Child Prostitution

[Harrowby Hall]

1. All human behaviour can only have a nature/nurture source.

2. All humans do not respond in the same way to their nurture.

3. The difference can only be caused by their genetic make-up.

4. So ultimately our genes designate the final result of nature/nurture.

That is all I am claiming, and it is only my opinion.

Nurture does not mean "upbringing" - it means "every single environmental incident you can imagine from the moment after conception has taken place".

Sexuality is not a single-gene condition. In human sexuality is so complex that it is likely to be the product of hundreds of genes. In many cases these create a kind of potential for behaviour rather than a defined behaviour. Actual behaviour results from an interaction between genetic and environmental influences. The possible range of consequences from these interactions is huge.

"Nature" and "nurture" may be alternatives. But they also likely to be contributors to final behaviour.

[Leonard James]

1. All human behaviour can only have a nature/nurture source.

2. All humans do not respond in the same way to their nurture.

3. The difference can only be caused by their genetic make-up.

4. So ultimately our genes designate the final result of nature/nurture.

That is all I am claiming, and it is only my opinion.

Nurture does not mean "upbringing" - it means "every single environmental incident you can imagine from the moment after conception has taken place".

Sexuality is not a single-gene condition. In human sexuality is so complex that it is likely to be the product of hundreds of genes. In many cases these create a kind of potential for behaviour rather than a defined behaviour. Actual behaviour results from an interaction between genetic and environmental influences. The possible range of consequences from these interactions is huge.

"Nature" and "nurture" may be alternatives. But they also likely to be contributors to final behaviour.

Which is precisely what I said.

[Harrowby Hall]

Which is precisely what I said.

No it is not.

You said:

3. The difference can only be caused by their genetic make-up.

I said:

Actual behaviour results from an interaction between genetic and environmental influences.

Not the same thing.

[Leonard James]

Which is precisely what I said.

No it is not.

You said:

3. The difference can only be caused by their genetic make-up.

I said:

Actual behaviour results from an interaction between genetic and environmental influences.

Not the same thing.

The way an organism reacts to its environment (nurture) after conception must be entirely genetic.

[Harrowby Hall]

Ah, I see where you are coming from.

But that does not take learning into account. The learning occurs as a result of interactions.

(I'm using learning in the sense of a relatively permanent change in behaviour as a result of experience - which is the standard psychology definition.)

[Leonard James]

Ah, I see where you are coming from.

But that does not take learning into account. The learning occurs as a result of interactions.

(I'm using learning in the sense of a relatively permanent change in behaviour as a result of experience - which is the standard psychology definition.)

I take all learning/experience as environmental (nurture), and even in that case the susceptibility of the subject is dependent on his genetics. Some are less responsive than others.

However, I confess I know nothing about psychology.

[Outrider]

I'm curious as to whether anyone's read Stephen Covey's 'Seven Habits of Highly Effective People'?

He describes something akin to this discussion in the section on proactivity.

We have inherited, amongst other traits, self-awareness, to acknowledge the influences on our lives. So long as we take the time to appreciate and understand those influence we have the capacity to rationally put them aside and not be beholden to them.

A path to free-will and bypassing the determinism of nature/nurture?

O.

[Rhiannon]

I'm curious as to whether anyone's read Stephen Covey's 'Seven Habits of Highly Effective People'?

He describes something akin to this discussion in the section on proactivity.

We have inherited, amongst other traits, self-awareness, to acknowledge the influences on our lives. So long as we take the time to appreciate and understand those influence we have the capacity to rationally put them aside and not be beholden to them.

A path to free-will and bypassing the determinism of nature/nurture?

O.

THis is something addressed in some kinds of therapy. Putting aside the beliefs we acquire about ourselves from our upbringing - not just parents but friends, siblings, teachers, culture - can require a complete undoing of our awareness of who and how we are. Personally though I do not believe that choosing to follow such a path to self-awareness overrides our nature/nurture, but that we also have something in our make-up that enables us to do so.

[Udayana]

Works for me, though some might complain about the recursion needed for this as a solution.

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

On the one hand child prostitution is rampant and on the other hand this....

http://us.cnn.com/2015/08/03/us/dating-app-sex-offender-registry/index.html

************************************************************************

Zach Anderson is 19 and a typical teenager. He's into computers and wants to build a career around his love for electronics.

But those plans and any semblance of a normal life are for now out the window. Under court order, he can't access the Internet, go to a mall or linger near a school or playground. His parents say because he has a 15-year-old brother, he can't even live at home any longer.

Why? He's been placed on the sex offender registry after a dating app hookup.

He was at his home in Elkhart, Indiana, when he met the girl, who lived across the state line in nearby southern Michigan.

The girl told Zach she was 17, but she lied. She was only 14, and by having sex with her, Zach was committing a crime. He was arrested and convicted.

*************************************************************************

 

[Sriram]

In today's CNN....they are branding the girls.

http://us.cnn.com/2015/08/31/us/sex-trafficking-branding/index.html

*********************************************************************

A clear sign of that life is tattooed in big bold letters across her chest.

"This right here," she said pointing to her tattoo. "I call it my wall wound. I got it when I was 14 years old, and he was one of my pimps," she said.

Adriana's trafficker had persuaded her to have his name tattooed across her chest.

"It lets other pimps know that this is their property," said Vice Sgt. Ron Fisher of the Los Angeles Police Department in Van Nuys. Fisher has seen untold numbers of them as his unit works the streets and the Internet, trying to find underage.... girls being trafficked.

Police and anti-trafficking advocates are seeing those brands on girls more and more in recent years.

"The first time I became aware of this was probably five years ago. It's just another way to control them [the girls], and let other pimps know that, 'Hey, this individual belongs to me,'" LAPD Capt. Lillian Carranza said. The branding shows up all over the girls' bodies.

**********************************************************************

[Humph Warden Bennett]

Hi everyone,

On the one hand child prostitution is rampant and on the other hand this....

http://us.cnn.com/2015/08/03/us/dating-app-sex-offender-registry/index.html

************************************************************************

Zach Anderson is 19 and a typical teenager. He's into computers and wants to build a career around his love for electronics.

But those plans and any semblance of a normal life are for now out the window. Under court order, he can't access the Internet, go to a mall or linger near a school or playground. His parents say because he has a 15-year-old brother, he can't even live at home any longer.

Why? He's been placed on the sex offender registry after a dating app hookup.

He was at his home in Elkhart, Indiana, when he met the girl, who lived across the state line in nearby southern Michigan.

The girl told Zach she was 17, but she lied. She was only 14, and by having sex with her, Zach was committing a crime. He was arrested and convicted.

*************************************************************************

 

IMHO this is similar to a case in England some years ago which involved a teetotaller having his drink spiked without his knowledge or consent. He was convicted of drunk driving, fined, and banned. Sometimes the law is an ass.

[Owlswing]

Hi everyone,

On the one hand child prostitution is rampant and on the other hand this....

http://us.cnn.com/2015/08/03/us/dating-app-sex-offender-registry/index.html

************************************************************************

Zach Anderson is 19 and a typical teenager. He's into computers and wants to build a career around his love for electronics.

But those plans and any semblance of a normal life are for now out the window. Under court order, he can't access the Internet, go to a mall or linger near a school or playground. His parents say because he has a 15-year-old brother, he can't even live at home any longer.

Why? He's been placed on the sex offender registry after a dating app hookup.

He was at his home in Elkhart, Indiana, when he met the girl, who lived across the state line in nearby southern Michigan.

The girl told Zach she was 17, but she lied. She was only 14, and by having sex with her, Zach was committing a crime. He was arrested and convicted.

*************************************************************************

 

IMHO this is similar to a case in England some years ago which involved a teetotaller having his drink spiked without his knowledge or consent. He was convicted of drunk driving, fined, and banned. Sometimes the law is an ass.

The problem is, in this country, that the rule is that "Ignorance of the law is no defence at law", not knowing it is illegal does not stop it being illegal.

[Leonard James]

The problem is, in this country, that the rule is that "Ignorance of the law is no defence at law", not knowing it is illegal does not stop it being illegal.

But mercy should always season justice ... to quote the Bard.

[Owlswing]

The problem is, in this country, that the rule is that "Ignorance of the law is no defence at law", not knowing it is illegal does not stop it being illegal.

But mercy should always season justice ... to quote the Bard.

Yeah, but Appeal lawyers have to be able earn their share of the loot!

[Leonard James]

Yeah, but Appeal lawyers have to be able earn their share of the loot!

Let them find another job! There should be no appeal against mercy seasoned justice.

[Outrider]

The problem is, in this country, that the rule is that "Ignorance of the law is no defence at law", not knowing it is illegal does not stop it being illegal.

How is ignorance of the law relevant? He's been rendered incapable of rational behaviour by someone else's actions, yet still found guilty as though he were in control. People get away with murder - literally - with 'death by dangerous driving' because their self-induced alcohol levels mean they wouldn't be considered competent at the time for a murder charge to stick.

O.

[Owlswing]

LJ and Outrider

Where did I say that I agreed with the principles? I don't but they exist!

[Harrowby Hall]

In the case of Zach Anderson (Sriram's example) it should be remebered that many US states have an offence (or offense as they misspell it) called Statutory Rape.

Statutory Rape is based upon two principles:

1.   That a (usually) female who is below the age of consent is TOTALLY INCAPABLE of consenting to sexual intercourse under any circumstance. She totally lacks the capacity to engage in sexual intercourse irrespective of her physical or mental development or maturity..

2.   The male may or may not be aware of her age but that is immaterial. By engaging in sexual intercourse with her he has raped her, even though she may have encouraged or demanded the act.

This has been complicated in some jurisdictions by the introduction of so-called Romeo and Juliet laws which allow a special dispensation should the male be not more than, perhaps, three years older than the female and the act is consensual.

In Zach Anderson's case the situation is irrefutable: he is a rapist and a dangerous criminal. The law has determind this. Never mind the biology. Never mind that girls - on average - reach sexual maturity nearly two years before boys. It is always the boy's fault.

In the second case, quoted by Humph, this was probably determined by the court of first instance. I would guess that there were grounds for an appeal.

[Hope]

IMHO this is similar to a case in England some years ago which involved a teetotaller having his drink spiked without his knowledge or consent. He was convicted of drunk driving, fined, and banned. Sometimes the law is an ass.

The problem is, in this country, that the rule is that "Ignorance of the law is no defence at law", not knowing it is illegal does not stop it being illegal.

Not sure that "Ignorance of the law is no defence at law" even touches this case.  It wasn't the law he was ignorant of, Matt.  It was the spiking of his drink that he was ignorant of!

[Hope]

How is ignorance of the law relevant? He's been rendered incapable of rational behaviour by someone else's actions, yet still found guilty as though he were in control. People get away with murder - literally - with 'death by dangerous driving' because their self-induced alcohol levels mean they wouldn't be considered competent at the time for a murder charge to stick.

O.

I assume that he would have appealed the judgement since, as you say, he was incapable as a result of an action of a 3rd party.

[Harrowby Hall]

I'm not entirely sure about this, but couldn't spiking someone's drink be considered causing "actual bodily harm" or considered to be an assault? Should the unfortunate individual have had some mishap, that would almost certainly have been the case.

Should the person have been involved in some incident whilst under the influence of alcohol, then the spiker would have been an accessory.

[Outrider]

LJ and Outrider

Where did I say that I agreed with the principles? I don't but they exist!

Apologies, CMG, that wasn't aimed at you, so much as just thrown out in response to your comment - not intending to shoot the messenger

O.

[Owlswing]

LJ and Outrider

Where did I say that I agreed with the principles? I don't but they exist!

Apologies, CMG, that wasn't aimed at you, so much as just thrown out in response to your comment - not intending to shoot the messenger

O.

S'OK!

[jeremyp]

I'm not entirely sure about this, but couldn't spiking someone's drink be considered causing "actual bodily harm" or considered to be an assault? Should the unfortunate individual have had some mishap, that would almost certainly have been the case.

Should the person have been involved in some incident whilst under the influence of alcohol, then the spiker would have been an accessory.

I would say it is an assault.  The person doing the spiking deliberately poisoned the spikee.  Even if the teetotaller didn't lose control of his car and kill somebody, he did lose his driving licence which would have been a matter of a lot of cost and inconvenience.