Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Thursday March 08 2018, @01:57AM   Printer-friendly
from the protecting-children dept.

France to set legal age of sexual consent as 15

France plans to fix the legal age of sexual consent as 15, meaning sex with someone younger than that would be considered rape.

Equality Minister Marlène Schiappa welcomed the move, which follows advice from doctors and legal experts. Currently, prosecutors must prove sex with someone under 15 was forced in order to bring rape charges. The change comes amid uproar over two recent cases of men accused of having sex with 11-year-old girls.

Under the existing legislation, if there is no violence or coercion proved, offenders may only be charged with sexual abuse of a minor and not rape. This has a maximum sentence of five years in prison and a fine of €75,000 (£66,000; $87,000).

[...] The government is to approve the new age limit as part of a package of other laws against sexual violence and harassment in the coming weeks. It had been discussing whether to set the age as 13 or 15, which is what groups fighting violence against children had campaigned for.

Les commentaires déplorables.

Also at The Local, NPR, and SBS.

Related: French Porn Star Hits Back at President Emmanuel Macron's Plans to Censor Online Porn


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 08 2018, @03:27AM (10 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 08 2018, @03:27AM (#649308)

    It used to be that a boy would get a job at a young age. This would provide experience. By perhaps age 13, give or take a few years, the boy had decent employment experience.

    There is a minimum age now, 14 if I remember right. Nearly-full employment freedom doesn't come until age 18. (leaving out selling alcohol)

    Assuming the age requirement is met, the boy still must deal with competition and overcome the minimum wage. That minimum wage means that most employers will not be willing to hire a boy; he has been made more expensive than he is worth. His lack of experience will mean he has little chance to get experience.

    We stick the typical boy with college debt. This makes him less appealing and less able as a husband and provider and father.

    We killed wages with oversupply. There are women in the workforce, illegal aliens running around, and even outsourcing. The boy needs the experience, but he can't offer to work below the minimum wage. Once there are adults at minimum wage, he has no chance.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Troll=1, Insightful=1, Informative=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 08 2018, @05:20AM (9 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 08 2018, @05:20AM (#649340)

    We killed wages with monopsony [wikipedia.org].

    There. FTFY.

    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday March 08 2018, @04:37PM (8 children)

      by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday March 08 2018, @04:37PM (#649536)

      In economics, a monopsony (from Ancient Greek μόνος (mónos) "single" + ὀψωνία (opsōnía) "purchase") is a market structure in which only one buyer interacts with many would-be sellers of a particular product. In the microeconomic theory of monopsony, a single entity is assumed to have market power over terms of offer to its sellers, as the only purchaser of a good or service, much in the same manner that a monopolist can influence the price for its buyers in a monopoly, in which only one seller faces many buyers.

      What is this, pretentious word day? What the heck are you talking about?

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by NotSanguine on Thursday March 08 2018, @04:59PM (7 children)

        by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday March 08 2018, @04:59PM (#649552) Homepage Journal

        Why didn't you quote from the section actually linked?
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony#Static_monopsony_in_a_labor_market [wikipedia.org]
        Maybe because you're just trying to distract from the issue?

        The lower employment and wages caused by monopsony power have two distinct effects on the economic welfare of the people involved. First, it redistributes welfare away from workers and to their employer(s). Secondly, it reduces the aggregate (or social) welfare enjoyed by both groups taken together, as the employers' net gain is smaller than the loss inflicted on workers.

        Being deliberately obtuse, I see. Good for you! I imagine that makes it easier to cling to your delusions.

        More detail here:
        https://eh.net/encyclopedia/monopsony-in-american-labor-markets/ [eh.net]

        And here:
        http://equitablegrowth.org/equitablog/monopsony-market-power-labor-market/ [equitablegrowth.org] which gives an example to which many on SN can relate (sorry, not cars):

        But employers don’t have to be sole employer for monopsonic behavior to arise. If there are a few powerful firms, collusion could drive down wages as well. As Mike Konczal of the Roosevelt Institute pointed out last year, the collusion among tech firms in Silicon Valley is a great example of monopsony power in the labor market. By agreeing not to compete with each other, big firms such as Apple Inc. and Google Inc. could get away with paying lower wages to their employees. There was no outside offer from another employer that could boost the wages of workers because employers weren’t competing enough for the services of workers with similar skills.

        What's more, wages are also held down (even in low-skill jobs like factory and fast food workers [nytimes.com]) through Non-compete clauses in employment contracts [nationalreview.com]:

        Non-compete agreements can be beneficial when they encourage businesses to make investments in human capital and other intangible property. Such agreements allow employers to operate free from the worry that a competitor will swoop in and poach employees, along with the trade secrets now held in their heads. When a white-collar worker in a management position moves to a competitor, it can be highly damaging to their former employer, given the worker’s knowledge of the company’s strategy and proprietary information.

        But worryingly, blue-collar and service workers also may be pressured to sign non-compete clauses, despite not possessing any proprietary knowledge. Almost 30 million Americans — about 18 percent of the workforce — are subject to non-compete agreements. That includes 14 percent of workers who earn less than $40,000 a year. Anecdotes abound of lower-income Americans who are contractually trapped in their current jobs, including the infamous case of the Jimmy John’s sandwich chain, which chose to require non-compete clauses for its service workers.

        Note that the links above are from both the NY Times and National Review -- so we're seeing the same conclusions from (funny about how facts can do that) all "sides".

        I assume you won't bother to reply as you really don't have anything worthwhile to say.

        --
        No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
        • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday March 08 2018, @05:30PM (6 children)

          by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday March 08 2018, @05:30PM (#649572)

          Why didn't you quote from the section actually linked?
          https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopsony#Static_monopsony_in_a_labor_market [wikipedia.org] [wikipedia.org]
          Maybe because you're just trying to distract from the issue?

          Being deliberately obtuse, I see. Good for you! I imagine that makes it easier to cling to your delusions

          Jesus H. Christ you people are getting touchy about stuff. I forgot there was a subsection linked. But sure, assume I'm arguing in bad faith.

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
          • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday March 08 2018, @05:39PM (4 children)

            by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday March 08 2018, @05:39PM (#649578)

            And I quoted what I did because the subsection was of a term I've never heard anyone use before in my life, so thought it would be useful to figure out what the heck it meant before reading a subapplication of it.

            --
            "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
            • (Score: 1, Flamebait) by NotSanguine on Thursday March 08 2018, @05:57PM (3 children)

              by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday March 08 2018, @05:57PM (#649585) Homepage Journal

              And I quoted what I did because the subsection was of a term I've never heard anyone use before in my life, so thought it would be useful to figure out what the heck it meant before reading a subapplication of it.

              Fair enough. But you didn't really figure out what was being talked about did you?

              All you did was do some hand-waving rather than pick up the (relatively simple) concept and make a reasoned argument.

              If you were unwilling or unable to make a reasoned argument, why dismiss it with:

              What is this, pretentious word day? What the heck are you talking about?

              And when it was explained to you, you still refuse to make any sort of argument *and* mod me down for explaining it.

              Is that how it is with you? If you can't muster an actual argument, you just respond angrily and mod others down to make yourself feel better?

              Not that I really care about the downmod, but apparently you do. Why is that? Does it make you feel powerful? More in control? If so, please go ahead and mod this down too, as I want you to be happy.

              --
              No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
              • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday March 08 2018, @08:06PM (1 child)

                by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday March 08 2018, @08:06PM (#649677)

                And when it was explained to you, you still refuse to make any sort of argument *and* mod me down for explaining it.

                No, I modded you down because you called me a bunch of names and insulted me.

                --
                "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
                • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday March 08 2018, @11:23PM

                  by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday March 08 2018, @11:23PM (#649769) Homepage Journal

                  No, I modded you down because you called me a bunch of names and insulted me.

                  For the record (please go back and confirm it) I didn't "call you names."

                  I suggested that you were being "deliberately obtuse." While that's unflattering, it's not name calling. Perhaps I made an incorrect assumption, but I drew a reasonable conclusion based upon your response.

                  I also suggested that you were deluded. Again, that's not name calling, that's a judgement about your mental state. Whether it's correct or not (which I suspect is a matter of some debate in the medical community, but I digress), is another matter. But again, that's not calling you names.

                  I also made an assumption that you didn't have anything worthwhile to say on this subject. Again, that's not calling you names. In fact, it appears (at least so far) that I was correct in that assumption.

                  Apparently, you were insulted by what I said. That's the first reasonable thing you've said in this entire exchange. I guess we're making progress. Hooray!

                  --
                  No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 08 2018, @08:18PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 08 2018, @08:18PM (#649684)

                If so, please go ahead and mod this down too, as I want you to be happy.

                Don't worry - I'll mod you down so whats-his-face doesn't have to bother. It'll make me happy!

          • (Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Thursday March 08 2018, @06:02PM

            by NotSanguine (285) <NotSanguineNO@SPAMSoylentNews.Org> on Thursday March 08 2018, @06:02PM (#649589) Homepage Journal

            Jesus H. Christ you people are getting touchy about stuff. I forgot there was a subsection linked. But sure, assume I'm arguing in bad faith.

            Who is this "you people"? If you don't like what *I* have to say, then that's me. I don't belong to some amorphous group. I speak *my* mind and don't parrot the broad brush "talking points" of others.

            Okay. I believe you. You weren't being deliberately obtuse. Was there anything confusing or difficult to understand about my explanation of labor monopsony or the language of the articles I linked?

            Do you have any questions or disagreement about the point being made, or are you just not interested enough to find out? If the former, let's discuss! If the latter, why respond at all?

            --
            No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr