'Sex With Minor Not Crime If Not Forced'

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Of course. Once again a law based upon religious principles of morality. Any woman, or man for that matter, should free to negotiate any services they wish to provide for cash, or for anything they consider fair exchange.

Just like the old days, before them damn gummits and them damn laws.

F'km all!

[Xamonas Chegwé]

[MrFungus420]

Why should it be illegal for a 16 year old girl to have sex with anyone older? If it's forced, sure. But if it's her choice?

+1 and she obviously thought she was safer with him than were she had been .Still he did probably abuse his position as Pro-tem Father figure .

Oh cool. Does that mean its alright for me to have sex with a 17 year old girl who's mad into me (for some reason) and I've been avoiding the past 3 weeks?

No, it isn't...



Send her my way

[FBM]

In a further display of twisted logic, while it's OK to have sex with minors, including trading room-and-board with them for sex, they're trying everything they can to shut down a guy who lets his adult patrons engage in free sex. This is the VERY NEXT STORY in the same newspaper that printed the one in the OP:

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/na ... 47775.htmlSex Club Owner Booked

By Park Si-soo
Staff Reporter

The owner of a club in Seoul, which made the headlines Tuesday for its free-sex atmosphere, was booked, not for the business itself but for the violation of some construction rules, Wednesday.

Gangnam Police Station said the owner expanded the restaurant without permission and provided pub-like services after identifying his business as restaurant, which are both illegal.

Police and Gangnam ward office officials took the owner, identified as Na, to a police station at 11 p.m. Tuesday.

Na said, ``I’ve never allowed guests to engage in such lewd behaviors as reported. But I have no idea what happened after I left the club around midnight.’’

The club has been causing a stir for its laissez-faire attitude to sex ― members purportedly engage in group sex and swap partners, while others enjoy drinks and watch them.

Despite growing calls to punish him for indecency, police and legal experts are not sure whether such a business is breaking the law.

pss@koreatimes.co.kr

[lordpasternack]

Humans. What a bunch of dirty bastards.

[Animavore]

Humans. What a bunch of dirty bastards.

No dirt on me what-so-ever

[Psi Wavefunction]

In a further display of twisted logic, while it's OK to have sex with minors, including trading room-and-board with them for sex, they're trying everything they can to shut down a guy who lets his adult patrons engage in free sex. This is the VERY NEXT STORY in the same newspaper that printed the one in the OP:

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/na ... 47775.htmlSex Club Owner Booked

By Park Si-soo
Staff Reporter

The owner of a club in Seoul, which made the headlines Tuesday for its free-sex atmosphere, was booked, not for the business itself but for the violation of some construction rules, Wednesday.

Gangnam Police Station said the owner expanded the restaurant without permission and provided pub-like services after identifying his business as restaurant, which are both illegal.

Police and Gangnam ward office officials took the owner, identified as Na, to a police station at 11 p.m. Tuesday.

Na said, ``I’ve never allowed guests to engage in such lewd behaviors as reported. But I have no idea what happened after I left the club around midnight.’’

The club has been causing a stir for its laissez-faire attitude to sex ― members purportedly engage in group sex and swap partners, while others enjoy drinks and watch them.

Despite growing calls to punish him for indecency, police and legal experts are not sure whether such a business is breaking the law.

pss@koreatimes.co.kr

Since when does 'decency' have anything to do with the law!? :pissed:

Oh right, religious fucktards...

How about just let consenting human beings do whatever they fuck they want as long as it poses no harm to those around who haven't given their consent? Wouldn't that be a much simpler principle to follow by? Who the fuck are we to impose our highly subjective tastes on others?

[FBM]

The current SK president is a fucking xtian, has publicly stated that Korea is a blessing of God or some such, has resorted to underhanded tactics to suppress Buddhism, has cracked down on prostitution and has forced his hypocritical, self-righteous, pretentious agenda on a public that doesn't want it. His approval rating is around 30% IIRC, and he's itching to go to war with NK. He's Bush with slanted eyes and kimchee-breath. Fucking dimwit.

Oh, and he orchestrated the political witch-hunt that resulted in the former president's suicide. His approval rating may not even be 30% at the moment.

[Geoff]

I think payment can come in different forms, and I would think letting her stay at his house and giving her pocket money would count as payment.

Setting aside the age factor though, couldn't you apply that reasoning to any couple living together where one partner has little or no income?

[leo-rcc]

I think payment can come in different forms, and I would think letting her stay at his house and giving her pocket money would count as payment.

Setting aside the age factor though, couldn't you apply that reasoning to any couple living together where one partner has little or no income?

That was what I was thinking as well.

[FBM]

I think payment can come in different forms, and I would think letting her stay at his house and giving her pocket money would count as payment.

Setting aside the age factor though, couldn't you apply that reasoning to any couple living together where one partner has little or no income?

That was what I was thinking as well.

That describes quite a large percentage of marriages throughout history, especially back in the days when dem wimmens weren't allowed to work outside the home. (But still more than a few these days, if you look at it globally.) Clinton Huxley around? He could provide some insight into this...

[Pappa]

[Warren Dew]

I used to tutor some lawyers who told me that not only was the age of consent 13 over here, that the only act legally recognized as sex is vaginal penetration with your penis. (No, not your penis! I mean that generically.) You can stick it anywhere else and it's neither sex nor rape. If it's forced anal or whatever, the most they could get you for is assault. I have yet to understand the reasoning behind that.

It seems to me the reasoning is pretty simple: their definition of "sex" is "something that could result in a pregnancy". That may or may not be correct reasoning, but it seems to me pretty easy to understand.

[FBM]

My best guess is that it harkens back to the Chosun Dynasty when gisaeng, or whatever, would give blow/handjobs to the yangban (upper class) men at tea rooms. Since the yangban were the ones in power and getting the blow/handjobs, and Confucianism is very conservative towards sexual relations, they made the law such that only penis in vagina is sex. Legally, then, what they were doing wasn't technically sex, and their wives had no legal grounds to complain. The unforeseen (I suppose) result is that in Korea you can do a whole lot of things we'd consider rape without crossing that legal boundary.

[Thumpalumpacus]

In related news, Bill Clinton has reportedly applied for the job of Ambassador to Korea.