statute law and law of the land – can you clarify for me? what is law of the land in your home-made definition?

                • Ugly Truth …
                  28 March 2013 at 11:39 am

                  Locus, anyone (children especially) can initiate an act that results in them being harmed. In context, the children are doing this repeatedly which suggests than no harm as done (although there could be other factors here).

                  Lex terre Ileks tehriy I . The law of the land. The common law, or the due course of the common law; the general law of the land. Equivalent to “due process of law”. In the strictest sense, trial by oath; the privilege of making oath.

                  Blacks dictionary of law, 5th edition.

              • Chris Miller …
                28 March 2013 at 10:55 am

                I imagine quite a lot of people who study child psychology have written about that issue if you cared to look it up.

      • toad 1.1.4
        28 March 2013 at 9:46 am

        Didn’t take long to get the first rape apologist comment.

        • Ugly Truth 1.1.4.1
          28 March 2013 at 10:51 am

          toad, I’m not defending rape, I’m arguing about what constitutes consent.

          • Colonial Weka 1.1.4.1.1
            28 March 2013 at 10:54 am

            Of course you are not defending rape, you are an apologist for it. Take a step back, go read up on what rape culture is, and then come back and make your arguments.

            • rosy 1.1.4.1.1.1
              28 March 2013 at 10:57 am

              Actually I think Ugly is defending rape. S/he seems to think a child can initiate sex and therefore there is no problem with an adult taking up the ‘offer’ of sex, (as long as s/he pays for it – will a chocolate bar do? )

              • Pascal's bookie …
                28 March 2013 at 11:09 am

                He doesn’t think sex with children is always rape. So he’s not, in his mind, defending rape, he’s just defending ‘sex with children’.

                • rosy …
                  28 March 2013 at 11:13 am

                  lol sorry, the nuances of the argument were beyond me.

                • Colonial Weka …
                  28 March 2013 at 11:16 am

                  I was thinking it was a case of they think rape is something that men do by holding a knife to woman’s throat or other violent force.

                  But having read their comment above it’s pretty clear, as Pb just said, they think that sex with children is not rape/abuse (at least some of the time). Good to have that out in the open.

                  http://thestandard.org.nz/new-zealand-first-hates-sex-work-loves-rape-culture/#comment-610743

                • Ugly Truth …
                  28 March 2013 at 11:54 am

                  “he’s just defending ‘sex with children’”

                  I’m not defending it per se. What I’m saying is that the statutory age of consent is unrelated to the the issue of harm, and that harm is the relevant issue, not legislation.

                  • just saying …
                    28 March 2013 at 11:57 am

                    citations please

                  • Pascal's bookie …
                    28 March 2013 at 12:07 pm

                    “I’m not defending it per se.”

                    Whatever, per se. Troll.

                  • rosy …
                    28 March 2013 at 12:23 pm

                    per se? Just sometimes then?

                    The statutory age of consent IS related to the issue of harm. Legislation is where society thinks harm is minimised. If the legislation is wrong, do the research and then set up a some town hall meeting or something and what support there is for your point of view.

                    Sure some girls are not harmed by having to have sex with paying adults. I suggest that is because they are already so seriously harmed by adult failures beforehand that this would be just another to add to the the list.

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      28 March 2013 at 1:31 pm

                      If what society thought about harm was related to actual harm then society would be confronted by the problem of supporting a state with strong links to institutional child abuse.

                    • rosy …
                      28 March 2013 at 1:37 pm

                      So we ignore the straight forward everyday abuse, because the kids are not ‘harmed’ somehow, just so we focus on the institutional abuse?

                      Nice. I don’t think, that from a victim’s perspective, some similar acts of abuse have a more important rating just because of who the perpetrator was.

                  • Colonial Weka …
                    28 March 2013 at 12:31 pm

                    “I’m not defending it per se. What I’m saying is that the statutory age of consent is unrelated to the the issue of harm, and that harm is the relevant issue, not legislation.”

                    Sure, but you also seem to think that an 8 year old can give sexual consent and be equally responsible as an adult so long as they understand before hand the nature of the act. And that no harm is done.

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      28 March 2013 at 12:59 pm

                      How many 8 year olds do you know of that understand sex and would not suffer harm from a sexual encounter?

                    • Colonial Weka …
                      28 March 2013 at 2:36 pm

                      “How many 8 year olds do you know of that understand sex and would not suffer harm from a sexual encounter?”

                      Stop trying to bend the argument.

                      *you* are the one that has argued that children can give consent if they understand what the physical act involves.

                      And *you* are the one that has argued that adults can have sex with children and it won’t necessarily harm the child.

                      *I* don’t believe that any 8 yr old is unharmed by sexual act with an adult, irrespective of their understanding of the act.

            • Ugly Truth 1.1.4.1.1.2
              28 March 2013 at 11:44 am

              Where is your argument that I am an apologist for rape, CW?

              • Pascal's bookie …
                28 March 2013 at 11:53 am

                Pretty simple UT.

                You know how you said that ‘that norms about the age of consent are social’? Well that applies to what words mean too. It’s society that determines what words mean.

                You can try and claim that everyone has got the definition of rape wrong, but that doesn’t change the fact that you are defending what society calls rape.

                • Ugly Truth …
                  28 March 2013 at 12:12 pm

                  “It’s society that determines what words mean.”

                  When the meanings of words change ambiguity is introduced, which can be exploited by the unscrupulous. If you know the history of the meaning of a word then you have a defence against such exploitation. Going with the flow of common use removes this defence.

                  Your argument rests on the assumption that there are no absolutes in language.

                  What society calls rape is shaped by legislation about what consent means, and society is the worse for it. Informed consent depends on knowledge of the context of the consent.

                  • locus …
                    28 March 2013 at 12:26 pm

                    “What society calls rape is shaped by legislation about what consent means”

                    thanks for the well considered opinion…. after all, it couldn’t possibly be true that what society calls rape shapes legislation, could it?

                    ah yes, “context” – I think that ‘society’ would be most interested in hearing you (no…actually in seeing you) stand up and give us your view of what ‘context’ would make rape (umm sex between an unwilling or unconsenting or unconscious person or child or, or, or) ‘defensble’

                  • Pascal's bookie …
                    28 March 2013 at 12:28 pm

                    language is ambiguous? The devil you say! Someone inform the universities! Call out the goddam guard!

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      28 March 2013 at 1:03 pm

                      Yes, the devil. Ambiguity can be used to slander someone, and the original meaning of devil is slanderer. In the civil sense this is libel through the use of ambiguous terms like ‘person’.

                      [lprent: No it isn’t. For a starter NZ doesn’t have ‘libel’ in any legal sense. There is only defamation. The rest of your argument is equally stupid when it comes to defamation law in NZ.

                      It generally pays not to start scattering around legal terms on this site. I detest it and tend to simply boot people being stupid enough to misuse it. It encourages them to find out what the actual law currently is rather than some strange myth they learnt off someone equally stupid, or more commonly off a TV programme. ]

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      29 March 2013 at 2:26 pm

                      For a starter NZ doesn’t have ‘libel’ in any legal sense.

                      In New Zealand, as in all countries where the jurisdiction of the common law of England runs, every man is entitled to his good name and the esteem, great or small, of his fellows. In short, he has a right to demand that his reputation shall not be disparaged or smirched by defamatory statements, written or oral, made about him to a third person or persons, without lawful justification. Hence the law of libel and slander.

                      http://www.teara.govt.nz/en/1966/libel-law-of

          • Roy 1.1.4.1.2
            28 March 2013 at 4:00 pm

            What part of ‘The age of consent is 16’ do you not understand? That means that anyone under 16 cannot consent, and does not consent even if they themselves think they do. They are not legally entitled to consent.

          • Murray Olsen 1.1.4.1.3
            28 March 2013 at 7:31 pm

            I’d say you’re actually promoting rape, rather than defending it. Ugly beyond words, and appealing to some fantasy view of natural law or whatever to back it up. Get back to NAMBLA or whatever sewer it is that you crawled out of. Not even WhaleSpew would put up with your vile crap.

      • Chris Miller 1.1.5
        28 March 2013 at 9:48 am

        I always wonder what people gain by vociferously insisting that adolescents are totally able to consent and it’s all okay. Most people who’ve spent anytime whatsoever around a thirteen year old girl would go “holy crap no, they’re far too developmentally immature to make that sort of informed decision.” The only explanations I can come up with are that they’ve never met a thirteen year old girl or they really want to believe that having sex with a thirteen year old isn’t rape.

      • Murray Olsen 1.1.6
        28 March 2013 at 7:19 pm

        Why do you stick Truth on the end of your name?
        Are you going to argue that commercialised sexual assault and statutory rape are beneficial for children?

  2. Ugly Truth 2
    28 March 2013 at 9:20 am

    “13-year-olds can’t consent to sex, much less to sex work.”

    I think you are confusing reality with statue.

    “We don’t let 13-year-olds sign binding employment contracts to deliver pizza”

    If you have the power to prevent someone for entering into a contract, then they are not sui juris and cannot contract regardless of whether or not you gave them permission.

    “advocate for Law Which Recognises The Community’s Needs.”

    You’ve got a bad case of capitalitis, there, QOT
    The state recognises Bracton’s maxim, which treats law is irrelevant in cases of need.

    • rosy 2.1
      28 March 2013 at 9:55 am

      “You’ve got a bad case of capitalitis, there, QOT
      The state recognises Bracton’s maxim, which treats law is irrelevant in cases of need.”

      You’ve got a bad case of disgusting there Ugly. These are 13 year-old children. They don’t have a ‘need’ to prostitute themselves, they have a need to be cared for and protected and if their parents can’t protect them it’s up others to do that. Part of that protection is the police charging people for having sex with minors.

      • Ugly Truth 2.1.1
        28 March 2013 at 10:55 am

        “Part of that protection is the police charging people for having sex with minors.”

        That protection is based on fraud. What, exactly, do you think is disgusting about my position?

        • Bunji 2.1.1.1
          28 March 2013 at 4:22 pm

          What, exactly, do you think is disgusting about my position?

          So much…
          Your solipsistic view that you know what harm is caused, and what the “common” law should be, rather than being willing to accept society’s statutes.

          The way that that can lead you to justify adult sex with minors, which is always about power and control. Adults, too inadequate to have full relationships with their peers, who seek someone they can dominate and control.

          There is no way it can be an equal relationship where the consequences are equally understood, or where fair consent can be given.

          That’s why society outlaws it.

          Your bullshit law where your concept of Alfred the Great knows better than the common consensus of modern society (and what it has chosen to legislate) is just slippery self-justification of your disgusting ideas.

    • Matthew 2.2
      28 March 2013 at 9:57 am

      oh right, because these men need to pick up underage girls for sex. & these girls need to pimp themselves out.
      man, I need a big doobie & a massive bag of crack. Im sure the cops will understand when i quote Bracton’s Maxim to them.

      • Ugly Truth 2.2.1
        28 March 2013 at 11:02 am

        When needs conflict the strong prevail, not the just. I’m not saying that Bracton’s maxim is good or wise, only that the state uses it to sidestep its own dishonour.

    • muzza 2.3
      28 March 2013 at 10:19 am

      Those who are having a go at UT, are missing the points being made, try reading what the comments are saying before getting all up in arms at them!

      • locus 2.3.1
        28 March 2013 at 10:27 am

        so muzza are you in agreement with Ugly T?

        • grumpy 2.3.1.1
          28 March 2013 at 10:45 am

          UT is like most commenters here, not entirely right yet not entirely wrong either. The causes are complex and range from anything from family pressure (itself driven by any number of things from consumerism to drug dependency to cultural issues).

          Who cares why? It’s bad and also illegal. Crack down on it instead of treating the issue as if there is an excuse for it.

          • Ugly Truth 2.3.1.1.1
            28 March 2013 at 11:58 am

            Cracking down on it is an overly simplistic response which is likely to do more harm than good.

            • grumpy 2.3.1.1.1.1
              28 March 2013 at 12:20 pm

              Depends if you SERIOUSLY crack down on it. Sure the hardened pedophiles will still find a way to indulge their sick behavior. Can’t see any harm in a crack down though.

              • Ugly Truth …
                28 March 2013 at 12:46 pm

                The problem is that it’s just an attempt to treat the symptoms. Unless you can identify the cause the problem will just adapt and move on.

                Child abuse is an institutional problem, there is no way the state will address the cause.

                • grumpy …
                  28 March 2013 at 1:26 pm

                  I have said before that it is attacking the symptoms. Some symptoms are also causes.

                  Attacking causes is a lot harder but we must start somewhere quickly and forcefully. If the outcome of certain behaviour is fast and severe punishment, then that “causes” lot of the behaviour to vanish.

                  • Ugly Truth …
                    28 March 2013 at 1:38 pm

                    “Some symptoms are also causes.”

                    For example?

                    • grumpy …
                      28 March 2013 at 1:56 pm

                      Because it is tolerated, pimps (sometimes family members) see it as an easy way of making money ($600pw in the example). The rise of pimps is a symptom. They then force/recruite children onto the streets.

                      Attack the “toleration”, less pimps (symptom) therefore less abused kids??????

        • muzza 2.3.1.2
          28 March 2013 at 11:16 am

          Locus, I am saying that in UT’s earlier comments, people were missing the points being made, IMO!

          The questions which require addressing are:

          1: Why is it that rape/paedophillia is so rife in NZ, like elsewhere? (reasons are many and too complex for this discussion)

          2: Why is the above endorsed in NZ by TPTB?

          • Colonial Weka 2.3.1.2.1
            28 March 2013 at 11:18 am

            The conversation has moved very fast, so it’s likely that some things are being missed, but UT has now made it clear that at least some sex with children is not rape, so I don’t think we’ve been too far off the mark in responding to their comments.

            http://thestandard.org.nz/new-zealand-first-hates-sex-work-loves-rape-culture/#comment-610743

          • just saying 2.3.1.2.2
            28 March 2013 at 11:20 am

            Is this what you were saying UT?

          • locus 2.3.1.2.3
            28 March 2013 at 11:41 am

            muzza…it’s not endorsed by anyone (except maybe Ugly and a few psychologically damaged people) or the state in NZ

            and i’m not really interested in your conspiracy theories

            • Colonial Weka 2.3.1.2.3.1
              28 March 2013 at 11:44 am

              Endorsement by the authorities isn’t technically correct (or we would see that reflected in law and policy), but there isn’t really any doubt that sexual abuse of children is culturally sanctioned in NZ, including up to the highest levels. How else do you explain the high level of child abuse we have?

              • rosy …
                28 March 2013 at 12:57 pm

                ” but there isn’t really any doubt that sexual abuse of children is culturally sanctioned in NZ, including up to the highest levels”

                I don’t know that I agree with culturally sanctioned – more like hidden in plain sight or don’t want to know, but really knowing.

                Otherwise it’s accepting with open arms the people who like that sort of thing.

                Otherwise it would be out in the open – you’d be having men at the pub talking about which prepubescent girl the other has sired that they might want a bit of…

                But, then again, maybe when it’s your daughter they’re after it’s all a bit quiet.

                • Colonial Weka …
                  28 March 2013 at 1:11 pm

                  I think there are different kinds of cultural sanctioning and you are right, this is more covert. But I hear adult men talking about teen girls under the age of consent and how they like their breasts or legs, or making suggestive comments that they would be like to have sex with them.

                  • rosy …
                    28 March 2013 at 1:21 pm

                    Yep, sort of what I was getting at – they talk about it- hits them hard when the talk gets to a kid they are protective about. So really, most know it’s wrong.

                    I’ll go with Psycho Milt’s view that there’s not a lot of support for sex with kids. A bit of touchy feely… yeah. (Bastards… they don’t know the effect they have on a young girl’s sense of place in the world, sense of self and all).

                    It wouldn’t surprise me if a few pub fights were the result of a nudge, nudge, wink, wink about the kid of a mate’s friend.

            • muzza 2.3.1.2.3.2
              28 March 2013 at 1:18 pm

              muzza…it’s not endorsed by anyone (except maybe Ugly and a few psychologically damaged people) or the state in NZ

              and i’m not really interested in your conspiracy theories

              Very, very childish position to take on such a serious issue Locus

              Clearly you’re not at all interested in details which involve mature adult level understanding.

              My advise, go do some reading, or desist from contributing to serious discussions of this nature!

              • QoT …
                28 March 2013 at 2:00 pm

                muzza, don’t try to lay down the law about what this thread is about. Especially given how you know that I know about your sad little “personal research project”.

                • muzza …
                  29 March 2013 at 8:23 am

                  Queenie, I think you might have just exposed some prejudice there, in my direction, as it seems you might have misinterpreted my comment to locus (offering an easy out for you here).

                  Would you care to explain your comment, and why you felt twitchy enough to write it. It makes no sense, at all, and reads out of context of context to me, among other things!

                  Off you go!

                  [QoT: Shock horror, I’m “prejudiced” against people who have openly admitted that they troll the comments here in a petty little social experiment to rark people up. You have quite clearly stated what you this people have to talk about, which are neither issues raised in the post nor issues actually raised by your rape apologist friend Ugly Truth. I’m not having your insincere bullshit dictate my comment thread.

                  Further patronising comments will be deleted.]

            • Murray Olsen 2.3.1.2.3.3
              28 March 2013 at 7:40 pm

              +1E0 (Just using scientific notation to show that I help TPTB hide the truth)

          • Populuxe1 2.3.1.2.4
            30 March 2013 at 8:50 pm

            It isn’t endorsed by TPTB – that’s why there are laws.

      • just saying 2.3.2
        28 March 2013 at 10:37 am

        Be explicit Muzza,
        Which comments do you agree with, and why do you agree with them?

  3. The Al1en 3
    28 March 2013 at 9:27 am

    Cameras record perverts picking up children for sex, don’t they?
    Print, display, identify and prosecute.
    Filth.

    • Colonial Viper 3.1
      28 March 2013 at 11:26 am

      Yep. Enforcement and societal name and shame. It’s criminal paedophilia not ‘rape culture’ which needs to be acted on.

      • Colonial Weka 3.1.1
        28 March 2013 at 11:41 am

        Please show me some evidence that shaming rapists is a useful thing to do in reducing rape.

        Please show me some evidence that shaming men having sex with young teens will stop them.

        • grumpy 3.1.1.1
          28 March 2013 at 12:06 pm

          Clearly that is pie in the sky stuff. Nothing short of castration will stop them. Preferably something even more permanent.

          • just saying 3.1.1.1.1
            28 March 2013 at 12:49 pm

            Nothing short of castration will stop them. Preferably something even more permanent.

            When I was 13 I stopped visiting a friend. Going over to her place meant that I had to walk home along Great South Road in rush hour. When I did, I was repeatedly stopped by middle aged men harrassing me for sex. Not once or twice, repeatedly. I was very afraid and revolted. The men were on their way home from work. At least some would have been the fathers of other kids at my school.

            I was wearing my school uniform and looked my age (13). I never said a word about this, I just changed my behaviour.

            The reason I write the above is that your comment assumes that these people are ‘other’. They aren’t. They are a fair cross section of the community. People you know. Often people who are liked and trusted, and dearly loved by their familiest and closest friends.

            Ideas about ‘castrating’ and ‘monsters’ are part of the problem.

            • grumpy 3.1.1.1.1.1
              28 March 2013 at 1:06 pm

              I understand and agree entirely with what you say.

              However, there are others, the pimps, sometimes family members who send these young girls out to work the streets – I doubt they would have been “some of your friends fathers”. They deserve “special” treatment.

              The average child sex punter is encouraged because at present it is a “no risk” exercise. Introduce a real sanction and most would just move on leaving the furtive opportunists as you encountered.

            • Ennui 3.1.1.1.1.2
              28 March 2013 at 1:54 pm

              Thanks JS, reading the column I was left wondering about how we deal to the offenders (men who buy sex from 13 year olds)? State sanctioned violence? Incarceration? Don’t know what either will do to stop these people doing what they do. If they don’t do it on the streets what will they do elsewhere to satisfy their “needs”? Would we just be sweeping it undercover?

              How do we stop giving these men the opportunity? How do we keep the girls off the street? So many questions. So few answers.

              • grumpy …
                28 March 2013 at 1:59 pm

                What the hell is wrong with “State sanctioned violence” and “incarceration” in this context?

                • Colonial Weka …
                  28 March 2013 at 2:24 pm

                  My feeling is that when you dehumanise people by inflicting violence on them, you increase violence in the community over time. I wouldn’t day this means an absolute ban on any kind of violence, but in general the state should hold people to prevent them from doing further harm, should seek to rehabilitiate or whatever those that can, but shouldn’t seek to inflict violence as a form of punishment.

                  • Ennui …
                    28 March 2013 at 3:21 pm

                    Grumpy, C Weka sums up my position well.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    28 March 2013 at 6:17 pm

                    but shouldn’t seek to inflict violence as a form of punishment.

                    Loss of freedom and self determination is the main punishment of incarceration. Violence – certainly not in any civilised correctional system.

        • just saying 3.1.1.2
          28 March 2013 at 12:17 pm

          Don’t these two sentences mean exactly the same thing?

      • just saying 3.1.2
        28 March 2013 at 11:48 am

        So we shouldn’t challenge widespread attitudes and behaviours which tacitly encourage rape, which support and protect rapists, and which strongly discourage victims of rape from reporting it, and punish them when they do?

        • Colonial Viper 3.1.2.1
          28 March 2013 at 11:58 am

          Wasn’t this post about NZ First’s stance on underage prostitution not rape?

          Or do you want to bring the US statutory rape concept into NZ law?

          • just saying 3.1.2.1.1
            28 March 2013 at 12:00 pm

            Paying a child and having sex with him or her, is rape.
            In NZ

            • Colonial Viper 3.1.2.1.1.1
              28 March 2013 at 6:23 pm

              Fine. So enforce criminal proceedings against the perps (families, pimps, clients, whoever) and a WINZ/CYFs/Child Abuse and Neglect approach for the victims.

              Afterwards, write an academic paper and produce some documentaries about rape culture if you want.

              • QoT …
                28 March 2013 at 6:30 pm

                CV, the obvious point, which I feel you must be deliberately missing, is that criminal proceedings AREN’T enforced because of rape culture.

                When Members of Parliament are happy to speak to 13-year-old sex workers and then write press releases and hold forums instead of calling the police on their clients and pimps, it sends a very powerful message that no “real” crime is occurring.

                When people like Ugly Truth above flood comment threads with assertions about there being no crime if there’s no harm, about 13-year-olds “initiating” sex, it tells us that people don’t see what’s happening as something to be taken seriously as a crime.

                If the police aren’t doing anything to prosecute the men of South Auckland who are paying 13-year-olds for rape, there’s a reason. It’s rape culture.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  28 March 2013 at 6:45 pm

                  If the police aren’t doing anything to prosecute the men of South Auckland who are paying 13-year-olds for rape, there’s a reason. It’s rape culture.

                  That’s not a reason, that’s an abstract concept. If it was a reason, it would be actionable i.e.

                  what are your next ten words after “it’s rape culture”? How do you hold the police and city council responsible?

                  And your next ten words after that? Who do you get to take the first leadership steps within (and without) the police and city leadership?

                  And the ten words after that? How do you get the public onboard, understanding and pushing for needed changes?

                  • QoT …
                    28 March 2013 at 7:24 pm

                    what are your next ten words after “it’s rape culture”? How do you hold the police and city council responsible?

                    Only ten words? I thought you were being serious about this issue.

                    It’s rape culture. Which means these crimes do not get reported to the police by people who witness them – like Asenati Lole-Taylor.

                    It’s rape culture. Which means the Police, who are continually facing cuts, don’t prioritise crimes like underage prostitution because they’re not viewed as serious.

                    It’s rape culture which means the focus of “the community” is on getting rid of all those terrible dirty sex workers instead of recognising the realities of the situation, i.e. that the men of South Auckland are paying for underage sex workers.

                    I would love to see the Police, and Auckland Council, taking a stand against this. But because (did you notice the clues?) it’s cultural, it’s going to take a lot more than wagging a finger and saying “YOU, LEN BROWN! YOU must stop this deep-seated set of attitudes! You have thirty minutes starting NOW!!!”

                    I like to think I’m doing something about it by raising the issue in a forum like The Standard. So people can educate themselves and also speak out against these attitudes. What the fuck are you doing beyond whinging that you don’t want us to confront this issue?

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      28 March 2013 at 7:42 pm

                      What the fuck are you doing beyond whinging that you don’t want us to confront this issue?

                      A hell of a lot more than coming up with labels for new layers of unactionable academic abstractions and generalisations.

                      By the way, my calling for law enforcement, prosecutions, city council action, and action by government departments IS confronting the issue.

                      I had thought with your post that you wanted to confront ‘underage prostitution in South Auckland’ as a specific societal problem, but of course it’s clear now that its being used as another stepping stone for you to push more abstractions about rape culture instead.

                      [QoT: CV, you are no longer welcome to comment on this post. I get how easy it is to say “oh well the Police should just do their jobs” and not think about those silly little ~abstract~ reasons why they don’t, but you’ve done more than enough of that here. Implying that I’m just exploiting the issue of underage sex work for evil twisted feminist ends? Final straw.]

                    • Grumpy …
                      28 March 2013 at 9:22 pm

                      Getting a bit heavy for me. Here I was thinking this post was all about young girls being abused and exploited in South Auckland and now it’s a bloody gender war.

                      Too many casualties for me, I suspect an overexuberant exercise of the red button.

                    • QoT …
                      28 March 2013 at 9:23 pm

                      Then you obviously didn’t read the post, Grumpy, because it’s both. Fuck off if you want to.

                    • Colonial Weka …
                      28 March 2013 at 9:52 pm

                      Grumpy and CV, read the title of the post. And then read the content. It’s pretty clear that the post was written about rape culture and that rape culture is a big part of the topic we are discussing. How can you have missed that?

                      Denial of rape culture is rape culture.

                      Minimilising feminism (‘all men are rapists’ = radical feminism; talking about rape culture = a gender war) in this context is fucking offensive. Grumpy, I’m sure you have no idea how offensive that really is, but please bear in mind that it’s feminists that have been successfully changing societal attitudes about rape for a good 40 years now, as well as doing much of the picking up the pieces in the aftermath of rape.

          • dancerwaitakere 3.1.2.1.2
            28 March 2013 at 12:01 pm

            But it is rape, it is part of a broader rape culture.

            These men view it as being alright to have sex with underage girls. Girls that cannot give consent. That is rape.

            Just like girls and women (or boys and men) who are intoxicated cannot give consent. It is rape.

            It IS systemic rape culture. Underage prostitution is a part of that.

            • Colonial Viper 3.1.2.1.2.1
              28 March 2013 at 6:26 pm

              as above my response to just saying.

              If you really think that generalising the issue of underage street prostitution to that of broad scope rape culture is useful to the kids who are being victimised today, go for it.

              Otherwise, as I said above, serious law enforcement and courts action need to occur, as well as a CAN approach to looking after the victims and other at risk children.

              • Murray Olsen …
                28 March 2013 at 7:53 pm

                I don’t think that recognition that underage prostitution and pedophile clients happen within a wider “rape culture” is generalising it in lieu of taking other actions. Serious law enforcement and courts action sure, but why not something like a local militia to act against these creeps? Even then, unless we recognise that it is part of a wider problem, we’ll never beat it.
                Generalising, or rather putting things in a wider context, has been very successful in other areas. For example, discovering that many diseases and infections are caused by bacteria and developing an overall approach on this basis doesn’t mean that one antibiotic is expected to cure everything.

                • Colonial Viper …
                  28 March 2013 at 8:07 pm

                  [QoT: see my note.]

                  • Grumpy …
                    28 March 2013 at 8:33 pm

                    A bit like global warming. As soon as a noble cause get politicised, some supporters get alienated and the cause gets subverted into yet another cliche ridden bullshit fest.

                    Lets just stick to the issue, guys paying 13year olds for sex and the scum who push these girls into this life.

                    Trying to veer off onto the Radfem “all men are rapists” track demeans the cause.

                    • Colonial Viper …
                      28 March 2013 at 8:46 pm

                      [QoT: see my note.]

                    • just saying …
                      28 March 2013 at 8:51 pm

                      Link or withdraw Grumpy.

                      Who here has said or even faintly implied that “all men are rapists?”

                    • Colonial Weka …
                      28 March 2013 at 9:09 pm

                      CV, stop misrepresenting the arguments against and about rape culture. It’s pretty clear that at the least you think rape culture is fairly irrelevant, but I suspect that you don’t even recognise what it is.

                      The fact that you think rape culture is something that get’s bought into says it all really.

                      Grumpy, what js said. No-one in this thread has gone anywhere near the idea that all men are rapists. And don’t smear radical feminism with that old beat up.

                    • Grumpy …
                      28 March 2013 at 10:41 pm

                      Ok js but you won’t like it. QoT is frequently quoted on Radfem Hub, the archives are interesting…….
                      http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Radfem_Hub

                      Good night.

                    • Colonial Weka …
                      28 March 2013 at 11:08 pm

                      That’s not a link to QoT saying that all men are rapists. Nor is it a link to anyone in this thread saying that all men are rapists.

                    • Grumpy …
                      29 March 2013 at 7:28 am

                      [QoT: I have never “contributed” to Radfem Hub. You said you were leaving. Leave.]

              • just saying …
                28 March 2013 at 8:48 pm

                I’m tired.
                Rape is rape. That’s not generalising, it’s just a fact. Rape culture is made up of changeable attitudes, and behaviours in the wider community that support rapists and vicitimise rape victims.

                • just saying …
                  28 March 2013 at 8:53 pm

                  This was a reply to CV’s reply to my comment. I really don’t understand why the comments end up in an almost random order, where there are many replies. It certainly makes for confusion.

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    28 March 2013 at 9:05 pm

                    [QoT: see my note. And stop pretending that the actions of Police and communities happen in a vacuum. Discussing rape culture is important because only by changing the culture do we actually get action.]

          • Colonial Weka 3.1.2.1.3
            28 March 2013 at 12:10 pm

            “Or do you want to bring the US statutory rape concept into NZ law?”

            We already have statuatory rape laws in NZ. Since at least 1961.

            http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/1961/0043/latest/DLM329212.html

            And because there seems to be some misunderstanding in this thread about what rape is legally in NZ, here are the full 2005 ammendments.

            http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2005/0041/latest/DLM346175.html

            • dancerwaitakere 3.1.2.1.3.1
              28 March 2013 at 12:12 pm

              And lets just take a moment to recognise that rape culture is far bigger than a piece of legislation.

              You just need to look at people saying that they have been ‘FRAPED’ on Facebook to see the extent of it.

  4. Raymond a Francis 4
    28 March 2013 at 9:53 am

    Yes ,it is not so much young girls selling sex as dirty (old) men buying it that needs to be dealt to

    • grumpy 4.1
      28 March 2013 at 10:41 am

      It’s supply and demand. Prosecute the hell out of the clients and put the kids into CYF care.

      This is not legal and who knows why these girls are out there. Some it’s family pressure to get the dough for booze and drugs, others it’s just for the latest consumer fad like a new iPhone.

      Just beat the shit out of the symptoms and it will go away. The cops are probably too scared of “offending” someone.

      • Colonial Weka 4.1.1
        28 March 2013 at 10:55 am

        Just beat the shit out of the symptoms and it will go underground.

        FIFY.

        There are sufficient numbers of men in NZ who WANT to have sex with very young teens, that this will always be a problem until the underlying issues are addressed. That’s rape culture.

        • grumpy 4.1.1.1
          28 March 2013 at 11:06 am

          It always has been underground and probably always will. At the moment, wimpy law enforcement and sympathetic social values has enticed it above ground and in our faces.

          Like hunting a monster, first draw it out and then cut it’s head off!

        • Colonial Viper 4.1.1.2
          28 March 2013 at 11:21 am

          This is where I believe your argument has gone off the deep end CW. To be serious about protecting children, demanding enforcement of the current law (including charging ‘clients’ with having sex with children and putting clients through the criminal justice system) is the way to go. As well as demanding extra resources and action from CYFS, the police, etc to sort out the family backgrounds of these children. Addiction issues, money issues, illiteracy issues etc.

          There are sufficient numbers of men in NZ who WANT to have sex with very young teens, that this will always be a problem until the underlying issues are addressed. That’s rape culture.

          Sure, these men are around. And probably in the high numbers required to support a large number of underage prostitutes in NZ. There are lots of those men I suppose (5,000? 100,000?).

          So, given that:

          What exactly is it you want done which is going to successfully fix/stop/cure/prevent/re-educate these men WANTING to have sex with teenagers and WANTING to be paedophiles?

          • Colonial Weka 4.1.1.2.1
            28 March 2013 at 11:36 am

            CV, I agree with better policing and enforcement of existing laws. I was just pointing out that if you come down hard on this, rape of young teens will go underground, so it’s not the final solution that grumpy was presenting (it won’t ‘go away’, it will disappear from view).

            I also agree with what muzza has just said, that while the police (and the rest of the justice system) themselves are clients within the sleazier and illegal/pseudo-legal end of the sex work spectrum, it will be hard to deal with this at a justice system level. Plus we still think that selling sex is bad, but buying it is ok.

            That’s all part of the rape culture.

            “Sure, these men are around. And probably in the high numbers required to support a large number of underage prostitutes in NZ. There are lots of those men I suppose (5,000? 100,000?).”

            I haven’t really thought about numbers… we have to also understand the big overlaps between sex work and child abuse. Is a 13 yr old being sold by her guardian/parent for sex an ‘underage prostitute’?

            What to do? Many many things, but in the first instance, we have to address rape culture. That’s education and health promotion.

            I also want people to understand that they have men in their lives that they care about who want to have sex with young teenage girls. We have to stop perceiving those men as the ‘other’ or ‘perverts’ (although some may be that too). Likewise, there are men we care about who sexually abuse/rape teen/pre-teen children. And men we care about who rape adult women. Until we get to grips with that, and choose to do something about it, we are stuck where we are.

            And, sorry, because I know these conversations have gotten very heated in the past, but the men willing to do something about the situation need to learn how to get past their defensiveness. Not easy, but would be very useful. Rape is a terrible thing, and it is common, and yet men we care about do rape. We have to find a way with dealing with that. At the moment we have a high degree of cognitive dissonance around rape which is stopping us from understanding and being able to respond to rape culture.

            • grumpy 4.1.1.2.1.1
              28 March 2013 at 12:03 pm

              “so it’s not the final solution that grumpy was presenting (it won’t ‘go away’, it will disappear from view).”

              I realise that it will not disappear totally but will take it from a “consequence free” issue for the clients and pimps into a seriously punished act.

              A major reduction is better than no action at all given that we both agree that nothing short of a bullet or short rope will stop these bastards (and I put the pimps further up the bastardry range than the clients – if that is possible).

              • Colonial Viper …
                28 March 2013 at 1:20 pm

                Yep. You can pursue, punish and sanction the criminal actions and intended actions of paedophiles, but moving to criminalise thoughts as they occur inside peoples heads is a whole other ball game.

                • Colonial Weka …
                  28 March 2013 at 2:25 pm

                  Huh? Who is talking about criminalising thoughts?

                  • Colonial Viper …
                    28 March 2013 at 7:49 pm

                    You said that grown men WANTING to have sex with teenagers was a problem.

                    I can’t even understand how you would even begin to determine if that was the case other than to read someones thoughts.

                    If they ACTED on it, or clearly planned to ACT on it, that’s a whole new ball game.

                    • V de Plume …
                      28 March 2013 at 9:53 pm

                      “fix/stop/cure/prevent/re-educate” was the comment.

                      I don’t see the word “criminalise” there. There are lots of things I would fix/stop/cure/prevent if I could, that I wouldn’t criminalise.

                      For example, I would love to stop people from thinking that widespread tolerance of underage prostitution is a “specific societal problem” but that somehow, at the same time, widespread tolerance of rape is a ~nebulous imaginary concept~.

                      I probably shouldn’t say the rest of what I was going to say without checking the rules of this site because I can’t remember what the guidelines are.

            • locus 4.1.1.2.1.2
              28 March 2013 at 12:16 pm

              thanks CW for the revelationary information (for me) that this is happening on a much greater scale than i ever imagined.

              If there are (many?) others like me, maybe a way forward is to encourage more qualitative and quantitative research and to encourage a more open and wider public discussion of the findings…. in order to enlighten and involve those who are blithely unaware of the realities.

              If the majority begin to recognise, discuss and understand the causes and underlying conditions enabling rape and paedophilia – then maybe this will help us to develop more individually focussed strategies to rehabilitate and prevent offenders from ever doing it again.

            • The Al1en 4.1.1.2.1.3
              28 March 2013 at 12:33 pm

              “the men willing to do something about the situation need to learn how to get past their defensiveness.”

              What defensiveness have I got to overcome?

              • Colonial Weka …
                28 March 2013 at 12:35 pm

                No idea Allen, if you don’t have any that’s great 🙂 But perhaps your comment is a defense in itself 😉

                • The Al1en …
                  28 March 2013 at 12:38 pm

                  “defense” my arse. 😉

                  Just a wee challenge to a bit of a sweeping statement I don’t take as applicable.

                  • Colonial Weka …
                    28 March 2013 at 12:44 pm

                    Fair enough 🙂 I had actually been assuming that it was obvious there are numbers of men in this conversation who understand rape culture and don’t get defensive when issues are brought up. My bad, and I agree with your discomfit about generalisations and language.

                    How about “some of the men who are willing to do something about the situation need to learn how to get past their defensiveness”

                    or

                    “the men willing to do something about the situation, who tend to get defensive in conversations like this, need to learn how to get past their defensiveness”

                    • The Al1en …
                      28 March 2013 at 12:58 pm

                      I don’t really care how you put it, now I’ve got my point out and it was taken, but either or is a winner.

                      Accepting your dad, brother, son, fave sports or tv star as a sexual predator isn’t easy, but excusing, mitigating or ignoring it helps no-one, least of all the poor children in this tragic story.
                      The more you draw attention to it, the harder it is to pretend it’s not happening.
                      Go on, get stuck in. 😉

              • V de Plume …
                28 March 2013 at 10:18 pm

                The defensiveness of needing to drop a comment to make sure everyone knows how not defensive you are.

                “Not all men are like that!” We know. Get past your defensiveness and let there be one conversation about rape and rape culture, just once, where there aren’t any men making a deal out of how they’re Such Good Guys.

                • The Al1en …
                  29 March 2013 at 6:25 am

                  “The defensiveness of needing to drop a comment to make sure everyone knows how not defensive you are.”

                  Nope, like I wrote, just challenging a generalisation.

                  “Get past your defensiveness and let there be one conversation about rape and rape culture, just once, where there aren’t any men making a deal out of how they’re Such Good Guys.”

                  So, in disagreeing with your interpretation of my defensiveness, and apart from not stating I was a good guy, at all, which in real life I’m probably not, I’m quite happy to have and engage in debate about rape culture and rape, in fact in the very comment your’s followed, I encouraged increased awareness of the issues and gave my support to those who do it – “The more you draw attention to it, the harder it is to pretend it’s not happening. Go on, get stuck in.”

                  I was going to tell you to fuck off and play games with someone you can beat, but the topic is bigger than me, and I’m a tad classier than I originally thought.

      • muzza 4.1.2
        28 March 2013 at 11:22 am

        No, the cops (among others), are too busy in their role as *clients*

        Just take a look into how Christchuch/Dunedin have been operating over the past 20-30 years, and at which levels the involvment went up to.

        It would go a long way to understanding why, little to nothing is done about this dreadul state of affairs!

        • Colonial Viper 4.1.2.1
          28 March 2013 at 11:28 am

          Indeed. In Europe police, judicial and governmental authorities have long been implicated in the corrupt, human trafficking sex trade.

          The authorities will ping you for parking your car on a street corner too long (and enforce it in the courts if necessary); but parking on a street corner to pick up a 14 year old girl – no problem!!!

          • grumpy 4.1.2.1.1
            28 March 2013 at 11:41 am

            Indeed again. The role of Dunedin and Christchurch cops in the prostitution industry is well documented.

            For the record, I don’t agree that hiring an underage girl for sex is rape – it’s much worse than that…and so should the penalties and so should the resolve of police and other agencies be to stamp it out – ruthlessly!

        • grumpy 4.1.2.2
          28 March 2013 at 11:48 am

          This is what you were talking about, a simple Google search will reveal more. Telling that there was no rebuttal, no legal action against the publication.

          http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2007/05/investigates_allegations_against_the_police.html

          • Pascal's bookie 4.1.2.2.1
            28 March 2013 at 12:16 pm

            Not really telling. Or, just as telling that no opposition MPs wanted to touch it with a barge poll.

            • grumpy 4.1.2.2.1.1
              28 March 2013 at 12:22 pm

              That’s the thing with this shit, it spreads across all political boundaries. Too much dirt held on too many people.

              A J Edgar Hoover scenario.

              • Pascal's bookie …
                28 March 2013 at 12:38 pm

                Nope.

                Wishart wil publish anything if his source will sign an affidavit. Once he has that, he doesn’t care about reliability.

                • muzza …
                  28 March 2013 at 1:29 pm

                  Are you saying its *fabricated* Ps B?

                  • Pascal's bookie …
                    28 March 2013 at 2:39 pm

                    I’m not saying it’s fabricated at all. I’m sure he does have an affidavit.

                • grumpy …
                  28 March 2013 at 1:39 pm

                  PB I don’t think you should ignore this issue just because you don’t like the author……

                  Never been refuted.

                  Of course, seeing that Labour appointed Broad as Commissioner it might be a tad embarrassing but this goes beyond political allegiances.

                  • grumpy …
                    28 March 2013 at 1:41 pm

                    And here is the whole article. An insight into the culture…

                    http://www.thebriefingroom.com/archives/2007/08/to_serve_and_pr.html

                  • muzza …
                    28 March 2013 at 2:35 pm

                    Exactly Grumpy – PB and others here wretch when IW’s name comes up, as if they have published books, or done the amount of leg work that it takes to publish the books he has, like/agree with the content or not!

                    The cross institution filth, is spread far and wide for obvious reasons, which is why the silence is always deafening, and its long past time for people to accept some home truths, and keep their ignorance/bias out of the equation, if thats something within their toolset they can achieve.

                    Perhaps the likes of P’s B, have not experienced first hand the instituational corruption which dominates NZ!

                    • QoT …
                      28 March 2013 at 3:45 pm

                      *retch

                      Stephenie Meyer has plenty of published books too.

                      And your personal research project is starting to annoy me.

                    • Murray Olsen …
                      28 March 2013 at 8:00 pm

                      While there might be a lot of leg work involved in published a well researched and factual book, putting a load of sick fantasies down on a screen is not that hard. Wishart just makes stuff up. While institutionalised corruption and coverups are commonplace, I’m pretty sure he’d only hit on them by accident.

                  • Pascal's bookie …
                    28 March 2013 at 2:44 pm

                    I’m not ignoring the issue because I don’t like the author.

                    I don’t like the author because his methods are crap.

                    Wishart went on for weeks about how he was never going to let this story go. And then he did. I told him at the time that his own history of muck raking would not serve his sources well, and that if he really wanted to blow this open he should hand all his information (which he claimed was rock solid) to an opposition mp.

                    Instead, he decided to make the story all about him and his magazine, and then he moved on to the next thing.

  5. Psycho Milt 5
    28 March 2013 at 12:14 pm

    Leaving aside Ugly Truth’s somewhat arguable contention that the state has no basis criminalising business transactions between children and pederasts, is there any evidence to back up claims of 13-year-olds soliciting on Sth Auckland street corners? I wouldn’t dismiss it out of hand, but accepting something on a politician’s say-so would be foolish.

    • Ugly Truth 5.1
      28 March 2013 at 12:24 pm

      That isn’t my contention. What I’m saying is that the issue of harm is what is relevant, and that legislation isn’t the answer.

      Also this from 2001:

      An anti child prostitutiton lobby group, ECPAT, claims that during the summer of the Americas Cup, up to 150 children aged 11 to 13 were selling themselves on streets there.

      http://tvnz.co.nz/content/38224/423466.html

      • Colonial Weka 5.1.1
        28 March 2013 at 12:30 pm

        Do you think that children are harmed when adults rape them?

        • grumpy 5.1.1.1
          28 March 2013 at 12:35 pm

          I would think that the children were already harmed and that the rape just cements the previous experience.

          A very difficult situation which calls for the perpetrators at all levels to be firmly dealt to.

      • locus 5.1.2
        28 March 2013 at 12:34 pm

        Ugly T…..legislation exists because it is a part of what is needed to address what’s socially unacceptable –

        I’ve yet to see any comment from you on this thread which recognises the harm and seek to constructively address the causes

      • Psycho Milt 5.1.3
        28 March 2013 at 1:13 pm

        That isn’t my contention. What I’m saying is that the issue of harm is what is relevant, and that legislation isn’t the answer.

        Yes, the issue of harm is what is relevant. In comments earlier on this thread, you seem to be suggesting 13-year-olds are unharmed if they choose to take cash for sex. If we restrict the definition of harm to physical harm, there’s possibly a case to make there (although I’d argue there’s a high likelihood that a 13-year-old working as a street hooker would not remain free of physical harm for very long). However, there are more types of harm than physical, which is one of the reasons we have legislation proscribing adults from sex with children.

        An anti child prostitutiton lobby group, ECPAT, claims that during the summer of the Americas Cup, up to 150 children aged 11 to 13 were selling themselves on streets there.

        That one’s certainly good evidence that decriminalisation of prostitution is irrelevant to the story. But again it’s just a claim – and in this case one being made by an activist lobby group, which makes it nearly as dubious as a politician’s claim.

    • QoT 5.2
      28 March 2013 at 1:10 pm

      It’s a good point, PM, and I personally automatically doubt anything which an obviously-anti-all-sex-work NZ First MP claims about sex work.

      • Psycho Milt 5.2.1
        28 March 2013 at 1:17 pm

        Thanks. I’m extremely dubious about it, on the basis you covered in your post: if someone has evidence of a 13-year-old working as a prostitute, they call the police, not a public forum.

        • grumpy 5.2.1.1
          28 March 2013 at 1:33 pm

          Exactly, the time for politicians to grandstand is if the police don’t act!

          • felix 5.2.1.1.1
            29 March 2013 at 6:49 pm

            “Exactly, the time for politicians to grandstand is if the police don’t act!”

            Surely that’s the case now, isn’t it grumpy? It’s not as if the police aren’t well aware of the situation.

        • QoT 5.2.1.2
          28 March 2013 at 2:02 pm

          Not to mention that we should be leery of somebody who wants to use their claims about underage sex work to start a “discussion” about all sex work.

          • grumpy 5.2.1.2.1
            28 March 2013 at 2:20 pm

            Ah! the old “Trojan Horse” trick?

            Personally, I automatically classify anything that any NZF MP says as self interest.

            However, I think this one may be genuine but am perlexed that she is calling for a meeting (read maximum exposure) rather than just go to the police.

        • V de Plume 5.2.1.3
          28 March 2013 at 10:25 pm

          I have a(n unrealistic) fantasy in which everyone who shows up to the forum does so only to ask her directly why she didn’t go straight to the cops.

  6. Chris73 6
    28 March 2013 at 1:01 pm

    I agreed when prostitution was made legal, I think it offers more protection to those that need it the most.

    Underage prostitution is a different story entirely and I’d support any party that made a cornerstone of their policies to target the men that deliberately seek out the underage and punish them to the fullest extent of the law.

    And its also sad that what John A Lee wrote in children of the poor is still happening today

  7. Descendant Of Sssmith 7
    28 March 2013 at 1:42 pm

    Some of UT’s comments simply remind me of Bert Potter justifying underage sex by saying it was society’s response that was a problem, not the behaviour itself.

    Yep if society just accepted that it was simply a sign of love everything would be OK.

    What society needs to accept is that their are men, whether by dint of genetics or environment or a combination thereof who are attracted sexually to young girls and a group of men who are attracted to the power of having sex with young girls.

    In both cases society should be protecting young girls from those men.

    Any visit to a psych unit will find you women who were first preyed upon in their early teens by these men.

    And let’s be clear it’s not ever about the sex – the sex act itself can be dealt with quite easily by going to a legalised older prostitute.

    It’s not like also that these men don’t know it’s unlawful.

    They are deliberately and consciously flouting the law to abuse a child.

    No if’s and no buts.

    It’s about their own ego’s, dysfunctionality and power over another person.

    They have absolutely no legal or moral justification for this behaviour at all.

    • just saying 7.1
      28 March 2013 at 1:58 pm

      Snap DoS.

      That was a strange phase in history in which sex went from taboo – to anything goes. Consent, power-relations, lack of wanting to in partners, restrictions about sex with children – all were unecessary hang-ups to be gotten over. I was in my teens during ths era, and though Potter exemplified the attitudes, they were spread wider than Centrepoint. I like to think of that time as a weird blip in history.

      • Jackal 7.1.1
        28 March 2013 at 5:52 pm

        Unfortunately sexual crimes against children have continued to increase in New Zealand. According to Are You OK, around 25% of girls and 10% of boys have been the victims of sexual abuse.

        • just saying 7.1.1.1
          28 March 2013 at 8:02 pm

          That wasn’t what I meant Jackal.

          I was talking about the brief period of widespread public acceptance, or at least willingness to be “open-minded” about issues such as child-sexual abuse, amongst people who ordinarily would have been in no doubt about what was right and wrong. A confusion that didn’t necessarily tranlate into any particular action on the part of the individual, but one which was defintiely exploited by those such as Potter himself. It evolved over just a few decades – From the prohibition that sex outside of marriage was wrong to the possibility that anything to do with sex might be fine, that what was wrong was the idea that anything to do with sex, (unlike everything else in life) could ever be wrong.

          A lot of good came out the questioning over that period, a lot of pleasurable victimless sex became destigmatised for the greater good.

          I wasn’t suggesting that sexual abuse of children didn’t happen before or after

          • Jackal 7.1.1.1.1
            28 March 2013 at 10:25 pm

            I took your statement to mean that the amount of sexual abuse of children had reduced since the mid 70’s… It hasn’t. I think the sexual liberation that occurred around that time is very different to the sexual abuse of children that occurred in communes like Centrepoint.

            Also, there was no widespread willingness to be “open-minded” about issues such as child-sexual abuse. There was however a widespread ideal at the time to be open minded and trusting of your fellow human beings… In some cases that philosophy worked well, but in others, such as Centrepoint, it did not.

            These are two very separate things, and I would suggest your assertion that there is somehow a similarity between the sexual revolution and people abusing children is entirely wrong!

            • just saying 7.1.1.1.1.1
              28 March 2013 at 11:12 pm

              FFS Jackal. That is NOT what I was saying.
              I can’t be bothered with this shit

      • Descendant Of Sssmith 7.1.2
        28 March 2013 at 6:50 pm

        At a time when consensual sex is more available than ever this definitely not about sex.

        The girls are there cause men are willing to pay. It’s the men creating the demand not the girls and there is simply no excuse for it.

        There is absolutely no reason they cannot have sex with someone over 18.

        They are making a conscious deliberate choice not to do so.

        It’s not difficult to say no you’re not old enough.

        But we all know deep down don’t we that the sex act itself is not the motivation.

    • Murray Olsen 7.2
      28 March 2013 at 8:07 pm

      I knew a woman who’d been a child in Centrepoint. She told me that the worst thing in her view was that many of the adults walked away while Potter was made a bit of a scapegoat. She certainly thought she’d been damaged by the experience.

  8. RealismExists 8
    28 March 2013 at 1:49 pm

    Are you naive?!…
    We must all be blamed for condoning rape based on your argument because we all know that underage sex work is not something new! wake up and smell reality! Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past ten years…you would know that over half the people who enter into street-based sex work were underage when they first started off…!
    Unless you personally know each and every single underage prostitute and their personal back story?? How can you say that they don’t want to be working in this industry? because you know what mate… these children have it in their heads that sometimes the street is a better place for them then their own backyards…
    [deleted]

    You obviously don’t care about the issue of prostitution itself! Because unless we change legislation… we will keep turning a blind eye to the reality of the situation.

    [lprent: How do you see the legislation being changed? The existing legislation seems adequate except for possibly making it mandatory to have a charge of rape lodged against offenders. What does need to happen is to increase enforcement.

    BTW: I’ve already killed several comments today advocating the joys of paedophilia from VPN’s. Could people tell me if I miss any. ]

    [QoT: I have deleted the bit where you exploited the situation of trans people to justify your victim-blaming. Further comments will be deleted.]

    • Colonial Weka 8.1
      28 March 2013 at 2:32 pm

      VPN?

      • lprent 8.1.1
        28 March 2013 at 2:59 pm

        Virtual private networks. In this case people who’d I suspect are locals gating out through another country to write comments. I treat them as suspicious at the best of times because they are a favourite route of some of the more irritating trolls. On a topic like this I regard just regard them as someone to drop straight into spam because the ones I have discarded so far all seem to be advocating unlawful acts.

        I’ve been allowing in (subject to QoT’s kills) comments that argue around the consent and age of consent issues as being at least arguable (despite my own distaste) as they are matters of public policy and legislation. Don’t want to constrain debate too much. But advocating actions that are against legislation is well over the edge.

      • Bunji 8.1.2
        28 March 2013 at 3:45 pm

        Virtual Private Network.

        A great way of hiding your identity.

  9. Ugly Truth 9
    28 March 2013 at 1:55 pm

    In both cases society should be protecting young girls from those men.

    It isn’t society’s job to protect them, that job belongs to their fathers.
    Please don’t confuse what is legal with what is lawful.

    • One Tāne Huna 9.1
      28 March 2013 at 1:59 pm

      What a craven cop-out.

      Obviously (to most people) their fathers aren’t up to the task. So it becomes society’s responsibility.

      You remind me of those scum who claim “the market should decide”.

    • just saying 9.2
      28 March 2013 at 1:59 pm

      …that job belongs to their owners.

      fixed it for you

      • QoT 9.2.1
        28 March 2013 at 2:04 pm

        Well put, js. UT’s attitudes to young women (totally capable of meaningfully consent to sex work, but also in need of paternal protection) really do speak volumes.

        • Ugly Truth 9.2.1.1
          28 March 2013 at 2:20 pm

          Yes, I’m sexist. The man’s role in law is quite different to that of the person. This role is part of the law of the land, which is not the same as civil legislation. This is so problematic for the state that it misleads people about the nature of law.

          [lprent: Incorrect and generally bullshit. There are virtually no areas left in NZ for either legislation or the remaining common law that give any particular special legal role to either gender.

          If you want to try to describe law, then be please be accurate. It irritates me to see fools bullshitting about it. Apart from anything else because it usually triggers tedious flame threads about what the actual law is.

          Since I also waste time writing these notes, then perhaps you should read the local law on this site – the policy before I decide you’re wasting too much of my time. ]

          • Pascal's bookie 9.2.1.1.1
            28 March 2013 at 2:24 pm

            Is this “sovereign citizen” stuff?

            Or what are you on about?

            • Colonial Weka 9.2.1.1.1.1
              28 March 2013 at 2:31 pm

              Am guessing he is talking about Jehovah, the one with the white beard that sits in the sky smoting people.

              • The Gormless Fool formerly known as Oleolebiscuitbarrell …
                28 March 2013 at 2:32 pm

                The man’s role in law is quite different to that of the person.

                So, men aren’t people?

                • Ugly Truth …
                  28 March 2013 at 2:57 pm

                  Men are people, just as women and children are people. The man’s role is different because in common law the husband is the protector of the family.

                  [lprent: However that area of common law has been overridden by legislation in NZ. See my previous warnings. ]

              • Ugly Truth …
                28 March 2013 at 3:07 pm

                The connection is via the part of common law which the state lies about. The state maintains that common law is nothing more than case law, but if you check an older legal dictionary (eg Black’s or Bouvier’s) you will find that this isn’t the case.

                English common law originated with King Alfred the Great, and his legal code began with aspects of Judaic law, starting with the ten commandments.

                [lprent: Common law applies in NZ except where there is parliamentary legislation that overrides it. The body of legislation is currently much larger.

                See my previous warnings on trying to develop your own legal framework for NZ and read the local law for this site. You are starting to look to me like you’re attempting to go way off topic.

                Move your discussion to OpenMike if that is the case.

                Ah damnit – putting you into moderation. I’m wasting too much time writing warnings. Let me know when you have read the policy. ]

            • muzza 9.2.1.1.1.2
              28 March 2013 at 2:41 pm

              Maybe spend some time with a legal dictionary bro…might help you understand what UT is on about.

              That also applies to the others here, who have had the posts go wizzing right past them!

              • Pascal's bookie …
                28 March 2013 at 3:09 pm

                Maybe look up sovereign citizen legal theories and ask yourself why I asked him that question muzza.

                Whizz, indeed.

                • Ugly Truth …
                  28 March 2013 at 3:16 pm

                  The term “sovereign citizen” is used to refer to people who have some understanding of common law and do not consent to the assumptions of the state. If you think that anything that I have posted about law is incorrect then I invite you to contest the specifics.

                  [lprent: Most of your principles are incorrect within the courts of NZ. And so far I haven’t seen a damn thing that you have specifically said that actually conforms in local laws. Perhaps you should point out one that you think is. But do it in OpenMike because it is off-topic for this post.

                  You are now in moderation for ignoring a moderator. ]

                  • Pascal's bookie …
                    28 March 2013 at 3:18 pm

                    I invite you to tell it to the judge should you need to test your theories about consenting minors.

                • muzza …
                  28 March 2013 at 4:03 pm

                  Yeah did that, many many years ago.

                  Still seems you need some time with that law dict!

                  And never discount what judges get up to eh, they’re not above anything!

            • Ugly Truth 9.2.1.1.1.3
              28 March 2013 at 2:51 pm

              PB, “person” is one of the ambiguous words I mentioned before. The etymology of the word begins with the Etruskan word phersu, meaning mask. The meaning evolved into a physical mask, or the physical representation of a man, woman or child. Later it was extended to include a legal person, which is a legal representation of a group of people or of an individual of that group.

              When the word person is used in a civil proceedings, its meaning is affected by the context, being personal jurisdiction, aka jurisdiction in personam. Personal jurisdiction is not the same as universal jurisdiction. The relevant difference is that in personal jurisdiction an obligation must exist if consent is not given. So another meaning of person is a man, woman, or child who is obliged to perform for the state.

              In this sense citizens are persons because of the obligation that arises from the state’s protection of the citizen. There is no such thing as a sovereign citizen.

              • Pascal's bookie …
                28 March 2013 at 3:16 pm

                laugh.

                The etymology is only of academic interest. What matters is what the words mean now.

    • grumpy 9.3
      28 March 2013 at 2:27 pm

      I venture to suggest that in these cases the “fathers” if they are around are part of part or the cause of the problem. We have reports that many of these girls are being pimped by their families.

      In my view they should be first against the wall, followed by pimps and customers.

      • Colonial Viper 9.3.1
        28 March 2013 at 2:43 pm

        Yeah basically. Let’s see some criminal and social accountability from each of those groups of adults first and foremost.

    • Robert Glennie 9.4
      28 March 2013 at 3:56 pm

      In these cases everyone who reasonably can, should be looking out for their welfare. A passerby who spots a 12 year old girl being picked up by a client should be calling the cops. The cops should be going to make sure that the girl is okay – which in this scenario, she clearly is not – and help should be sought for the girl, given that if she was out on the streets selling her body, then one could reasonably assume all is not good at home.

  10. Ennui 10
    28 March 2013 at 2:32 pm

    I Googled “rape culture” because I was very much ill at ease with QOTs original contention that NZ First loves “rape culture”, nor that the people attending these fantasized Town Hall meetings would then sneak of and purchase the sexual favours of a 13 year old.

    So heres Google….Rape culture is a concept used to describe a culture in which rape and sexual violence are common and in which prevalent attitudes, norms, practices, and media normalize, excuse, tolerate, or even condone rape.

    Examples of behaviors commonly associated with rape culture include victim blaming, sexual objectification, and trivializing rape. Rape culture has been used to model behavior within social groups, including prison systems where prison rape is common and conflict areas where war rape is used as psychological warfare. Entire countries have also been alleged to be rape cultures.

    Although the concept of rape culture is a generally accepted theory in feminist academia, there is disagreement over what defines a rape culture and to what degree a given society meets the criteria to be considered a rape culture.

    Rape culture has been observed to correlate with other social factors and behaviors. Research identifies correlation between rape myths, victim blaming and trivialization of rape with increased incidence of racism, homophobia, ageism, classism, religious intolerance and other forms of discrimination.

    Personally I think we have a problem with child sex (legal rape), pederasty, a large number of deviant males who represent a danger. I don’t agree that constitutes a rape culture per se. And I certainly don’t agree with QOTs contention of gents showing moral outrage at drummed up public meetings are going off to do the crime afterwards. That is as equally scurrilous as Lole Taylor’s pathetic stance.

    • QoT 10.1
      28 March 2013 at 3:53 pm

      Well someone’s paying to rape 13-year-olds, Ennui (assuming Lole-Taylor has evidence to back up her assertions). I understand that it suits many people to pretend that sex workers – both legal and coerced – are completely ignorant of capitalist theory and deliberately hang out in suburbs far away from their clients just to Destroy Good People’s Communities.

      But I find this unlikely.

      • Ennui 10.1.1
        28 March 2013 at 5:14 pm

        Well someone’s paying to rape 13-year-olds Yes, men who are obviously rapists, we have established that.

        I understand that it suits many people to pretend that sex workers – both legal and coerced – are completely ignorant of capitalist theory Whats with the dialectic…there were “sex workers” well before capitalist theory.

        both legal and coerced We are all coerced one way or another, “legal” is just the rules on coercion……

        Destroying Good Peoples Communities Who are these “Good People”?

        You gave me a polemic…sums it up. Are we further ahead with either sexual deviants or NZ First? I think not.

        • QoT 10.1.1.1
          28 March 2013 at 6:01 pm

          Gosh, sorry to waste your precious time using words and sentences. Here’s a very simple question: Where do the men who are paying to rape 13-year-olds live?

          • Ennui 10.1.1.1.1
            28 March 2013 at 6:31 pm

            Tell me and I will personally accompany you to shame them.

          • Ennui 10.1.1.1.2
            28 March 2013 at 6:43 pm

            PS: Precious time, sentences, words…..you never answered the questions..Play the man, cool, I am still unconvinced.

    • V de Plume 10.2
      28 March 2013 at 10:42 pm

      Look at it this way, if you were someone who made a habit of raping 13 year old children, you’d be likely to want to divert suspicion, yes? So, you’d be likely to go to a meeting and pontificate loudly about How Terrible Prostitution is and Somebody Ought To Do Something.

      (I remember hearing about CNN’s outpouring of grief for the Steubenville rapists, and thinking cynically, “well, at least that’ll stop the ‘rape culture what rape culture’ whining for a couple of weeks.” Apparently not cynically enough.)

  11. Populuxe1 11
    28 March 2013 at 2:32 pm

    I think you’d have to be reading Lole-Taylor’s statement through some very specific confirmation biases and semantic gymnastics to read:

    “Of major concern is the growing prevalence of girls as young as 13 offering themselves for sale on the streets of South Auckland.”

    as

    “she’s saying it’s concerning that so many young girls are slappers.”

    While I totally agree that a thirteen year old is in no position to consent to anything, that doesn’t mean they aren’t autonomous or perfectly capable of acting out of neccessity. I don’t think she’s blaming the girls at all, she’s blaming a system that is letting these girls down in the first place and the scumbags who take advantage of that. Often these girls have no caring adult in their lives, many are homeless – no one is accusing them of being “slappers”. QoT, you are attacking the phrasing (which, to be fair, is attacking Lole-Taylor’s Samoan habits of speech and cultural perspective) and ignoring the contents of the utterance.

    [QoT: I am quite capable of reading things I’ve linked to. Lole-Taylor is concerned about “girls offering themselves for sale”. This is pretty unequivocally stating that the issue is the offering, not the coercion, not the system. Which is pretty clearly stated in my post. Future comments which wilfully ignore the content of my post will be deleted.]

    • Populuxe1 11.1
      28 March 2013 at 4:26 pm

      Lole-Taylor is Samoan by birth and upbringing, her speech-patterns and English style reflect that with a tendency to Biblicalisms like many older Samoan-New Zealanders in South Auckland. I doubt she makes public announcements with the niceties of academic style in mind and in a multicultural society some slack has to be cut.

      • QoT 11.1.1
        28 March 2013 at 4:36 pm

        Oh fuck off. She’s an adult, and an elected representative, and I give her the credit of writing exactly what she intends to write (and that’s assuming (a) she writes all her own press releases, (b) with no oversight from her party or leader’s office).

        She’s also got a great history of blocking journalists on Twitter who ask to see her evidence.

        Pulling the “you hate people who aren’t speaking proper English” card is condescending bullshit. “Girls offering themselves” is a pretty fucking clear-cut active-voice statement.

        • Populuxe1 11.1.1.1
          28 March 2013 at 8:58 pm

          No, actually that is totally elitist about people’s use of language. And the reality is that New Zealand First is largely a grass roots party – the majority of its staff are not professional politicians like Labour and National – it values comunity leadership as the most significant qualification. And I did NOT say she wasn’t speaking proper English, I said she was using a style of rhetoric not uncommon with New Zealand’s older Samoan citizens – do you have a problem with the way that older Samoan-New Zealanders express themselves? Have you ever spent much time in South Auckland, or Aranui, or any other predominantly Polynesian working-class community? Because so far you are sounding a little bit privilidged and condescending.

          • Populuxe1 11.1.1.1.1
            28 March 2013 at 9:13 pm

            And yes, she’s a bullying cow, but that doesn’t destract from the importance of the issue.

          • QoT 11.1.1.1.2
            28 March 2013 at 9:15 pm

            The person sounding condescending here is you. Asenati Lole-Taylor has lived in New Zealand for 33 years, serving on a large number of community groups and working for the Ministry of Justice and in the Strategic Development area of Auckland City Council.

            I’m pretty sure that she understands the concept of subject-verb-object. You’re the one treating her like a delicate flower on the basis of her ethnicity.

            If her way of “expressing herself” involves implying that 13-year-olds are able to consent to engaging in sex work, she – and you – are going to have to suck it up when people call that shit out.

            • Populuxe1 11.1.1.1.2.1
              29 March 2013 at 2:59 pm

              If the girl is unsupervised and there’s no pimp standing there, she is by definition “selling herself”. Quite frankly I am more worried about the welfare of these children than your sensitivities to language.

          • just saying 11.1.1.1.3
            28 March 2013 at 9:30 pm

            ….was using a style of rhetoric not uncommon with New Zealand citizens who have internalised rape culture, without questioning those attitudes
            FIFY

            And yes, I’ve spent years in South Auckland.

      • Chris Miller 11.1.2
        28 March 2013 at 5:13 pm

        How patronising to assume that someone who’s lived here for 33 years, who has a long career history of public speaking and writing press releases, and who comes from an English-speaking country, must be incapable of comprehending English well enough to be criticised for her word choice. Sorry, did I say patronising? I actually meant pretty racist.

        • Populuxe1 11.1.2.1
          28 March 2013 at 8:59 pm

          Because every trade union leader sounds like Cicero.

          • Chris Miller 11.1.2.1.1
            29 March 2013 at 10:26 am

            You don’t need to be an expert in rhetoric to know that “girls offering themselves for sale” implies that the problem is girls offering themselves for sale. I know a hell of a lot of far more recent immigrants, from countries where English is NOT spoken, who would understand that.

            • Populuxe1 11.1.2.1.1.1
              29 March 2013 at 3:46 pm

              Clearly if they themselves or anyone else is enacting the transaction, there is a problem.

  12. Populuxe1 12
    28 March 2013 at 2:42 pm

    QoT, have you read the NZF press release? It also says

    “If clients of underage prostitutes knowingly engage in sexual activity with them then these lowlifes should be punished to the full extent of the law.”

    I think they know where culpability lies.

    • lprent 12.1
      28 March 2013 at 2:50 pm

      I personally have a problem with the “knowingly”. I’m afraid that this is one crime in which the intention of the accused should be discarded. Actus rea should be all that is required to be proved. It is the responsibility of every adult not to have sex with underage kids.

      • Robert Glennie 12.1.1
        28 March 2013 at 3:19 pm

        Did you read the New Zealand First press release properly? It was pretty obvious what Mrs Lole-Taylor was referring to.

      • Populuxe1 12.1.2
        28 March 2013 at 3:32 pm

        At the risk of sounding like I’m trying to derail th ethread, which isn’t my intention, criminal law agrees with you, and more or less so do I, but I think there might be some ethical ambiguity in very rare situations where someone who looks twenty, provides a fake ID and misleads the john about their age where prostitution is legal (a very rare and unlikely circumstance, I would hope). That would be the only occasion I would have second thoughts about the interpretation of the law.As it stands, just as with under age drinking in bars the onus falls on the bar manager even if they have been convincingly deceived and have in all good faith upheld the law. However I am assuming the minors in this case are all being targeted by ephebophiles and wannabe Humbert Humberts because they look young.

        • lprent 12.1.2.1
          28 March 2013 at 3:45 pm

          That was what I thought was in the legislation. That was why I was surprised to see the word “knowingly” in the segment of whathername’s statement that you quoted.

          • Populuxe1 12.1.2.1.1
            28 March 2013 at 4:30 pm

            Her name is Asenate Lole-Taylor – as far as Samoan names go it’s really not that difficult, and given her unacademic rhetorical style I’m putting “knowingly” down to oversight (largely because it’s redundant in the law) than deliberate intent.

            • lprent 12.1.2.1.1.1
              28 March 2013 at 6:34 pm

              My apologies about her name. When I’m working I have little time to do more than offer the odd comment, without research (and moderate). And I haven’t run across her before.

              But it is an awful word to put in on this topic. If I had to guess (and I’m sure I will be informed), it is what would have triggered QoT to write this post. It sure as hell would have triggered me because the age of consent isn’t a meaningless phrase. We don’t expect children to act like adults. However we bloody well expect adults to not rape children.

              Her phrasing not only in that quote, but now I have read through the rest of the statement, implied that it was mostly the fault of the children rather than the dicks exploiting and raping them.

      • Chris Miller 12.1.3
        28 March 2013 at 5:09 pm

        I seem to recall hearing (this may not actually be NZ law since I can’t remember the source) that picking someone up in a bar is defense against statutory rape because you have a reasonable assumption that they’re at least 18. That would seem to imply that anywhere else it’s your responsibility to make sure. Since you can be charged for other acts where you didn’t intend illegal action but did it anyway it’d be consistent that anyone having sex with a thirteen year old, whether they “knew” or not, could be charged. But then I find anyone hiring a prostitute a bit dodgy because at best, they’re incredibly naive about the possibility that the worker (avoiding gendered pronoun because this can include male prostitutes) is a victim of sex trafficking, coercion, etc, and at worst they don’t care or even enjoy it.

    • QoT 12.2
      28 March 2013 at 3:57 pm

      Gee, if only they’d put that bit first. It’s funny how when you say

      “I love butter beans …

      but I also don’t mind green beans”

      People might make the assumption that you love butter beans.

      Speaking of which, it pisses me off when people accuse me of not reading something fully when they have clearly ignored the content of my post. Scroll up for the warning you just got for this.

      • Populuxe1 12.2.1
        28 March 2013 at 4:07 pm

        Gee, if only they’d put that bit first. It’s funny how when you say

        “I love butter beans …

        but I also don’t mind green beans”

        People might make the assumption that you love butter beans.

        Speaking of which, it pisses me off when people accuse me of not reading something fully when they have clearly ignored the content of my [or anyone else’s] post.

        Ditto. Ok, you can ban me now.

        [QoT: I don’t ban people to feed their martyrdom complexes.]

  13. ghostrider888 13
    28 March 2013 at 3:46 pm

    an interesting thread indeed; The Ugly Truth? Pandora’s Box.
    (thread started to make sense from 10-12) *sigh* Pop, Ennui, so many words before yet so little insight.
    I cannot recall how exactly how many females the “ghost” has ridden, or been beneath, yet he has also been on intimate terms with many more, over three decades.

    some desiderata:
    -13-year old females of “respectable” middle-class families being permitted to engage in sexual activity, with peers, or older men.
    -approximately 2/3 (66%; 100 being a good approximate “reference base” of the experiences of New Zealand females, from a wide socio-cultural-economic cross-section, including Lesbian) having described being the recipients of unwanted / unsolicited / coerced sexual attention from, in order of
    frequency, Husbands,”Partners”, Fathers, Step-fathers, Uncles, Brothers, Cousins, father’s friends, brother’s friends…
    -Then, any brief survey of the media on the issue of rape, reveals, Police, priests, teachers, doctors, nurses, caregivers,counselors, coaches, celebrities, sports-people…and on and on it goes.

    good to see you still reading between the lines muzza; Western Anglo-Saxon culture is SICK and
    DECADENT in my honest opinion. SICK. When the rider discovered that his young damaged partner of 25 years ago had been led into dominating, abusive relationships due to her “professional” father going through her and three sisters, he let the man know he knew, and if the rider had been further along his misanthropic pathway, he would have happily shot him; never had he wanted to shoot somebody as bad.
    Then, then, there was this other f*ckwit father who felt that it was OK to have a “formal” sexual relationship with HIS youngest daughter.(usually, not always, other family members know of these abuse, yet on and on it goes).SICK, that is what our society is, SICK.

    • Colonial Viper 13.1
      28 March 2013 at 6:36 pm

      My read of your comment: rape culture is not the problem in our society. Rape culture is however one symptom of a far deeper underlying, self destructive malaise in the psyche of society.

      Around a million European women raped in WWII, and I suppose many would have been under 16 years of age.

      • Ennui 13.1.1
        28 March 2013 at 7:17 pm

        Unleashed bestiality in uniforms, a nasty terrible crime. Perspective however on” rape culture”, there were 500 million people in Europe in 1945, I suspect (and am not happy about it) that the percentage of rapes and rapists has not changed annually since then. If one in every 250 of we males is committing this is it “cultural”? Are NZ First males more likely to commit this? Do NZ First women in general condone this? Do men rush out of meetings in order to rape 13 year olds? This whole column pisses me off as much as the men who rape.

        Time for me to p.off.

        [QoT: It definitely is, if you’re going to insist on ignoring the entire content of the post you’re commenting on.]

        • Ennui 13.1.1.1
          28 March 2013 at 8:02 pm

          [QoT: You are not welcome to quote the policy to justify your bullshit. Being “tolerant of dissenting views” does not mean “letting commenters ignore the entire post without even backing up their assertions”.]

        • V de Plume 13.1.1.2
          28 March 2013 at 11:00 pm

          “This whole column pisses me off as much as the men who rape.”

          You are just as angry about a blog criticising a politician as you are about actual rape…

          And you don’t think there is a general cultural tolerance of rape.

          I, personally, am much angrier at the men who rape than I am at your comment. But your comment is still pretty disgusting.

        • muzza 13.1.1.3
          29 March 2013 at 9:09 am

          Ennui, yours, and a few others thought processes, are too subtly advanced for many here, especially these emotively charged, *rape culture* re-runs.

          The reek of *faux academic self belief* on this site, is a micro cosmic view of a major contributor to NZ’s decline, and why it will be a long, hard route back, if there is one available.

          It won’t be, the *self styled* who bring one shred of positive outcome, on this subject matter or any other, it will be those who have been closest to real life dealings, such as this thread seeks to question , that have experienced the so called *rape culture*, and then witnessed the *institutions*, *close ranks*!

          Those who have experienced,, and can broach such serious issues, without their *wretched* bias attached to their understandings, are the people making the differnce!

          • marty mars 13.1.1.3.1
            29 March 2013 at 9:23 am

            Pathetic muzza you might notice who broached the subject but I suppose hell will freeze over before we get a guestpost from you on the subject of rape culture.

            Thanks QoT for keeping on with these posts I am learning a lot and much is very disturbing but it has to happen so that this sick rape culture we all live within is opposed and defeated.

            ugly, muzza, and bored are illuminating in a very sad way but light is a disinfectant so I haven’t given up hope yet – well I have with that lot but not the subject or what we need to do to fix this society. Kia kaha QoT.

            • just saying 13.1.1.3.1.1
              29 March 2013 at 9:54 am

              I’m glad you can come away from reading this with optimism Marty.
              Over the course of the conversation, my spirits were drained away to nothing, not by Ugly T, but by the otherwise decent people.
              Seriously, do you people think we enjoy this?

              edit: just to be clear, the ‘decent people’ I mentioned – not Muzza

            • muzza 13.1.1.3.1.2
              29 March 2013 at 10:10 am

              Marty my learning’s/understanding on this subject exact matter, comes from some *rather unsavory*, life ruining experiences to people very close to me, so I’ll be naffed if I’m going to write about them on here.

              The presumptuous garbage in your final sentence is whats pathetic, Marty, and the fact you believe you can learn from QoT’s rants , indicates you know SFA, about light!

              Edit – Just Saying, you really need to pay more attention, your comment is wrong in the extreme. Why do people here continue to make personal comments aimed at being, of those they do NOT know!

              • marty mars …
                29 March 2013 at 10:26 am

                well you nothing of my personal experience or the ‘rather unsavory’ experiences I have experienced from whence my view and position derive from, so you are just blabbing aren’t you.

                • muzza …
                  29 March 2013 at 10:36 am

                  That’s right Marty, I don’t, which is why, unlike yourself and just sayings words above indicate, I avoid writing people off, even those who I strongly disagree with!

                  If you pay attention, even to comments here you might not agree with, or in some cases don’t understand, learning can be gained, if only about ones own reactions!

                  Peace

                  • karol …
                    29 March 2013 at 10:52 am

                    I avoid writing people off, even those who I strongly disagree with!

                    And yet, muzza, below @10.26am, you wrote off the whole of academia and the efforts of individuals involved in academic pursuits in one broad sweeping statement.

                    • muzza …
                      29 March 2013 at 11:19 am

                      Again, NO Karol, thats your incorrect, biased, interpretation of my comment!

                      Have a good day!

                    • karol …
                      29 March 2013 at 11:24 am

                      So, that’s your argument muzza @11.19am, which amounts to “I’m not biased, you are”….?

                    • muzza …
                      29 March 2013 at 12:03 pm

                      Karol, it is a conclusion I have drawn, which you seek to over-simplify

                      And yet, muzza, below @10.26am, you wrote off the whole of academia and the efforts of individuals involved in academic pursuits in one broad sweeping statement

                      What I actually said, is below (and if you would like to take the time to explain where you interpreted my comment as *wrote off the whole of academia etc*, then I will , with ease point out where your interpretation is incorrect!

                      What I have interpreted thus far from UT in this thread, is that he/she has attempted, through academic learning, or otherwise, to understand the complex mesh which masquerades as the *legal system*, which so many who comment here seem to not be able to work out using their *faux academic self belief*, then seem genuinely baffled when the fraud/injustice perpetuates, and accelerate!

                      The real issue with academia is that, you can’t apply academia, to societal problems, not in any meaningful way, life just does not function that way. Just ask the pseudo science *experts*, who are by in large responsible for many of the ill plaguing humanity!

                      My reference to your biased responses, is based on my knowing the intent of my comments, which you have responded to via an interpretation of *sweeping comments*, which stem from your point of view, (bias), and I’m inviting you to validate those comments , you refer to as, my, *write off’s*..

          • karol 13.1.1.3.2
            29 March 2013 at 9:45 am

            The reek of *faux academic self belief* on this site,

            As opposed to Ugly’s et al’s faux intellectual self-belief, supporting an ancient form of (allegedly) benevolent, liberty-producing patriarchy. While the proponents close ranks against threats to the (currently in decline) rule of the fathers.

            • muzza 13.1.1.3.2.1
              29 March 2013 at 10:26 am

              That may or may not be true also Karol, but ive not read enough of UT’s comments outside these past few days, to form any position.

              What I have interpreted thus far from UT in this thread, is that he/she has attempted, through academic learning, or otherwise, to understand the complex mesh which masquerades as the *legal system*, which so many who comment here seem to not be able to work out using their *faux academic self belief*, then seem genuinely baffled when the fraud/injustice perpetuates, and accelerate!

              The real issue with academia is that, you can’t apply academia, to societal problems, not in any meaningful way, life just does not function that way. Just ask the pseudo science *experts*, who are by in large responsible for many of the ill plaguing humanity!

              • karol …
                29 March 2013 at 10:31 am

                The real issue with academia is that, you can’t apply academia, to societal problems, not in any meaningful way, life just does not function that way. Just ask the pseudo science *experts*, who are by in large responsible for many of the ill plaguing humanity!

                Such a sweeping statement. So meaningless. So that means, you’ll only accept evidence that meets with your pre-judgements, based in a mix of your experiences and biases.

                So no-one who has been in academia tries to make sense of the complexity of various aspects of life?

                No-one who has been in academia has a wealth of life experiences that they bring into focus when looking at or conducting research?

                Your prejudices are showing.

                • muzza …
                  29 March 2013 at 10:50 am

                  Nah, you’re showing your prejudice by the heavy reaction! I’m not talking individuals, I’m referring to institutions!

                  The book of how to navigate life, has been, and needs only be very short/simple Karol, I’m not sure academia is prepared to accept that present day life has rendered it irrelevant to 99.9% of the populace , just like the Catholic Church, minus the membership base!

                  • karol …
                    29 March 2013 at 10:57 am

                    muzza @10.50am: And yet you talk of “academia” as if it was one single entity and a collective person with mental cognition. You write off many commenters here because you have decided they are part of an academic hive mind.

                    I call b/s. Academia is made up of diverse institutions and disciplines with a range of perspectives, some with very direct applications to real life and some critical of the government and its institutions. You are just repeating a common prejudice against university learning and research.

                    • muzza …
                      29 March 2013 at 11:10 am

                      No, I don’t write off commentators here (one can always learn from people/commentators, regardless), but I read through their difficulites grappling with life, while trying to unravel events using suppositions and conjecture which just don’t factor in, to real life, in little other than a theoretical sense, much of the time.

                      You can call BS all you like Karol, and if you want to believe I’m reapeating common prejudice, thats entirely your prerogative, albeit incorrect!

                      Have a good day…

                    • karol …
                      29 March 2013 at 11:18 am

                      using suppositions and conjecture which just don’t factor in, to real life, in little other than a theoretical sense, much of the time.

                      And that could equally be applied to Ugly’s references to the common law.

                    • muzza …
                      29 March 2013 at 11:22 am

                      What I have interpreted thus far from UT in this thread, is that he/she has attempted,, through academic learning, or otherwise,

                      Yes, I had that covered off, as above Karol, thanks for illustrating!

                      Have a good day.

            • Ugly Truth 13.1.1.3.2.2
              29 March 2013 at 11:02 am

              While the proponents close ranks against threats to the (currently in decline) rule of the fathers.

              What do you think those threats are, Karol?

              • karol …
                29 March 2013 at 11:08 am

                In the context of this thread, the critique of the way contemporary culture still uses sexuality to support a particular version of masculine dominance/control.

                • Ugly Truth …
                  29 March 2013 at 2:00 pm

                  How is that critique and different to “faux academic self belief” (your term) ?

                  • karol …
                    29 March 2013 at 2:27 pm

                    “faux academic self belief” – was muzza’s term.

                    I would dispute the “faux” part. It’s no more “faux” than your common law assumptions about the benevolent protective father (one that first is justified by referring to 19th century legal documents, then says the fact that there was already male domestic violence under the common law of that time, says it had been contaminated by Roman Law – but can’t be fully verified because that common law evolved from an unverifiable oral culture).

                    Because, in response to muzza’s characterisation of “faux academia”, divorced from real experience and practical application, the critique of culture here is based on evidence systematically gathered and critiqued. For many of us also the result of such critiques are examined in relation to our real life experiences, and women’s efforts to gain control over their own sexuality and lives – both as adults and when we were growing up.

                    muzza is just labeling any evidence and critique that he doesn’t agree with as faux.

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      29 March 2013 at 2:44 pm

                      Muzza used the term originally, then you used it.

                      My statement about the protective common law father isn’t an assumption, it is documented by Blackstone, probably the foremost commentator on English common law.

                      Your description doesn’t identify any particular threat, which was the point of this line of inquiry.

  14. millsy 14
    29 March 2013 at 1:10 pm

    1) Last time I looked, it was already illegal for a man to have sex with a 13 year old girl. The police need to just enforce the existing law

    2) Instead of trying to kick down the doors of consenting adults, or portraying the girls as dirty slappers, Lole-Taylor should perhaps sit down and think about why these girls are resorting to street prositiution, reason can include family abuse and violence, poverty, etc and so on. It would be interesting to view statistics on street prostitution both before the benefit cuts in 1991.

    • Colonial Weka 14.1
      29 March 2013 at 2:05 pm

      She might also want to look at why adult men are wanting to pay to have sex with/rape young teens. I’d suggest she starts with that, but of course it’s so much easier to define the problem to be solved in terms of the children in this situation than the adult men who are our friends, relatives, peers, leaders etc.

      (and I agree with you millsy, looking at the socio-economic reasons for the situation would be very useful, but if we don’t address rape culture as well, the problem shifts somewhere else).

    • handle 14.2
      31 March 2013 at 9:26 pm

      “Lole-Taylor should perhaps sit down and think”

      That would make a nice change but I would not hold your breath.

  15. Murray Olsen 15
    29 March 2013 at 4:08 pm

    Sigh. This thread does not inspire much hope for a better future. QOT addressed a serious issue, some took this on board, others began to sidetrack with Wishart Teabagger type garbage about common law and persons, still others saw an opportunity to attack “faux academia”, presumably in juxtaposition to their love of learning via youtube.
    The issue as I see it is rather simple. If we believe that there are 13 year olds being commercially raped on South Auckland streets, and I have no reason not to, why do the men doing this feel assured enough in themselves to be doing it in public view? Where do these men come from? To my mind, a culture that allows this to happen in public spaces, even on darkened streets, deserves 100% to be labelled as rape culture. People would probably be more up in arms if someone was running dog fights out there.
    So, to anyone who saw this as an opportunity to attack QOT, faux academia, radical feminism, perceptions of the law, or lack of learning via life experiences on the broad left (ha!), you are part of the bloody problem. No way are you part of any solution.
    And if you don’t like academia and pseudoscience, stop using the internet and invent your own. You probably have some fuckwitted idea of free Tesla energy vibrations that you can harness, so just go and do it and stop trying to drag the rest of us backwards with your crap.

    • Ugly Truth 15.1
      31 March 2013 at 8:49 pm

      Sorry that you see it as sidetrack Murray. The solution IMO is to return to a common law family. Of course that is the last thing that the state wants.

      • millsy 15.1.1
        31 March 2013 at 9:04 pm

        Common law family. Sounds like telling others how to live their lives.

        What about people who find themselves miserable in a common law family? As far as I am concerned a family doesnt need to be mum, dad and 2 kids, they can be any combination of people who choose to co-habit together, as long as there is mutual love, respect and loyalty.

        • Ugly Truth 15.1.1.1
          31 March 2013 at 9:13 pm

          Sounds like telling others how to live their lives.

          Do you disapprove of the state doing this?

          What about people who find themselves miserable in a common law family?

          What about people who find themselves miserable in a civil union?

          • millsy 15.1.1.1.1
            31 March 2013 at 9:18 pm

            No one is forced to enter a civil union.

            • Ugly Truth 15.1.1.1.1.1
              31 March 2013 at 9:27 pm

              What about children born into one? You could say the same for a common law marriage.

              The advantage of common law marriage is that is based on a natural family unit and the natural role of the man as protector of the family.

              • millsy …
                31 March 2013 at 9:32 pm

                What about children born into the family where the father kicks the shit out of the mother (or wears her down with insults).

                • karol …
                  31 March 2013 at 9:36 pm

                  UT is still peddling the myth of some previous golden age when the benevolent protector man was the king in his own castle, and he didn’t need to answer to anyone else or the state – certainly not pay taxes to the state.

                  Probably been partying with some tea baggers.

                  PS: He’d probably be happier in present day Somalia.

                • Ugly Truth …
                  31 March 2013 at 9:45 pm

                  That violence is forbidden in English common law. My argument is that dysfunctional families are less likely to occur when the father has the natural role of protector rather than the state.

                  • Roy …
                    2 April 2013 at 4:03 pm

                    And your evidence, Ugly Truth, is…?

                    • Ugly Truth …
                      2 April 2013 at 4:40 pm

                      @Roy

                      Because of the similarity between the common law family and the natural family. By natural family I mean a family that isn’t influenced by social forces.

                      In the civil family the man no longer has the role of protector and has to balance the obligations of the state against the demands of family life. Obligations like “you might get in trouble if you smack your kids to discipline them” or “the state gets to tell you what you can and can’t build on your own land” can conflict with natural reason. The man can associate this conflict with the fact that he has a family and then blame them for it. The common law husband only has himself to blame for his family problems.

                    • McFlock …
                      2 April 2013 at 4:44 pm

                      More a doctrine of faith than any actual fact there, ugly. Otherwise you’d have provided sources for your assertions.

                    • karol …
                      2 April 2013 at 5:11 pm

                      UT@4.40pm: The common law husband only has himself to blame for his family problems.

                      OMG. It’s all about the father. Others don’t really matter.

                      And what about the wife and children? And what if the father is the cause of the families’ problems, – say he interprets his protector role as a need to be overly controlling and abusive? Who do the wife and children turn to? Other protector father’s who may empathise with the abusive father, or who may resort to violence to discipline the father, thereby perpetuating the cycle of violence?

                      At least in a civil society the women and children can seek support from others and from the legal structure of the state.

                      You have way more faith in men living outside the civil structure than I ever would have.

                  • One Tāne Huna …
                    2 April 2013 at 4:09 pm

                    It’s not an argument, it’s an assertion. What you need are English lessons.

                  • karol …
                    2 April 2013 at 4:16 pm

                    dysfunctional families are less likely to be publicly visible when the father has the natural role of protector rather than the state.

                    FIFY

                    ps: what do you mean by family. The nuclear family is a recent occurrence and comes well after the time of the beginning of your beloved common law.

Links to post

The server will be getting hardware changes this evening starting at 10pm NZDT.
The site will be off line for some hours.