China tells 'dating' websites to stop selling sex

The Beijing Online News and Information Panel has accused 12 dating websites in Beijing of being a cover for prostitution and has ordered them to clean up their act: "The outrageous pimping content in some websites is very shocking." The 12 sites are loaded with similar information, including "service items, pricing and contact information." One of the websites, ostensibly a lonely-hearts dating service, contained a posting supposedly from a young woman describing herself as a "professional pleasure giver." The online panel, which has representatives from government, academia and the public, has ordered a complete purge of such information from the sites by June 1.

News source: Physorg

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

No charges over 'suicide' on web

Next Story

µTorrent 1.7 Build 2228 Beta

24 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

Shining Arcanine, your logic can not be applied to real life.

Age limits are justified by the fact that we do change as we get older. We learn and develop. Our brains change. Our bodies change. There is a huge difference between a full grown adult and a baby.

A five year old will not have the knowledge or emotional maturity etc of an 18 year old. A five year old could not make a responsible and fully informed decision as to whether to have sex, but an eighteen year old probably can. They have knowledge, experience and more developed reasoning skills.

Now I use the word probably and that's important. The government will set age laws based on the majority of people being knowledgeable and mature enough to make whatever decision by that age. No one claims that it is the fairest or most equal way to do things. No one denies that the transition between childhood and adulthood is long with a fat blurred line rather than a distinct one.

Do you think it would be preferable to scrap all age laws and just let people do whatever they want at whatever age? Let two year olds smoke when they can not understand the consequences. Let paedophiles abuse kids of any age? Let a six year old attempt to learn to drive? The system we have is the most practical - although it could do with tidying up somewhat.

Oh yeah, and back on topic...China stops dating sites advertising prostitution. Whoopee. This might be news if the accusations were made up to try and get rid of dating websites altogether but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Persephone said,
Shining Arcanine, your logic can not be applied to real life.

Age limits are justified by the fact that we do change as we get older. We learn and develop. Our brains change. Our bodies change. There is a huge difference between a full grown adult and a baby.

A five year old will not have the knowledge or emotional maturity etc of an 18 year old. A five year old could not make a responsible and fully informed decision as to whether to have sex, but an eighteen year old probably can. They have knowledge, experience and more developed reasoning skills.

Now I use the word probably and that's important. The government will set age laws based on the majority of people being knowledgeable and mature enough to make whatever decision by that age. No one claims that it is the fairest or most equal way to do things. No one denies that the transition between childhood and adulthood is long with a fat blurred line rather than a distinct one.

Do you think it would be preferable to scrap all age laws and just let people do whatever they want at whatever age? Let two year olds smoke when they can not understand the consequences. Let paedophiles abuse kids of any age? Let a six year old attempt to learn to drive? The system we have is the most practical - although it could do with tidying up somewhat.

Oh yeah, and back on topic...China stops dating sites advertising prostitution. Whoopee. This might be news if the accusations were made up to try and get rid of dating websites altogether but that doesn't seem to be the case.

Persephone, it is not that my logic cannot be applied to real life, but rather people's inordinate desire for instant gratification that prevents my logic from being applied to real life. As for learning, feral people are typically much less developed than someone at age three or four and people are now less mature at x age than people were mature at x age in the 1950s. In the 1950s, someone eighteen or of any age was never considered to be mature enough to decide to have extramarital sex. Now people at age eighteen are less mature than people age thirteen were in the 1950s and they are declared mature enough. I find fault with that logic.

When you say government, it is unclear what government you mean, as tens if not hundreds of thousands of governments exist in the United States, as local, regional and state governments exist in addition to the one federal government that unites the States, but regardless, governments exist only to pass laws that enable people to peacefully coexist, protect against domestic violence and foreign invasion, and settle disputes; no government has the proper authority to pass laws that create inequality among its citizens.

As for the idea that "the government will set age laws based on the majority of people being knowledgeable and mature enough to make whatever decision by that age," if things operated on that principle, nothing stands in the way of the establishment of a socialist state in the United States like what existed in the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Decisions are made by people when they need to be made, not because those making them are both able to decide for the sake of it and "knowledge and mature enough," whatever being knowledgeable and mature enough means, as it has never been defined and cannot be defined.

As for whether or not it would be "preferable to scrap all age laws," it is paramount for the very existence of a free state to ensure that all laws are universal for all of its citizens. Things must be done on some basis other than age or in the case of an outright ban or full legalization, no basis at all. Persephone, you seem to think that removing age as a basis for laws means allowing anyone to do something. That is not true. While it could mean complete legalization, it could also mean a complete ban. Given the nature of your objections, if you were to accept my logic, you would support outlawing tobacco and extramarital sex.

As for driving, it is a moot point, as the way things are presently going, driving will be outlawed in the next fifty years anyway. After all, the state/federal government (depending on which one gets to it first, even through only the state governments have the constitutional authority to outlaw driving) is always looking for new laws to pass and technology is progressing so fast that it will soon no longer be necessary for people to drive cars in all situations:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...in_page_id=1770

Although I said earlier that I would not share my opinions on off topic categories, I think it is appropriate to say in this instance (as there is a better alternative to the "let everyone to drive" society that you seem to think that removing minimum age requirements would establish) that I do not think that outlawing driving is the way to go. Instead, things should be changed so that if a person is tall enough to drive a car, they should be able to go through the necessary procedures to become licensed, but those procedures should not be anything like they are now in that:

  • Driver's education classes should be mandatory and require a grade of 95% to pass instead of the 70% that is required now (in my state anyway)
  • People should be required to pass extremely rigorous tests (i.e. tests that require military precision) prior to receiving a license.
In addition, I think that all traffic laws should be strictly enforced (if some are not enforced, they should be repealed so that the law is clear) and that a law should be passed mandating the death penalty when collisions are caused by severe neglect, much like the analogous anti-fire law in Japan (where they have fewer fires despite having homes that are entirely made out of wood and in rare situations, having lit candles in origami). If all of these things are done, I strongly believe that traffic collisions would become a rare occurrence and thus there would be little reason for the government to outlaw driving and any attempt to outlaw driving would be entirely unfounded. And yes, I would support letting a six-year-old go through the procedures to acquire a driver's license (i.e. learn to drive) so long as that six-year-old meets the minimum height requirements that would be established in place of minimum age requirements. If things are such that all six-year-olds would not meet the minimum height requirements, then that is fine too.

My main concern with all of what I have stated in this news post's comments section is that people be equal; the only other concern that I have expressed in this news post's comments section is that driving not be outlawed because it was the easy thing to do to stop people from dying (the death count in my state from vehicle collisions has been 4000 to 5000 since the reinvasion of Iraq started in March of 2003, which is sadly more than enough reason to outlaw driving given the response that the War on Terrorism's casualty count has drawn).

Why is this news story on the Neowin front page? Who gives a damn if ANY country is closing down prostitution sites? I don't think it should be illegal for consenting adults, but that's besides the point. This story is not newsworthy from ANY perspective...bleh.

As a consequence of time and space as predicted by Einstein's theory of relativity, it is possible for someone to be a thousand years old according to his birth certificate and still be five.

That leaves the question, what is an adult? Is it someone who is 21 as many laws still indicate or 18 as some newer laws indicate and what happens when a person is above those ages yet has a body that is still below them either because of physics or because of some medical procedure?

The notion of someone reaching adult status by having some age and thus being more entitled than others, or shall I say, more equal than others, is absurd. The idea that this is acceptable because only those above an arbitrary age are entitled is equally absurd, as someone can engage in intercourse a few hours before their birth date, be physically and legally below that age and be punished by the justice system because of it while someone else can engage in sexual intercourse on their birth date, hours before they were actually born and be considered by the justice system to be exercising his right because of his age while he was either no older or perhaps even younger than the person who was punished. The legal system does not and cannot clearly define what an adult is and thus entitling people because they are given adult state at an arbitrarily defined age is wrong. Even if birthdates were considered to the millisecond (stating that the day begins after that millisecond), measurement errors would ensure that someone who is younger would be entitled to such activities when someone who is older is not. Heck, that even happens now. The clocks can be off such that someone could be considered to be either a day older than they are or a day younger than they are.

In the highest dimension of things, we are all children and none of us are "adults." We are all the same people we were when we were younger and although some might argue otherwise, if someone kills someone, time passes and they are brought to court, will the court seriously consider the argument, "I am no longer the person that killed that man." The entire notion of someone being more entitled to something than others because some arbitrary age grants someone adult status is flawed. Thus, stating that something should be illegal for one group and legal for another on the basis of age is wrong. As a consequence of this and the fact that no one would support the notion of Prostitution under an age greater than zero, Prostitution should not be allowed in any case, regardless of whether or not consent is involved.

I doubt anyone would argue that someone 1 day shy of being 18 years old is any different in terms of maturity than someone 1 day over 18. The reason that ages are used for certain things is more a matter of feasibility. If we had some magic maturity test, we might administer it to everyone periodically and give them a maturity score. So perhaps if your maturity score is > 18, you can smoke. However, carrying out such a test is largely infeasible.

What is done instead, is to determine the average maturity score of different ages, and then choose an age that meets the acceptable maturity score. For example, in Canada there is talk of having elderly drivers take mandatory tests. The reason a certain age (say 65) is selected would be because people that old have a statistically higher chance of causing accidents. Certainly there exists 80 year old drives that are less likely to have accidents than 20 year old drivers, but it would be infeasible to administer a driving test to every single driver over 20 every year or so.

Andareed said,
I doubt anyone would argue that someone 1 day shy of being 18 years old is any different in terms of maturity than someone 1 day over 18. The reason that ages are used for certain things is more a matter of feasibility. If we had some magic maturity test, we might administer it to everyone periodically and give them a maturity score. So perhaps if your maturity score is > 18, you can smoke. However, carrying out such a test is largely infeasible.

What is done instead, is to determine the average maturity score of different ages, and then choose an age that meets the acceptable maturity score. For example, in Canada there is talk of having elderly drivers take mandatory tests. The reason a certain age (say 65) is selected would be because people that old have a statistically higher chance of causing accidents. Certainly there exists 80 year old drives that are less likely to have accidents than 20 year old drivers, but it would be infeasible to administer a driving test to every single driver over 20 every year or so.

If such a maturity test existed, fixing it to an average for any particular age would be problematic as the maturity level for any given age changes as time passes. The average maturity level at age eighteen today is similar to the average maturity level at age thirteen or fourteen in the 1950s. Furthermore, with such a test, it is quite possible that a younger age could have greater maturity than an older age. Maturity levels have been dropping since the late 1960s. At some point they will start to rise again and at that point, exactly what would be done? This is of course assuming that an ideal maturity level can be found, that it exists at age 18 (which is quite illogical due to the fact that the maturity levels at any given age vary continuously with time) and a test for it can exist.

Shining Arcanine said...
So you think smoking and alcohol consumption should be legal for a 13 year old if they so chose, based on the fact that they want to be treated equally?

I never said that people should be able to choose to consume alcohol or tobacco. I only said that there are two ways that equality can occur and that is either through an outright ban or complete legalization. I will not say which of the two that I support, but you can say which of the two that you support.

Edit: In more mathematical terms, equality with regard to age occurs when minimum ages are set to either zero or a variable that tends to infinity, which either legalizes or bans some thing for all ages, be it driving, being able to leave the education system, consuming alcohol, smoking <insert non-prescription drug here> or extramarital sex. Of those five categories (there is are more, but for each case, either things would have to be further generalized to include it or I cannot recall it at this time), the news post is about extramarital sex. Hence why I am not stating what I support outside of that area.

Edit: In mathematics, one case is enough to demonstrate that something is wrong. In theory, a logical proof could be constructed using my first post in this new post's comments section and your response to demonstrate that the minimum age laws for tobacco and alcohol should be set to a variable that tends to infinity, outlawing the two of them.

China does many silly censoring things, but at least this one didn't raise my eyebrows much. Maybe it's because I'm in Sweden and prostitution is outlawed here too. Not something I agree with really, because as many expected, it's harder for the cops to keep "underground prostitution" in check. Because prostitution itself as a phenomenon is of course not going away regardless what they do. It just became more hidden here, and prostitutes do it in their own homes instead, by themselves. One can question if the situation is right now not more dangerous for the prostitutes. There's also the thing about letting adults do what they want with their own bodies. As long as children aren't involved, and heavy drugs are still illegal (due to the costs to society and tax payers), I can't care much.

In places where Prostitution is legal, there is one less thing between involving children and not and as is so often the case, people in businesses, which legalized Prostitution involves, always look for that one thing that no competitors does that they can do to attract customers.

Furthermore, are we not all children? If set arbitrary ages upon which people are adults (and thus more entitled than others), then there is little difference between being one minute from that age and being that age and if there is little difference between being one minute from an age and being that age, then there is little difference from being two minutes from that age and that age and if there is little difference in between two minutes from being that age and being that age, then there is little difference between being three minutes from that age and being that age, and so on, such that f(n + 1) ~ f(n) and therefore f(0) ~ f(t) as t tends towards infinity. This is known as mathematical induction. You could argue that the conventional difference of one day sets this apart, but if someone is born at precisely 12:00:00 AM on x day and they engage in prostitution at precisely 11:59:00 PM on x - 1 day, is there not a difference of one minute? My point is that if Prostitution is allowed for one age, it must be allowed for any age, as to allow it for one age and not for another age is inequality and anywhere there is inequality in society people will push for equality, which will occur either through an outright ban on a practice or through the legalization of that practice for all. Regardless of what practices people claim some arbitrary age entitles them to a license to perform, the legalization of any single thing for any age, is the legalization of that thing for all ages. Any physicist can tell you that time is only relative.

Shining Arcanine said,
In places where Prostitution is legal, there is one less thing between involving children and not and as is so often the case, people in businesses, which legalized Prostitution involves, always look for that one thing that no competitors does that they can do to attract customers.

Furthermore, are we not all children? If set arbitrary ages upon which people are adults (and thus more entitled than others), then there is little difference between being one minute from that age and being that age and if there is little difference between being one minute from an age and being that age, then there is little difference from being two minutes from that age and that age and if there is little difference in between two minutes from being that age and being that age, then there is little difference between being three minutes from that age and being that age, and so on, such that f(n + 1) ~ f(n) and therefore f(0) ~ f(t) as t tends towards infinity. This is known as mathematical induction. You could argue that the conventional difference of one day sets this apart, but if someone is born at precisely 12:00:00 AM on x day and they engage in prostitution at precisely 11:59:00 PM on x - 1 day, is there not a difference of one minute? My point is that if Prostitution is allowed for one age, it must be allowed for any age, as to allow it for one age and not for another age is inequality and anywhere there is inequality in society people will push for equality, which will occur either through an outright ban on a practice or through the legalization of that practice for all. Regardless of what practices people claim some arbitrary age entitles them to a license to perform, the legalization of any single thing for any age, is the legalization of that thing for all ages. Any physicist can tell you that time is only relative.

that was the most rediculous thing i've heard all day...

omega3112 said,

that was the most rediculous thing i've heard all day...

I agree, what he is referring to most likely is the Sorites Paradox. But that has no revelance here since most countries have age limits, at which a person can be deemed as an adult or not.

Shining Arcanine said,
In places where Prostitution is legal, there is one less thing between involving children and not and as is so often the case, people in businesses, which legalized Prostitution involves, always look for that one thing that no competitors does that they can do to attract customers.

Furthermore, are we not all children? If set arbitrary ages upon which people are adults (and thus more entitled than others), then there is little difference between being one minute from that age and being that age and if there is little difference between being one minute from an age and being that age, then there is little difference from being two minutes from that age and that age and if there is little difference in between two minutes from being that age and being that age, then there is little difference between being three minutes from that age and being that age, and so on, such that f(n + 1) ~ f(n) and therefore f(0) ~ f(t) as t tends towards infinity. This is known as mathematical induction. You could argue that the conventional difference of one day sets this apart, but if someone is born at precisely 12:00:00 AM on x day and they engage in prostitution at precisely 11:59:00 PM on x - 1 day, is there not a difference of one minute? My point is that if Prostitution is allowed for one age, it must be allowed for any age, as to allow it for one age and not for another age is inequality and anywhere there is inequality in society people will push for equality, which will occur either through an outright ban on a practice or through the legalization of that practice for all. Regardless of what practices people claim some arbitrary age entitles them to a license to perform, the legalization of any single thing for any age, is the legalization of that thing for all ages. Any physicist can tell you that time is only relative.

In logic we call your argument of "mathematical induction" a slippery slope.

This is a response to the replies here in general. If you are going to belittle yourself, please do it offline. It is bad enough that you depreciate yourselves with such ignorant and immature comments; you do not need public service announcements of them.

Shining Arcanine said,
This is a response to the replies here in general. If you are going to belittle yourself, please do it offline. It is bad enough that you depreciate yourselves with such ignorant and immature comments; you do not need public service announcements of them.

You're grossly misusing the principle of mathematical induction. I could say that there is little difference between 1 and 2. I could then say that there is little difference between n-1 and n. Using your logic, I would then conclude that there is little difference between 1 and infinity.

Andareed said,

You're grossly misusing the principle of mathematical induction. I could say that there is little difference between 1 and 2. I could then say that there is little difference between n-1 and n. Using your logic, I would then conclude that there is little difference between 1 and infinity.

If the difference of one minute is so little that the two can be regarded as equal (would anyone here say that a difference of one minute really matters?), then the next step is so little from the previous that it can be regarded as equal as well and so on. It is known as the slippery slope. People can either accept extramarital sex as being fine at any age or denounce extramarital sex as being wrong at every age. Saying that it is okay for one human being to have extramarital sex and wrong for another human being to have extramarital sex on the basis of age is simply illogical.

If you accept that maturity can be used as a basis for restricting certain things (e.g. who can prostitute themselves) than age can logically (in the sense of statistical logic) be used in place of maturity for restricting things, as there is a correlation between maturity and age. This correlation isn't absolute, but it is much more feasible to use age as a restriction than maturity, so the imperfection of the correlation is generally considered acceptable.

Andareed said,
If you accept that maturity can be used as a basis for restricting certain things (e.g. who can prostitute themselves) than age can logically (in the sense of statistical logic) be used in place of maturity for restricting things, as there is a correlation between maturity and age. This correlation isn't absolute, but it is much more feasible to use age as a restriction than maturity, so the imperfection of the correlation is generally considered acceptable.

Many things have been considered acceptable in the past. That did not make them right. Much like the past is our past; our present is our future's past. Therefore the present assumes the same form as the past and is just as fallible. The idea that discrimination based upon a person's age is okay is of the same form that slavery once was in this regard and therefore is just as fallible as slavery was when it was the present. Furthermore, the example does not need to be slavery.

By the way, I do not accept the idea that maturity can be used as a legal basis for restricting certain things, as maturity is indeterminate. Furthermore, maturity is independent of age, regardless what correlation might exist between them, as the existence of precocious individuals throughout time precludes any possible correlation between them from being anything more than a mere statistic.

Andareed said,
You're grossly misusing the principle of mathematical induction. I could say that there is little difference between 1 and 2. I could then say that there is little difference between n-1 and n. Using your logic, I would then conclude that there is little difference between 1 and infinity.

:nuts: lol

1 and infinity are in fact the same, divided by zero.