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 maybe 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 borderline 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)