Firstly, Roman Polanski was charged with sexual abuse and unlawful sex with a minor (and with a 13 year old), not pedophilia. Pedophilia is not a crime, it is a disorder, and you can't just change the definition of said disorder, which is people who have a sexual attraction to prepubescent children, Were you to theoretically change this definition as you suggest, essentially every heterosexual male would be considered a pedophile overnight. You can debate the morality all you want and the legality all you want, but an attraction to post-pubescent individuals isn't pedophilia.

We're in an ethical minefield here. Moralising about who 16 year olds can and cannot shag is a bit Puritan. And Raising the age of consent to 18 is likely to have adverse consequences on sexual health, much like the abstinence drive in US schools does apparently.

Increased instances of blindness among 16-17 year old lads too.

The definition of pedophilia is actually quite clear see for example the Encyclopaedia Britannica:
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/...575/pedophilia

The fact that the yellow press is using the term pedophilia differently does not change it's definition. But it is a fact that "Roman Polanski accused of pedophilia" makes a catchier headline as "Roman Polanski accused of having sex with an underage girl"

The point is that the age of consent in CH is 16, therefore 16 is not underage.

Also, other countries are even lower (Spain is 13, for example).

"Spain sets its age of consent at 13, and the rest of the countries have an age of consent between 14 and 17, except Turkey and Malta, which have the highest age limit, set at 18"

So where do you draw the line, 21, 30, 40? And why?

And what about people (men or women) having sex with younger men?

Tom

I think 16 is about right. Having (consensual) sex in a relationship between two peers (is that the right word or is that a bit "textbook"?) is a lot different to someone paying a 16 year old for a meaningless shag.

When I was 16, it was all about boys, make up and teenage angst. Most 16 year old girls are still just kids in their heads, although they think they are all grown up and anyone over 25 is seen as so old they are nearly dead.

You shouldn't be doing that kind of thing if you are not able to see at that point how it might screw you up later in life.

If the age difference between the two is less than three years, there is actually no age limit at all. So a eighteen year old sleeping with a fifteen year old can is ok, providing their birthdays are no more than three years apart.

You pay with money but you don't pay for sex, you pay for "escort service" and if you like each other and have optional sex afterwards that has nothing to do with it Should also work with 16 year olds as age of consent is 16 in about 20 US states as well (17 in NY)...

Swiss law makes a difference between
- Uebertretung / Missachtung
- Vergehen
- Verbrechen

Ask your family lawyer for further details

I don't think that underage prostitution was ever legal in Switzerland, which the caption kind of suggests.

Underage prostitution between 16 and 18 has been and still is legal in Switzerland.

Girls between 16 and 17 can however not be involved in any underage prostitution, as the age of consent is 16. It would only be underage prostitution, if the girl involved is younger than 16, which allays was forbidden by Swiss law.

According to your argument there would be much underage drinking of people between 16 and 21 going on in Switzerland, too ...

"age of majority" should the be age limit, i.e. 18, anything else is mental...

definitions here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_majority

also definition of child:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as "a human being below the age of 18 years...

so everybody who is pro child prostitution raise a hand...

disturbing how many are trying to justify this...

I'm not a fan of prostitution and support this specific ban, albeit for my own reasons due to concern for the workers going into a sucky career.

But I do support legslised prostitution overall as the lesser if two scenarios. I get the impression that the Swiss (/'european') model where it's legalized is less prone to exploitation than say in UK where it's mostly 'underground'.

As for "child" at 18, I do think it's shallow to use that here to villify those who are are against the ban. When in UK I drove at 17 i wasnt a "child driver". When I did a Saturday job at school I was not "child labour".

nobody is saying that 16 year old prostitutes are "child prostitutes" either...I think you missed the point...and comparing driving a car with having a girl getting screwed by old sweaty fart for money, that's quite low...try again

I think you just did in your last post when you said "The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as a human being below the age of 18 years...so everybody who is pro child prostitution raise a hand..."

I meant, nobody is calling a 16 year old prostitute a "child prostitute"...although they are children.

Again, I shall ask those who do not object to 16 year olds selling their bodies, how they would react to their 16 year old daughters, sisters, friends - doing so?

I try to remember me at 16, and my daughters- and I shudder (and yet all of us were very happily sexually active by then). Having sex at 16- in all 3 of our cases with a great partner, is fine for many - selling your body to all and sundry, ugly, dirty, violent, whatever - IS VERY VERY DIFFERENT.

My first lover was 25 and I was 15 - so he could have got into trouble. Very unfairly as I was very mature and fully aware, responsible and ... willing- and it was a wonderful and very empowering experience.

I haven't read one post where anyone is condoning prostitution at 16. What I have seen are some posts questioning the practicalities of implementing of such a law and the fact that it doesn't actually stop the problem. Certain members have then responded to those comments putting a twist on it that the poster must mean they are fully in agreement with paid-for sex with a 16 year old.

It's easy for some to hide behind sensationalistic and emotive outbursts that drown out any sensible discussion.

I would expect such cynical attitudes coming from men' side, but honestly, some comments here made me shrug..
Going into prostitution business at 16 or earlier is a terrible thing caused by multiple psycho-social factors, and it is a social disease, unless some think those teenagers do that...for fun. Or for pleasure, or, even sillier hypothesis, out of some cultural difference...
Again, really surprises me people would still argue such evidence.

How do you think they would react if she was 18? The 16-18 gap in Switzerland is a complicated matter and making it personal won't magically make people see your side of the argument, as a woman selling her body is an emotional issue at any age. I'm sure most people wouldn't want for women to have to do it at all, but begrudgingly have to accept that having it be legal is better for society at large than having it be illegal and pushed underground.

To be fair, I don't think there's anything wrong with the new 18+ law and agree with it, but I can see both sides of the argument. Once age of consent is one thing, it's kind of hard to enforce it, as prostitution can take many forms. This is not the first time we've had one of these threads and despite being ambivalent on the matter, I find arguments like this really irritating because they seemingly ignore the gravity of the situation once a woman hits 18, but a 16, 17 year-old selling her body is treated like the end of the world that one would have to be a heartless supporter of evil to allow to happen. It's not so clear cut, and definite gray area, which is why the discussion exists.

I'd rather we talk about how enforceable a discrepancy between age of consent and legal age to work the streets is, the causes behind prostitution that make women choose that path in life, and how to make it not such a black eye on society at large. People are different, with different levels of maturity and strength of character. I'm sure there are women who would react more maturely to such a life choice at 16 than others at 20. Trust me, I can understand where you're coming from, but appeals to emotion like this one only give the impression that "16, 17 = bad, 18+ = all bets are off".