You also can't legally enter a contract of any kind at that age.

This isn't strictly true, in some states you can marry kids. And they make an exception for statutory rape if it occurs between spouses.

The legality of paying for intimate acts varies wildly from country to country and even in the USA, from state to state.

I make no judgement about what is considered legal or not in any given area.

I'm mostly thinking about the common law of marrying off young persons. In many places the lower limit on how old you must be to marry, is shocking. Marrying a 14 year old isn't unheard of, even in developed countries. I just don't draw a significant distinction between being married at such a young age, and being paid for intercourse at the same age. Marriage at that age may be arguably more "legal" depending on the jurisdiction, but in my mind, you're not marrying a 14 year old for their hobbies, or personality. The only reason, again, that I can think of, where someone would propose to be married to someone so young, is if the person proposing the marriage is a similar age, or if they want to have sexual relations with someone who is that young.

So for me the line is blurred and I often conflate the point in my mind.

More to the point, statutory rape generally requires that the parents are opposed to the sexual acts. Otherwise, charges are generally not pressed against the offender. Again, this varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. To that end, if you have the written consent of the parents to engage in sexual acts with someone who is below the age where they can legally make such decisions, then it might be legal, again, depending on the jurisdiction.

This is entirely, and completely commentary from a neutral standpoint. Personally, I think anyone who would seek such an arrangement needs to see a therapist, or be locked up. Morally, I don't agree with it, but often, the law does not conform to my sense of morality.

I'm just saying, I understand that some places allow for these kinds of contracts to exist. I'm not saying I agree with it at all, because I don't. I can't imagine any situation where a father, or mother, would willingly subject their child to that situation, unless they were truly and utterly desperate.... But the matter of their desperation for money to survive, is an entirely different discussion.

Oh, you misunderstand.

By expressing an understanding of the legalities of it, and speaking from a neutral viewpoint, plus some deficiency in reading comprehension (you clearly didn't read the whole post), you seem to have assumed that my statements meant I agreed with any of the laws I was discussing.

I don't.

Let me put it simply (and I said this in my previous post, more or less): no adult person should be seeking this kind of "deal" or "relationship" with someone who is under the age of consent.

I recognise that with parental permission you can attain concent to (at the very least) marry an underage person. I don't agree that people this young should be allowed to be married or perform sexual acts even with the consent of the parents. The law disagrees.

I don't like it, and I don't have to.

My post was largely a commentary on how fucked up the legal system is for allowing this.

You want change? Pass new laws.

do you even know what "common law" means?

Yes. But apparently you don't.

Yes, the UK uses common law. Also, so do many current or former "Commonwealth", including, but not limited to, the USA.

Common law is why overturning Roe v. Wade made abortion bans possible. Roe v. Wade was the common law precedent that allowed for women to have the right to an abortion.

And no, contacts cannot overrule the law, whether from a law passed by the governing body, or by common law. This is why i essentially said, if you don't like it/agree with it, change the laws.

Make it illegal. Change the law to make it illegal.

Then, regardless of the contract, it is a crime.

As for the rich and any affect this might have on me.... The rich do this shit, not to dehumanize us "Poor's", but because they've already dehumanized us. I don't think this is a cause, this is an effect.

But I'll give you an upvote for sharing your opinion. I'll fight anyone who tries to take your opinion away from you.

For me it's about freedom.

Freedom has limits that most don't really talk about. To me, the limits of freedom exist where your freedom and the freedom of others intersect. If your freedom is impacting the ability for someone else to enjoy their freedoms, then it needs to be a matter settled by law.

Murdering someone kinda removes that person's ability to exercise their freedoms.

Someone getting freaky behind closed doors, doesn't affect anyone else's freedoms.

Both individuals engaged in that act should be free to consent to the act, and revoke that consent at any time.

I'll reiterate, this assumes informed consent, not implied or assumed consent. Again, reiterating: children that have no understanding of sexual acts, or what they entail, cannot provide informed consent because they do not understand what they are consenting to, or what the ramifications are of that consent.

Does that clear things up a bit?