Talk:Child trafficking

I am not really seeing what this has to do with boylove? --Etenne (talk) 18:51, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

What about the fact that if someone has a relationship with a teenager that includes giving him some money or gifts to help him out, that could be considered sex trafficking, according to how it's been conceptualized? Before, these relationships were considered merely exploitative and abusive; now they're being considered a form of enslavement too. Lysander (talk) 19:40, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

That may be true but this sounds like what a heterosexual would do, not a boylover. Plus, I have some other concerns about how we are presenting this stuff.... if I was a 15-year-old BL and I came to BoyWiki for the first time and read some of this stuff... I'd never come back because stuff like this says nothing about me. --Etenne (talk) 19:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Plus, I find some of the stuff you have added about sex tourism very alarming. This is not what boylove is about and I am not sure that it has any place on this wiki. --Etenne (talk) 20:11, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Haven't you said that there's a lot of disagreement in the boylove community about what boylove is about? Also, I happen to know an incarcerated boylover who says that he used to give gifts to his young friends. He said that what's often called "child grooming" would, if it occurred between adults, be considered simply "dating". It's common that one partner in a relationship, especially an older man, will have more income and will buy the younger partner presents and pay for dates.

At any rate, the sex tourism laws should be of interest to anyone concerned about freedom of international travel. And boylovers, even those who have no interest in becoming a sex tourist, should be concerned about freedom of international travel, because they might want to at some point get out from under the U.S. government's thumb. An example would be if they were to get in trouble in the U.S. for the type of relationship that you would consider to involve boylove, and then want to expatriate to someplace with less stringent restrictions on convicted sex offenders. They might want to do this just for the sake of being allowed to, say, use social media and exercise other freedoms that non-sex offenders take for granted.

As DEAD END: The International Megan's Law's Assault on Everyone's Freedom of Travel notes, Interpol "has already played a role in intercepting American sex offenders in Europe and Asia who simply 'got out of Dodge' and failed to re-register, enabling countries which previously would not have known they had crossed their borders to identify them immediately and to arrest them for extradition back to the 'land of freedom'. . . . It seems safe to say that sex offenders have no underground railway through which to flee an often miserable existence."

To defend our own freedom, often we have to defend the freedom of those we would consider scoundrels. If there is what some might consider exploitation (e.g. child prostitution) going on in other countries, we have to consider, do we want to get the legislatures, police, and courts involved in stopping it, or would that do more harm than good to freedom? I would say, the solution is to allow children to freely immigrate to first world countries such as the U.S., where they will have more avenues for escaping poverty. We need to address these issues rather than simply ignoring them, because the opponents of liberty have their own ideas in mind for addressing them, and those plans, if implemented, will end up hurting us. They operate in an opportunistic way, looking for crises that provide an excuse to impose more restrictions on freedom. Lysander (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe it is that you need to add more to the articles on what you just said as to why it is relevant as well as addressing the issues with boys rights to self determination and right to choose etc... because if I am not understanding this, you can bet that no one else is either --Etenne (talk) 20:47, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Part of the problem is that people make unwarranted assumptions about the agenda of a person or organization that is providing information. It even happens with some of the anti-pedo editors whose activity is shown in this graph. Some of them will occasionally add some content that neutrally informative rather than obviously biased against pedophilia, and people assume based on their interests that they must be pedophiles. Who is really at fault for this assumption — the editors or the readers?

At the same time, I personally regard it as the lesser of evils if children are allowed to get involved in prostitution by their own choice, as an alternative to starving. The government would prefer to deny them the choice and let them starve.

As quoted in the child labor article, Glenda L. Giron wrote, in Underexposed child sex tourism industry in Guatemala, "With all good intentions, the United States passed the Child [Labor] Deterrence Act in order to ban imports of goods made by children younger than fifteen. In response to this short-sighted policy, Bangladesh dismissed thousands of child workers from their jobs, who immediately ended up in the streets, mainly working as child prostitutes. . . . . I believe that the way we treat the most vulnerable members of our society reflects who we are, and the development and wellbeing of children should be a primary concern to all nations. Nevertheless, policy makers must understand that when faced with this complex human rights issue, simple moral indignation is not the best guide to effective public policy. The Guatemalan government must take a realistic approach to combat the child sex tourism industry. Most child rights advocates may oppose child labor; however, when faced with a strong demand for child sex tourism and a supply of impoverished Guatemalan children, responsible societies must choose the lesser of two evils."

The U.S. government is putting pressure on even the most destitute countries to ban child labor. So, what options are left? Are those who favor solving the problem through charity or foreign aid putting their money or votes where their mouths are? Lysander (talk) 21:43, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Again I want to stress that it's not just one thing that many of the entries you add, taken as a whole, do not necessarily reflect the values, beliefs, and established norms of the boylove community and by extension BoyWiki. I am guessing that this is because you are a GL and not a boylover. Our issues are not always the same as girllovers and even when they are the same, our perspective on them may be significantly different. There is a reason why NAMbLA and most other BL organizations do not include GLs. I have tried to tell you this on a number of different occasions but I am not sure that I am being very successful at getting across to you that some of the things you have added (partially because of the way they are written) come across as very distasteful and border on support of child abuse and things that are unseemly. Again I value your participation on BoyWiki however Boywiki is first and foremost about boylove, boys and boylovers and I am at a loss on how to merge the more drastically divergent perspectives. Despite what my detractors have accused me of being, I am not a "sex at all costs" guy nor am I a member of the High Boylover Priesthood known as Virped, I am more moderate than either of those extremes and BoyWiki absolutely needs to maintain a balance not only between those two extreme points of view but also between the needs of the LBLs and the TBLs. --Etenne (talk) 11:22, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

To try to help you understand our perspective on this, this is what one of the members of the Wiki council recently wrote after reading some of your posts,

—I'm really scared when I see that most English articles speak about laws, penalties, judgments, jail, etc.!

As a European pederast, I think first of culture (history, celebrities, literature, arts, psychology, sociology, etc.); law is just a secondary and more or less unpleasant appendix of social life.

We must certainly not forget law; but love and pleasure and culture come definitely first. In my opinion, it must even be one of BoyWiki's objectives: make the reader happy and proud, make him think positively about boylove, and persuade him that stupid laws are just a temporary episode in the long history of pederasty (as it should be in his own history, if he behaves reasonably).

As for terrorism, our enemies' greatest victory would be to succeed polluting our minds with permanent fear!

Talking about penalties is not intended to pollute anyone's mind with unwarranted fear. But it's information that's relevant to boylovers, I would think. I think it's noteworthy, by the way, that Portal:Boylove News Channel, which is above the fold on the main page, mostly has articles about criminal prosecutions, the latest anti-pedo legislation, pedo hunters, etc. Awhile earlier, it was an article about the pedophiles committing suicide. Not the most uplifting stuff, but these are important news stories. Generally, current events will tend to be negative, because we can't really report "Persons A and B have formed a beautiful, healthy cross-generational relationship" and tell their story, since the state would rush to take action that would turn it into a story with an unhappy ending.

Anyway, most people who aren't wiki-savvy won't check RecentChanges and therefore won't notice that a lot of editing of law and politics articles is going on; they'll browse the main page and go where the wikilinks take them, or they'll find articles via Google and again go where the wikilinks take them. In the case of the latter, these readers may already have been looking for law- or politics-related content, if they end up at those BoyWiki articles, since those are the search terms they entered. They may then browse the rest of the wiki and find love, pleasure, and culture-related articles.

In my experience, whenever you start a wiki, if you attract any users, you'll find that they end up taking the wiki in unexpected directions. They'll have their own pet interests and unique backgrounds, and they'll write a lot of articles within their areas of passion and expertise, to the point that the wiki starts to seem unbalanced, especially if (as is usually the case) the 80/20 rule applies (with 20% of the editors doing 80% of the writing). For example, Ameriwiki had a few users who wrote all day long about scientific topics, to the point that people sometimes assumed it was mostly a science wiki. When I ran a RationalWikiWikiWiki site, someone showed up and wrote all day about BDSM. Wikipedia has users who write all day about The Simpsons and get those articles put on the main page as featured articles, so that it has seemed sometimes like a wiki mostly about The Simpsons. Etc., etc. In the case of BoyWiki, now it's starting to get slanted more in the direction of being a law- and politics-centric wiki.

I wonder how we would implement the suggestion "We must certainly not forget law; but love and pleasure and culture come definitely first" given the reliance on mostly self-directed volunteers as editors? Are we going to have some rule that says, e.g., for every article someone writes on law, he needs to write 10 articles on love, pleasure, and culture? User4 already raised a concern about amateurs editing outside their area of knowledge. People who have done a lot of legal research aren't necessarily also experts on these other topics, and it might be undesirable to try to be a jack-of-all-trades rather than specializing in certain areas. Lysander (talk) 17:18, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

I wish that just for once in my life that instead of people arguing with me that they would simply say, yeah, I can do that, I can ask myself before hitting the post button if this is appropriate to BoyWiki or likely to piss off the natives. Sadly, anti-authoritarianism seems to be a trait shared by both BLs and GLs (still someone has to be the boss) and I will likely never get my wish.

"In my experience, whenever you start a wiki, if you attract any users, you'll find that they end up taking the wiki in unexpected directions." This maybe true but there is only so far I will allow us to go in that direction before I am forced by the other users and the wiki council ( and even the FSCo if they feel we are violating our agreement with them) to bring BoyWiki back in line with it's objectives.--Etenne (talk) 21:55, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Maybe the law and politics part of the wiki should be split off into a separate wiki, if it's that sensitive of an issue? Coverage of law and politics stuff is encouraged by displaying it so prominently on the main page. And it's in the nature of wikis that if they're going to cover a topic, they're going to attempt to cover it comprehensively, usually starting first with the more obscure sub-topics that can be more easily tackled in one fell swoop. So, if you don't want comprehensive coverage of law, then just don't include law in the wiki mission. Or, if you want to tackle love, pleasure, and culture first, and then tackle law, then say that writing about law is not allowed until the topics of love, pleasure, and culture are adequately covered. I don't see how there's much room for a middle ground, without being totally arbitrary about how much law coverage is too much.

I'm in kind of a lose-lose situation, because I don't have much to contribute outside of politics and law, so if I stop covering those topics, I basically won't be editing at all; but if I continue covering them, then maybe I'll eventually get kicked off the wikia. Lysander (talk) 02:34, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Again you are looking at this from the wrong perspective. I do not want to ban you from BoyWiki. Look at how I reedited your entry Child pornography's normalizing child abuse, this is what I am looking for from you. That you have an understanding of what the issues are for us. That we don't condone the true abuse of children in any way. If you can't see the difference between someone hiring a group of teenaged actors and models to preform (mostly just playing and running around) in a nudest film and someone who takes a little girl terrorizes and threatens her then forces her to preform painful and damaging sex acts for the gratification of mostly teleiophile heterosexual men, then I really don't know what to say. I take this a failure on my part for not being able to adequately explain to you how to better convey and de-hate speech/de-anti-fy some of the things you add because to me, it seems self-evident.--Etenne (talk) 12:54, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

"If you can't see the difference between someone hiring a group of teenaged actors and models to preform (mostly just playing and running around) in a nudist film and someone who takes a little girl terrorizes and threatens her then forces her to preform painful and damaging sex acts" It's the government that has trouble telling much of a difference (although they do have harsher sentencing guidelines for defendants who penetrate younger children). But when you talk about a child pornographer doing this for "for the gratification of mostly teleiophile heterosexual men", I want to point out that the abuse might have occurred regardless of whether there was potential to create footage of it for distribution. If someone who has the desire to abuse has access to kids, then he's probably going to abuse either way. I'm actually kinda surprised that so many people distribute child porn that they produce, since the risks are so high and there's no money in it. See Child pornography production as a motive for child abuse and Child pornography distribution as a motive for child pornography production. Lysander (talk) 16:03, 29 March 2015 (UTC)