News Forum - Bangkok man arrested for luring underage teen (video)

[Manu]

On 5/4/2024 at 11:51 AM, Ramanathan.P said:

The guy is 24 and the girl is 15. When we compare to some adults where the man is 70 plus hardly can stand and the girl is 30 plus where she is at her peak, this young couple looks normal in their life once they grow older.

You compare what is not comparable. The 24 years old guy is an adult, the 14 years old girl (not 15) is a child. The man of 70 is an adult, the 30 plus years old girl is an adult. If you do not see the odd one out in your comparaison, then there must be something wrong with you.

Quote

Further if the guy is having a good income and steady job, always giving money to the in-laws, would they complain any? Definetly not. They will embrace him with 10 arms. 

Well if you had read the article, you would know that the "in-laws" of this 14 years old child have a complete different opinion than yours.

[MrStretch]

On 5/6/2024 at 10:34 AM, Fanta said:

That is a ridiculous reduction of my comment. Minor Attracted People are pedophiles. No ifs, no buts, no maybes. Pedos. I am done discussing this. 

Actually, those that are attracted to prepubescent children are pedos.  This would most likely classify as hebephilia, as discussed earlier.

[Manu]

On 5/5/2024 at 7:12 AM, LeReynard said:

Rubbish. Evolution would not not have made youths fertile (biologically adult) were they incapable of sex and parenthood in any way. A 14 year old girl, a young woman, has, usually, regular menses and sufficient it developed secondary sex characteristics, to signal that fertility to the opposite sex.

So I follow your logic, it is then fine for you personally as well regarding of your age to have sex with a 14 years old cause she is (could be) fertile so therefore capable of sex. Is it your logic? If in the 21st century and all we have learned about "Evolution" you do not see the moral issue there (moral issue brought into laws cause we have learned NOW how to protect kids as much as possible so they do not end up being psychologically disturbed adults or worse), then I would definitely not trust you around teenage girls.

[LeReynard]

42 minutes ago, Manu said:

So I follow your logic, it is then fine for you personally as well regarding of your age to have sex with a 14 years old cause she is (could be) fertile so therefore capable of sex. Is it your logic? 

Yes, you understand 100%. If it were so harmful for a 14 year old to become a mother, natural selection would not have 'created' US this way.

Menarche is at ~12 years, but periods are irregular and fertility very low, until (usually) ~14 years, or age 2 in gynaecological years. Which happens to be the age when the sexual signals naturally attractive to men, are developed in the female pelvis, and at the same time, the pelvic aperture is widened ready for birth. Not fully grown, but its grown enough to signal 'sexiness' and fertility.

In men, the counterpart to menarche is semenarche. About a 1/3 of males attain semenarche between the ages of 12 and 13. By 14 almost every male is fertile.

And I have noticed, the strongest opposition to this comes from people who hate science. Usually they are race deniers, they deny foetuses have heartbeats or are human, they feel uneasy about sex and race differences in human psychology... And they can't accept that in biology, fertility defines adulthood, just as gametes define sex.

It is a very simple definition. Which exactly do you think is the most real and important? Scientific fact, which is unchanging, or the law which changes from time to time, as per human opinion?

[LeReynard]

1 hour ago, Manu said:

You compare what is not comparable. The 24 years old guy is an adult, the 14 years old girl (not 15) is a child. The man of 70 is an adult, the 30 plus years old girl is an adult.

So what? Which looks wierdest? Which creeps people out more?

[LeReynard]

32 minutes ago, LeReynard said:

So what? Which looks wierdest? Which creeps people out more?

This isn't about right versus wrong, but public opinion, based on appearances. One of those age differences, is far more acceptable to thepublic, than is the other.

Some people here, and (gasp!) the law - only since Victorian days - are in the wrong. You are contrary to social as well as natural fact.

[Manu]

On 5/7/2024 at 2:18 PM, LeReynard said:

This isn't about right versus wrong, but public opinion, based on appearances. One of those age differences, is far more acceptable to thepublic, than is the other.

Some people here, and (gasp!) the law - only since Victorian days - are in the wrong. You are contrary to social as well as natural fact.

It is just and only about right or wrong. You don’t get moral logic, and sure everyone see that. Luckily I don’t have teenage girls living near you. Go all natural from many years ago and not social in tge 21st century, the last sentence of your comment. Go all the way, illegally, laws that you don’t agree with but laws of your free world to have to abide to. I do believe that your writing are probably illegal in some countries including yours. Horrible comments, talking, fancy words just making worse when meant to convince. Horrible, mad.

[LeReynard]

59 minutes ago, Manu said:

It is just and only about right or wrong. You don’t get moral logic, and sure everyone see that. Luckily I don’t have teenage girls living near you. Go all natural from many years ago and not social in tge 21st century, the last sentence of your comment. Go all the way, illegally, laws that you don’t agree with but laws of your free world to have to abide to. I do believe that your writing are probably illegal in some countries including yours. Horrible comments, talking, fancy words just making worse when meant to convince. Horrible, mad.

Yes opinions common in academic textbooks, are 'probably illegal'.

[Pinetree]

On 5/7/2024 at 1:38 PM, LeReynard said:

Yes, you understand 100%. If it were so harmful for a 14 year old to become a mother, natural selection would not have 'created' US this way.

Menarche is at ~12 years, but periods are irregular and fertility very low, until (usually) ~14 years, or age 2 in gynaecological years. Which happens to be the age when the sexual signals naturally attractive to men, are developed in the female pelvis, and at the same time, the pelvic aperture is widened ready for birth. Not fully grown, but its grown enough to signal 'sexiness' and fertility.

In men, the counterpart to menarche is semenarche. About a 1/3 of males attain semenarche between the ages of 12 and 13. By 14 almost every male is fertile.

And I have noticed, the strongest opposition to this comes from people who hate science. Usually they are race deniers, they deny foetuses have heartbeats or are human, they feel uneasy about sex and race differences in human psychology... And they can't accept that in biology, fertility defines adulthood, just as gametes define sex.

It is a very simple definition. Which exactly do you think is the most real and important? Scientific fact, which is unchanging, or the law which changes from time to time, as per human opinion?

I take it by your posts that you have a 'sympathetic interest' in very young girts?   Good job I don't know you. We may yet read about you in the news at some point.   Why do I say that?  Because your views are abhorrent to most right thinking people. 

[LeReynard]

3 hours ago, Pinetree said:

I take it by your posts that you have a 'sympathetic interest' in very young girts?   Good job I don't know you. We may yet read about you in the news at some point.   Why do I say that?  Because your views are abhorrent to most right thinking people. 

No, they are entirely normal opinions in Great Britain. The real world outside the door, is not the internet. Only feminists and neurotic parents, insist contrary to what I've posted. People worrying about non-intergenerational age gaps is like those stupid posts about COVID, it's something you can only find online.

Remember he is under 25, and the age gap is 10 years. Do you expect them to see a difference of age group?

Edited May 9 by LeReynard

[Pinetree]

5 minutes ago, LeReynard said:

No, they are entirely normal opinions in Great Britain. T

Nonsense, they are  not.   When stated about a child of 14 and an adult of 24, it is both illegal and perverted,  Quite rightly, the Law comes down harshly on such people and even on such opinions when stated on social media platforms. Your obvious interest in this subject is highly disturbing. 

[LeReynard]

5 minutes ago, Pinetree said:

Nonsense, they are  not.   When stated about a child of 14 and an adult of 24, it is both illegal and perverted,  Quite rightly, the Law comes down harshly on such people and even on such opinions when stated on social media platforms. Your obvious interest in this subject is highly disturbing. 

Yes they are normal opinions. If you used your own recollection, you would see evidence of this.

When you were at school, no girls or lads were with someone, who was aged 18-25? Did no one have their first time, with a classmates older brother or sister? Or their own older sibling's friends?

Did no one ever get turned down by someone older, because he or she hadn't enough pubic hair yet? (In fact Or in insult.) Or wasn't tall enough, or his voice hadn't broken (proxy for fertility)? Whilst older looking people in the same class, had gone with that someone older? And it wasn't the years of birth that were the issue?

No one ever went to nightclubs to f**k whoever they found attractive? More to the point, did anyone ask for one anothers ages, in those places?

Did girls never find it creepy to be hit on, by a guy who was obviously 'old enough to be me dad'?

The mainstream British value is that a proper growth of pubic hair marks manhood or womanhood. Afterwards an acceptable age difference is based on what is intergenerational or not. Same as most first time marriages between non-minors, in Britain, do not involve intergenerational age gaps.

It is basically the suite of pubertal traits, once sufficiently grown, makes someone adult. So if so-called anti-paedos had any credibility, they would not say things outside of the norm, that do not have much to do with the definition of paedophilia

Fin.

[ChicagoExpat]

1 hour ago, LeReynard said:

No, they are entirely normal opinions in Great Britain. The real world outside the door, is not the internet. Only feminists and neurotic parents, insist contrary to what I've posted. People worrying about non-intergenerational age gaps is like those stupid posts about COVID, it's something you can only find online.

Remember he is under 25, and the age gap is 10 years. Do you expect them to see a difference of age group?

I'm neither a feminist nor a neurotic parent, and agree completely with @Pinetree

[Manu]

1 hour ago, LeReynard said:

No, they are entirely normal opinions in Great Britain.

But then in your next comment...

Quote

Which exactly do you think is the most real and important? Scientific fact, which is unchanging, or the law which changes from time to time, as per human opinion?

So which one is it? Cause if, like you say, laws are changed "per human opinion", so when the law has changed in the Uk back then, was it because human opinion found it was "entirely normal" for an adult to have sex with a 14 years old? It has changed because the "normal opinions" in the UK then and even more today are the exact opposite than the ones you claim to be today.

I challenge you to visit any pub in the UK and start having chats with people around explaining your "entirely normal opinion" on the subject and see how long you last... I challenge you to express you free spech opinion on the subject at the Speaker's Corner Hyde Park, see how long it takes before you get arrested, that is if you are not getting lynched before. And to be arrested at the Speaker's Corner, your opinion must be very illegal to say the least, coincidentally illegal opinions being also always the vilest ones.

And please do not mention science and facts, science is indeed not "unchanging" like you say, but changing all the times with new discoveries. If you want to talk about science, then check the 100s studies available out there about the negative impact on teenagers having early sex, and the most dramatic mental and psychological impact of teenage girls being lured into sex by vile adults.

[Manu]

1 hour ago, ChicagoExpat said:

I'm neither a feminist nor a neurotic parent, and agree completely with @Pinetree

I am not a feminist and I am not even a parent, still I agree completely too.

[LeReynard]

50 minutes ago, Manu said:

But then in your next comment...

So which one is it? Cause if, like you say, laws are changed "per human opinion", so when the law has changed in the Uk back then, was it because human opinion found it was "entirely normal" for an adult to have sex with a 14 years old? It has changed because the "normal opinions" in the UK then and even more today are the exact opposite than the ones you claim to be today.

I challenge you to visit any pub in the UK and start having chats with people around explaining your "entirely normal opinion" on the subject and see how long you last... I challenge you to express you free spech opinion on the subject at the Speaker's Corner Hyde Park, see how long it takes before you get arrested, that is if you are not getting lynched before. And to be arrested at the Speaker's Corner, your opinion must be very illegal to say the least, coincidentally illegal opinions being also always the vilest ones.

And please do not mention science and facts, science is indeed not "unchanging" like you say, but changing all the times with new discoveries. If you want to talk about science, then check the 100s studies available out there about the negative impact on teenagers having early sex, and the most dramatic mental and psychological impact of teenage girls being lured into sex by vile adults.

Well that's the problem here, though, isn't it. Dreary British pubs as a basis for public opinion. How many pubs have closed because of supermarkets and mini marts. Or maybe you count things like Harvester as pubs; restaurants that serve draft alcohol with a meal.

It's just some preconceived notion of what the 'normal bloke' thinks, and indeed, where he goes. But he doesn't exist, and perhaps, he never did. He's about as real as the make believe 'all women', whose 'popular opinion' feminists cite.

Every study, mentioning the negative impacts of early teens having sex, seems to mention girls not going to university, and girls success is measured purely by college degree, with no alternatives, such as motherhood, or stable relationships. And mark my words, that's all I need to read to form my opinion on them.

[ChicagoExpat]

14 hours ago, LeReynard said:

Well that's the problem here, though, isn't it. Dreary British pubs as a basis for public opinion. How many pubs have closed because of supermarkets and mini marts. Or maybe you count things like Harvester as pubs; restaurants that serve draft alcohol with a meal.

It's just some preconceived notion of what the 'normal bloke' thinks, and indeed, where he goes. But he doesn't exist, and perhaps, he never did. He's about as real as the make believe 'all women', whose 'popular opinion' feminists cite.

Every study, mentioning the negative impacts of early teens having sex, seems to mention girls not going to university, and girls success is measured purely by college degree, with no alternatives, such as motherhood, or stable relationships. And mark my words, that's all I need to read to form my opinion on them.

If at least part of the basis of your argument is this:  objections to 14 year olds being in relationships/impregnated by men in the 20s and above are invalid because the negative effects of such are limited to not going to college, and ignore positive effects like "motherhood or stable relationships"...

...then it's on you to show that 14 year olds routinely make good mothers and routinely enjoy healthy, stable relationships with men 10 or more years older than them.

I completely agree with you that associating life happiness to a college degree is bogus; I completely disagree with you that 14 year olds or 16 year olds, or even 18 year olds, in most societies today are successful parents and that this is something that a country should encourage or tolerate.

[Manu]

On 5/9/2024 at 11:22 AM, LeReynard said:

Well that's the problem here, though, isn't it. Dreary British pubs as a basis for public opinion. How many pubs have closed because of supermarkets and mini marts. Or maybe you count things like Harvester as pubs; restaurants that serve draft alcohol with a meal.

It's just some preconceived notion of what the 'normal bloke' thinks, and indeed, where he goes. But he doesn't exist, and perhaps, he never did. He's about as real as the make believe 'all women', whose 'popular opinion' feminists cite.

 

What are you talking about??? I took the pub as an example cause indeed all walks of the British society can be found there, different classes and level of education, ethnicities, genders, age, etc.. it is indeed very representative of the British society. It seems now that you are attempting to go around the real subject on which your opinion was a little stronger in early comments, if I had simply said "go to any street of any British city" instead of the pub,  I have the feeling you would have come back with your fancy words saying the same... "Dreary British streets as a basis for public opinion", etc... And what about the Speaker's Corner? Nothing on that? This debate is not about where is best to find the most various representation of the British society but wether it is right or wrong for an adult to have sex with a child - have you forgotten the subject?

Quote

Every study, mentioning the negative impacts of early teens having sex, seems to mention girls not going to university, and girls success is measured purely by college degree, with no alternatives, such as motherhood, or stable relationships. And mark my words, that's all I need to read to form my opinion on them.

This is your reponse to this paragraph I wrote:

"If you want to talk about science, then check the 100s studies available out there about the negative impact on teenagers having early sex, and the most dramatic mental and psychological impact of teenage girls being lured into sex by vile adults. "

So your response is just about this sentence : "100s studies available out there about the negative impact on teenagers having early sex". So I say to that, yes there are some like you described and some not at all what you described.

But then, nothing on the following sentence :  "and the most dramatic mental and psychological impact of teenage girls being lured into sex by vile adults". Well done for avoiding those studies, which was my point, not so much the other sentence you took some time to answer to.

You are in favor in pedophilia, I am not. It is 2024, not 1880, not the Middle Ages.

I Think there is nothing for me to add to this debate.