"I Got Into the Habbit of Paying for Boys" says French Minister, Still Popular

[Faeelin]

Well, riddle me this, Batman: if a male politician had sex with legal age male prostitutes in Thailand, and then wrote a book about it, would he be able to hold a ministerial position in the US federal government?

If the answer to this question is "yes", then indeed you are not puritanical prudes.

WTF? Are you shitting me?  Do you have any idea what life is like for people in the 3rd world who end up in the sex trade?

[Octavian]

American are puritanical prudes not because they do not embrace and cherish gay prostitution tourism (I bet many Frenchmen don't either) but because stuff like this is important to them when it comes to electing their officials.

Thai prostitutes of whatever age may well have been trafficked or otherwise subject to some form of compulsion, so yes, I think someone who regularly engages in such "tourism" suffers from a character defect which may legitimately be considered in evaluating that person's suitability for public office.

What I find interesting is also the fact that some people defend the minister just because he's gay.

[Jaron]

I'm not surprised in the least a homosexual would defend a fellow pervert.

[Martinus]

Well, riddle me this, Batman: if a male politician had sex with legal age male prostitutes in Thailand, and then wrote a book about it, would he be able to hold a ministerial position in the US federal government?

If the answer to this question is "yes", then indeed you are not puritanical prudes.

This is the sort of idiocy that leads to hyperbole.  Yes there is absolutely nothing between embracing going abroad to hire prostitutes as being excellent behavior for prominent officials and being a puritanical prude.

It's not about embracing. It's about disregarding private sex life of politicians as long as it is nothing illegal.

American are puritanical prudes not because they do not embrace and cherish gay prostitution tourism (I bet many Frenchmen don't either) but because stuff like this is important to them when it comes to electing their officials.

I don't know about France, but in this country having paid sex with underage prostitutes is illegal and can be prosecuted here, even if the acts took place in another country.

So it is about potentially illegal acts.

I helpfully bolded the part that makes your response irrelevant.

[Martinus]

Well, riddle me this, Batman: if a male politician had sex with legal age male prostitutes in Thailand, and then wrote a book about it, would he be able to hold a ministerial position in the US federal government?

If the answer to this question is "yes", then indeed you are not puritanical prudes.

WTF? Are you shitting me?  Do you have any idea what life is like for people in the 3rd world who end up in the sex trade?

Not really. Care to enlighten me? Whatever happened to libertarianism and free market?

[Martinus]

American are puritanical prudes not because they do not embrace and cherish gay prostitution tourism (I bet many Frenchmen don't either) but because stuff like this is important to them when it comes to electing their officials.

Thai prostitutes of whatever age may well have been trafficked or otherwise subject to some form of compulsion, so yes, I think someone who regularly engages in such "tourism" suffers from a character defect which may legitimately be considered in evaluating that person's suitability for public office.

I don't get this line of reasoning, really. Ministers are hired to perform their jobs, not to be moral beacons. 

Besides, it's not like he is doing it now - he is talking about his youth (which he says he regrets). Assuming he was not engaging in illegal acts, that places him above the likes of Barrack Obama or Bill Clinton who actually performed illegal acts in their youths (i.e. smoked marijuana).

The vehement reaction to this guy, from Americans mainly, is exactly because you guys are prudes and because of your internalized homophobia.

[Faeelin]

Not really. Care to enlighten me? Whatever happened to libertarianism and free market?

I'm not really sure why you're addressing me with comments about libertarianism and the free market, since I've never called them panaceas. But I am shocked, shocked, that the person who calls us prudes for condemning a trade forced upon young people with no options is clueless and had a hysterical knee jerk reaction. It's getting to be a bit of habit.

[Martinus]

American are puritanical prudes not because they do not embrace and cherish gay prostitution tourism (I bet many Frenchmen don't either) but because stuff like this is important to them when it comes to electing their officials.

Thai prostitutes of whatever age may well have been trafficked or otherwise subject to some form of compulsion, so yes, I think someone who regularly engages in such "tourism" suffers from a character defect which may legitimately be considered in evaluating that person's suitability for public office.

What I find interesting is also the fact that some people defend the minister just because he's gay.

It's more the case of him being attacked so vehemently because he is gay. I would be surprised if the French public bated an eye at a minister (of culture, of all things) who slept with female hookers.

[Valmy]

The vehement reaction to this guy, from Americans mainly, is exactly because you guys are prudes and because of your internalized homophobia.

Vehement?  We are just giving our opinions.  And yes there is no reason to oppose international prostitution besides the genders involved .

I don't get this line of reasoning, really. Ministers are hired to perform their jobs, not to be moral beacons.

Nah I don't really want a minister who says or does things that cross certain lines.  If he came out calling for persecution of gays I would probably be against him also even though it is not illegal to do so.  I apologize if I require politicians to do certain things for me to support them and not just blindly love them for not breaking any laws.

[Martinus]

Well, opinions they hold can affect their policies. And some may mean they are insane, which I guess is bad for someone who is supposed to perform their job properly.

I couldn't care less if they are immoral, though.

[Berkut]

The vehement reaction to this guy, from Americans mainly, is exactly because you guys are prudes and because of your internalized homophobia.

Vehement?  We are just giving our opinions.  And yes there is no reason to oppose international prostitution besides the genders involved .

I don't get this line of reasoning, really. Ministers are hired to perform their jobs, not to be moral beacons.

Nah I don't really want a minister who says or does things that cross certain lines.  If he came out calling for persecution of gays I would probably be against him also even though it is not illegal to do so.  I apologize if I require politicians to do certain things for me to support them and not just blindly love them for not breaking any laws being gay.

Fixed that for you.

[Valmy]

I couldn't care less if they are immoral, though.

You have absolutely no standards for that?  There is no level of depravity a public official could stoop to that would cause you to question their ability to make rational decisions based on principle?

[Martinus]

I couldn't care less if Bill cheated on Hillary either. I just don't find adultery or prostitution a big deal. I can't read people's minds. I can't fully appreciate the complexity of their sexual lifestyles. So it is their decision and as long as it does not affect their capability to perform their work properly, I don't give a rat's ass who they fuck and why.

[Berkut]

I couldn't care less if they are immoral, though.

You have absolutely no standards for that?  There is no level of depravity a public official could stoop to that would cause you to question their ability to make rational decisions based on principle?

He is so full of shit - if they guy had said he cannot stand gays, he would be the first in line demanding that he be forced to resign.

[Martinus]

I couldn't care less if they are immoral, though.

You have absolutely no standards for that?  There is no level of depravity a public official could stoop to that would cause you to question their ability to make rational decisions based on principle?

Well as long as it is legal, of course.