14 year olds and sex with adults

[Argus]

So the Liberals, NDP and BQ all think it's perfectly fine for adults to have sex with fourteen year olds.

Would someone like to explain why that is? I mean, almost everywhere outside Tennessee the legal age of consent is 16. Why is it 14 here, and why would anyone, let alone three political parties, stand behind this and defend it? I know of one Liberal cabinet minister whose alleged to have kept a 15 year old prostitute but surely he's not the reason. Is it lack of morality, lack of imagination, or just that the parties which opposed to tory bill are stupid?

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

The law is a bit kooky with regard to age of consent, but there is a quote and link...

Perhaps the strongest policy argument against raising the age of consent from 14 to 16 is that it would place unprecedented limits on the sexual freedom of young persons. Hence, proponents of such a change may be challenged to provide empirical evidence demonstrating that adolescents under 16 are being sexually exploited or, alternatively, that the incidence of pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases among that age group calls for an expansion of the existing prohibitions. It must be noted that simply raising the age of consent to 16 would criminalize sexual activity between adolescents that is now legal. Because the modern sexual assault provisions of the Criminal Code no longer depend upon proof of intercourse, such an amendment could allow a 16-year-old to be prosecuted for virtually any sexual contact with a 15-year-old boyfriend or girlfriend.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/...bs/prb993-e.htm

It seems that the age of consent is meant to have a stipulation that between 14-18, one can only consent to sex with another person within 2 years of the other person. However, as I say, there are all sorts of kooky stipulations. You'll have to read through the link yourself to see them.

[tml12]

So the Liberals, NDP and BQ all think it's perfectly fine for adults to have sex with fourteen year olds.

Would someone like to explain why that is? I mean, almost everywhere outside Tennessee the legal age of consent is 16. Why is it 14 here, and why would anyone, let alone three political parties, stand behind this and defend it? I know of one Liberal cabinet minister whose alleged to have kept a 15 year old prostitute but surely he's not the reason. Is it lack of morality, lack of imagination, or just that the parties which opposed to tory bill are stupid?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

When I was 15, I would say about 30% of my grade was having sex. Whether or not I think that was correct (or too early, etc.), I certainly don't believe in criminalizing them.

[Argus]

When I was 15, I would say about 30% of my grade was having sex.  Whether or not I think that was correct (or too early, etc.), I certainly don't believe in criminalizing them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Were they having sex with thirty year olds? The age of consent does not govern sex between people of approximately the same age. There is nothing illegal about 13 year olds haveing sex with 14 year olds, for example. The intent of the law is to criminalize sex between children and adults.

[Argus]

The law is a bit kooky with regard to age of consent, but there is a quote and link...

Perhaps the strongest policy argument against raising the age of consent from 14 to 16 is that it would place unprecedented limits on the sexual freedom of young persons.

So? We put all sorts of restrictions on the freedom of young people, from curfews to not being allowed to drink, or drive or vote.

Hence, proponents of such a change may be challenged to provide empirical

evidence demonstrating that adolescents under 16 are being sexually exploited or, alternatively, that the incidence of pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases among that age group calls for an expansion of the existing prohibitions.

Why? I think we can take it as a given that is bad social policy to have 14 year olds beig seduced by forty year olds. Is there empiracl evidence that says 12 year olds are being exploded? No? Then why is there a law against them having sex with forty year olds? How about ten year olds. Is there empirical evidence of ten year olds being exploited sexually and having a high incidence of pregnancy or STDs? No? Then why isn't it legal for them to have sex with adults?

It must be noted that simply raising the age of consent to 16 would criminalize sexual activity between adolescents that is now legal.

Nonsense. The proposed law would have allowed a four year window between partners. Thus a 14 year old could still have sex with an 18 year old boyfriend, but not a thirty year old boyfriend.

However, as I say, there are all sorts of kooky stipulations. You'll have to read through the link yourself to see them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll tell you about a kooky situation: It's where everyone falls all over themselves to criminalize any kind of pornography or even naked pictures or stories which involve people who are under 18 but then line up to defend allowing adults to have sex with 14 year olds. How nuts is that? We'll put someone in prison for up to 5 years for even visiting a web site which has pictures of a 17 year old naked, but we'll let them have sex with a 14 year old.

[FTA Lawyer]

The law is a bit kooky with regard to age of consent, but there is a quote and link...

Perhaps the strongest policy argument against raising the age of consent from 14 to 16 is that it would place unprecedented limits on the sexual freedom of young persons.

So? We put all sorts of restrictions on the freedom of young people, from curfews to not being allowed to drink, or drive or vote.

Hence, proponents of such a change may be challenged to provide empirical

evidence demonstrating that adolescents under 16 are being sexually exploited or, alternatively, that the incidence of pregnancy or sexually transmitted diseases among that age group calls for an expansion of the existing prohibitions.

Why? I think we can take it as a given that is bad social policy to have 14 year olds beig seduced by forty year olds. Is there empiracl evidence that says 12 year olds are being exploded? No? Then why is there a law against them having sex with forty year olds? How about ten year olds. Is there empirical evidence of ten year olds being exploited sexually and having a high incidence of pregnancy or STDs? No? Then why isn't it legal for them to have sex with adults?

It must be noted that simply raising the age of consent to 16 would criminalize sexual activity between adolescents that is now legal.

Nonsense. The proposed law would have allowed a four year window between partners. Thus a 14 year old could still have sex with an 18 year old boyfriend, but not a thirty year old boyfriend.

However, as I say, there are all sorts of kooky stipulations. You'll have to read through the link yourself to see them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll tell you about a kooky situation: It's where everyone falls all over themselves to criminalize any kind of pornography or even naked pictures or stories which involve people who are under 18 but then line up to defend allowing adults to have sex with 14 year olds. How nuts is that? We'll put someone in prison for up to 5 years for even visiting a web site which has pictures of a 17 year old naked, but we'll let them have sex with a 14 year old.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Argus has hit the main points dead-on here.

I literally two days ago met with a 40 year old potential client who was convicted of making child pornography. In a nutshell, he took photos of a 14 year old girl in a hotel room. No sexual depictions or crazy exploitive fetish stuff or anything...just pictures.

She's under 18, the photos are pornography, he goes to jail - 15 months.

Arguably this is a good law. It sets the bar pretty high, and simply sends a message that we don't want to put anyone under the age of 18 at risk of the exploitive harms of pornography.

The outrageous problem is that instead of taking essentially "harmless" pictures, had this 40 year old man had sexual intercourse with this 14 year old girl, it would have been 100% completely legal...state sanctioned.

Admittedly, I did not read the private member's bill that was voted down due to the concerted efforts of our Justice Minister...but dare I assume it was not aimed at criminalizing what Mr. Cotler referred to as "puppy love".

And if it was (intentionally or not) then AMEND it as necessary to ensure that old men are not having sex with 14 year olds, but that the 16 year old boyfriend is exempted.

It's exactly how our law is currently structured...only the whole exemption provisions deal with 12 year olds. Yes...a 12 year old can legally consent to have sex, so long as their partner is less than 2 years older than them and there is no relationship of trust / authority / dependency. What a lovely thought.

As for the worldly and wise 14 year old...they can have sex with anyone they want to. Now, of course, it has to be consensual sex...and coersion and deception can vitiate consent. But really, come on, are 14 year olds really in a position to properly evaluate and make a decision to have sex with a man older than their own father? Even if they can, do we want to sanction this behaviour in our society?

And how do we reconcile this logical disconnect with the child pornography laws? I mean really...not to be graphic, but if the 40 year old who is having sex with a 14 year old (legally) takes a snapshot to honour the occasion, he has gone from law-abiding citizen to criminal facing a couple years behind bars? How can this possibly be?

Go ahead and have sex with little girls, just don't take any pictures or write any stories about it. Does anyone defend this?

FTA Lawyer

[cybercoma]

Want to know what's messed up? An 18 year old I worked with had naked pictures of his 16 year old gf in his wallet. Is that child pornography?

You betcha.

It's legal for him to have sex with her, he just can't take pictures of her.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear FTA Lawyer,

Go ahead and have sex with little girls, just don't take any pictures or write any stories about it. Does anyone defend this?

I can explain it, but please don't think I am defending or 'in favour' of it. Sexual consent is meant to be a 'private(s) activity' whereas pornography (or picture taking) is not. That is, a 14 yr old is deemed to be responsible enough to make a choice as to whether or not to have sex, but not responsible enough to make cogent decisions regarding the ramifications of distribution or publication of the act or their bodies.

I believe that the '2 yr difference law' should be, at minimum, applied from 14-18 inclusive. (Some of my friends were in University at 17yrs, so they would have seen sex with an older woman, say 30yrs, as a 'big score')

I know times are different, but women used to get married at 14, and 18yr olds were called 'old maids' if they were still single. Evidently, Jerry Lee Lewis, at about 40 yrs, married his 13 yr old cousin (though it did cost him some 'prestige').

The question is, how do we best criminalize the sexual exploitation of minors without infringing on their own rights to 'sexual exploration'?

[Canuck E Stan]

theloniusfleabag

Jerry Lee Lewis, at about 40 yrs, married his 13 yr old cousin (though it did cost him some 'prestige').

Just a correction to your Jerry Lee statement,

Jerry Lee was 22 not 40,when he married his third wife(cousin),His first marriage was in 1952 at the age of 17.The second was when he was 19.

He divorced his second wife a year after he married his cousin.He married again two more times.

Must have made great National Enquirer stuff back in the 50's.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Canuck E Stan,

Thanks for the correction. Wacky dude. I had heard he was also quite a boozer and a jerk to boot, but you know how rumours fly.

[Argus]

Dear FTA Lawyer,

Go ahead and have sex with little girls, just don't take any pictures or write any stories about it. Does anyone defend this?

I can explain it, but please don't think I am defending or 'in favour' of it. Sexual consent is meant to be a 'private(s) activity' whereas pornography (or picture taking) is not. That is, a 14 yr old is deemed to be responsible enough to make a choice as to whether or not to have sex, but not responsible enough to make cogent decisions regarding the ramifications of distribution or publication of the act or their bodies.

That would have been something of an explanation up until the law was amended to criminalize mere posession. Now it is illegal just to take the picture, even if she keeps it, and illegal to posess it, even if never shown to anyone else. Also, the law was amended to include works of fiction and writing. So now if someone writes a lurid diary entry about his sex with the girl it is illegal child porn even if never published or distributed.

I know times are different, but women used to get married at 14, and 18yr olds were called 'old maids' if they were still single.

True. But in those times the men were generally picked out by the family, not the girl. Even if she had some say they definitely had to approve of him, and the couple was now married for life. Quite different from a 40 year old seducing a 14 year old, getting her pregnant, and then moving on.

[Toro]

The legal age of consent is 14 in Holland.

I'm not sure what the difference is between a 17 year old having sex with a 14 year old and a 19 year old have sex with a 14 year old.

[Argus]

The legal age of consent is 14 in Holland.

I'm not sure what the difference is between a 17 year old having sex with a 14 year old and a 19 year old have sex with a 14 year old.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There's a degree of maturity involved. 17yo's are generally more sophisticated and mature than 14yo's, and obviously the difference between them is even greater when you speak of 19yo's - or 30 yo's.

That puts the young person at a severe disadvantage in any interaction.

[I Miss Trudeau]

So the Liberals, NDP and BQ all think it's perfectly fine for adults to have sex with fourteen year olds.

Would someone like to explain why that is? I mean, almost everywhere outside Tennessee the legal age of consent is 16. Why is it 14 here, and why would anyone, let alone three political parties, stand behind this and defend it? I know of one Liberal cabinet minister whose alleged to have kept a 15 year old prostitute but surely he's not the reason. Is it lack of morality, lack of imagination, or just that the parties which opposed to tory bill are stupid?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Argus, you're the last person I'd expect to be demanding more government regulation and less parental responsibility.

[FTA Lawyer]

So the Liberals, NDP and BQ all think it's perfectly fine for adults to have sex with fourteen year olds.

Would someone like to explain why that is? I mean, almost everywhere outside Tennessee the legal age of consent is 16. Why is it 14 here, and why would anyone, let alone three political parties, stand behind this and defend it? I know of one Liberal cabinet minister whose alleged to have kept a 15 year old prostitute but surely he's not the reason. Is it lack of morality, lack of imagination, or just that the parties which opposed to tory bill are stupid?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Argus, you're the last person I'd expect to be demanding more government regulation and less parental responsibility.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

IMT,

You miss the point...

Imagine the cliche "dirty old man" somewhere between 40 and 50 who has the most revolting standards as to what is "appropriate" sexual behaviour. Now imagine how hard this man would have to work to play enough mind-games to get a young teen to "fall in love" with him and to consent to entering his deviant sexual world...I suggest to you not very difficult...

Now consider that unless the teen he preys upon (and make no mistake, he is being a predator) is 13 or less...there is absolutely no societal sanction against his behaviour.

Ask the mentally demolished teen when she cannot have a normal relationship later in life whether she is applauding the government for not imposing some form of control in these situations.

And really, parental control??? The very teens who are preyed upon and taken advantage of by these "dirty old men" are the ones who don't have stable home-lives. They are the perfect victims.

Besides, the proposal is not really for more government regulation...we already have this very system in place. The suggestion is simply to increase the age before which we choose not to offer societal protection to our youth.

FTA Lawyer

[ConservativeJoe]

The problem with any sexual legislation, now that same sex marriage is among us, is that the arguments used to 'rationalize' sodomite marriage can be thrown back at all 3 political parties, should they attempt any sort of legislation to restrict any sexual behavior.

There was "the government has no business in our bedrooms"

There was "who says you can force your morality on me"

There was "societies standards change.."

Add to that the liberal left's wonderful belief that there is no right or wrong, that everything is relative, and the decision not to support an increase in the age of consent should be clear.

Watch for the following developments thanks to our immoral lawyers, judges, and liberal professors:

How about granting children full rights. (Already a goal of the United Nations) There goes any age of consent. You will be able to bed your 8 year old neighbor.

How about striking down monogamy? What, you say? Proposterous? So was sodomite marriage just 10 years ago. Same argument. Who are we to force our form of morality on anyone else?

The slippery slope (one of my articles) presents just these dimemmas. What about bestiality? WHo are we to say that is wrong? Maybe our unions can see to it that veterinary services are part of our next contract. Baaa

Sorry, pretty bleak, and I know it sounds sensationalist. Fact is, once you override the moral foundation that a people are governed by, you can no longer pick and choose any morality. It is gone. Period.

I really hope I am wrong, but..... If I am right, two generations from now, a threesome could be just another marriage form. The lawyers will live that. Three plaintiffs for every divorce case. KaChing.

[Canuck E Stan]

Sooner than soon.

I really hope I am wrong, but..... If I am right, two generations from now, a threesome could be just another marriage form. The lawyers will live that. Three plaintiffs for every divorce case. KaChing.

Trio becomes 1st officially to tie the knots

The Netherlands has legalized polygamy in all but name, granting a civil union to a man and two women.

The Netherlands has legalized polygamy in all but name, granting a civil union to a man and two women.

Victor de Bruijn, 46, of Roosendaal "married" both Bianca, 31, and Mirjam, 35, in a ceremony Friday, the Brussels Journal reported.

[Argus]

Argus, you're the last person I'd expect to be demanding more government regulation and less parental responsibility.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Parental responsibility is all very well and good, but young people are pretty naive, and should not be subjected to the kinds of tactics and pressures a determined adult can put on them.

[I Miss Trudeau]

Argus, you're the last person I'd expect to be demanding more government regulation and less parental responsibility.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Parental responsibility is all very well and good, but young people are pretty naive, and should not be subjected to the kinds of tactics and pressures a determined adult can put on them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Where do we draw the line? Ban advertising in schools? On all tv programs that are rated G?

This issue seems to be the only one that people feel the government should regulate rather than the parents.. I'm kind of curious to why that is.

[kimmy]

Where do we draw the line? Ban advertising in schools? On all tv programs that are rated G?

This issue seems to be the only one that people feel the government should regulate rather than the parents.. I'm kind of curious to why that is.

We don't let children go to any movie they feel like, or buy alcohol or cigarettes. I suspect that there are restrictions on what you can advertise during children's programs on TV... you probably can't advertise beer during Sesame Street, though I could be mistaken. You can't advertise cigarettes on TV at all. The government has intervened in medical cases when the welfare of children was at risk. Most people support the idea that there are some places where the government is justified in setting boundaries. The disagreements are mostly about where the boundaries should be, not whether there should be boundaries.

Very few people (and I doubt Argus is among them) believe in complete government non-interference in all affairs, especially where children are concerned. Most people use the disclaimer "consenting adults" when they say "people should be allowed to decide for themselves" in response to governmental attempts to regulate behavior, whether it be restricting porn or mandating seatbelts or anything else. An affair with an adult is more likely to have profound effects on a child's future than watching the wrong movie or smoking a cigarette.

-k

[I Miss Trudeau]

Very few people (and I doubt Argus is among them) believe in complete government non-interference in all affairs, especially where children are concerned. Most people use the disclaimer "consenting adults" when they say "people should be allowed to decide for themselves" in response to governmental attempts to regulate behavior, whether it be restricting porn or mandating seatbelts or anything else. An affair with an adult is more likely to have profound effects on a child's future than watching the wrong movie or smoking a cigarette.

Why not introduce legislation that prohibits all exploitive relationships between adults and children, be they financial, sexual, moral, etc, then?

[kimmy]

Very few people (and I doubt Argus is among them) believe in complete government non-interference in all affairs, especially where children are concerned. Most people use the disclaimer "consenting adults" when they say "people should be allowed to decide for themselves" in response to governmental attempts to regulate behavior, whether it be restricting porn or mandating seatbelts or anything else. An affair with an adult is more likely to have profound effects on a child's future than watching the wrong movie or smoking a cigarette.

Why not introduce legislation that prohibits all exploitive relationships between adults and children, be they financial, sexual, moral, etc, then?

Because the challenge becomes defining what is an exploitive relationship. There is probably fairly widespread consensus that a 30 year old seeking sexual favors from a 12 year old is exploitive... a 19 year old seeking sexual favors from a 14 year old is somewhat less clear cut, and a 17 year old and a 15 year old more difficult yet.

I think that some of the other situations you suggest banning would be likewise difficult to achieve any sort of consensus. "Financial"? I think there's a widespread consensus that child labor is exploitive, and as a result we strictly control the situations in which it is permissible to employ children. If you week a broader notion of what might be financial exploitation of children-- advertisements or products aimed at children-- then you're far less likely to find any sort of consensus. And I'm not sure what you mean by "moral."

-k

[ConservativeJoe]

"There is probably fairly widespread consensus that a 30 year old seeking sexual favors from a 12 year old is exploitive... "

Ya, but consensus means nothing, especially in this liberal wonderland. All we need is a couple of pedophile programs to start running on CityTV, say "Young Eye for the Old Guy".

We have seen how our entertainment industry can warp reality. I am a little surprised at how effective it is on most Canadians, but there you go.

.

Again, the point remains that you will have those on the left who espouse children's rights, who are nothing more than predators, that will quote the United Nations' child rights act. You then have our liberal judges who will do just about anything to make us the most leftist country on the planet.

As well, the old argument "Who are you to dictate morality?" will be once again thrown about. Just because you or I KNOW it is wrong, that argument has been trashed. In Canadian courts, there no longer is right or wrong, nor morality.

While sex with children is sick and should be forever outlawed, the same was said for sodomy, and the minds of most were changed in a mere 2 generations. That is what you are witnessing now with pedestry.'

I don't care what you now think of sodomy, that doesn't change the fact that the consensus was easily moved in two generations. And as much as you despise the thought of adults engaging in acts with children, that is how much sodomy was despised only 20 years ago, that is my point.

[Argus]

Parental responsibility is all very well and good, but young people are pretty naive, and should not be subjected to the kinds of tactics and pressures a determined adult can put on them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Where do we draw the line? Ban advertising in schools? On all tv programs that are rated G?

This issue seems to be the only one that people feel the government should regulate rather than the parents.. I'm kind of curious to why that is.

I disagree that this is the only issue people want to regulate. Almost everything around children is severely regulated, including advertising. The point here is not to ussurp the responsibility of parents but reinforce it. An example, a vaguely remembered news story locally (a year or two ago) concerned a 15 year old girl living with a man twice her age. Their parents had no say in this. The police could do nothing. It was perfectly legal. If a 14 year old girl wants to go and live with an adult in a sexual relationship there's really nothing the parents can do about it.

In fact, the law where it concerns adolescents is already confusing and cause for concern in other ways. Parents are held responsible for the safety and support of their children, but they don't really have the means to control their children. If a 15 year old insists on hanging around downtown with street gangs and taking drugs there really aren't a lot of options available to parents. They aren't allowed to use force. Nor will the police help. Youth protection systems won't do a thing unless there is a very obvious, appreciable danger to the "child", and hanging around until 4 in the morning with druggies isn't considered dangerous enough - apparently.

I know it's true that young teenagers were once parents, but that was a different era, where children were raised sternly, strictly, from a very early age, with chores, responsibilities and pressures children today rarely experience. The fourteen year old of the eighteenth century was miles more sophisticated and mature (in comparison to the adults of his/her time) than the fourteen year old of today, who has been coddled, protected, and mothered from inception.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

I know it's true that young teenagers were once parents, but that was a different era, where children were raised sternly, strictly, from a very early age, with chores, responsibilities and pressures children today rarely experience. The fourteen year old of the eighteenth century was miles more sophisticated and mature (in comparison to the adults of his/her time) than the fourteen year old of today, who has been coddled, protected, and mothered from inception.

I don't think you have to go that far back, just 50 yrs or so. There is also a difference with what youdescribe as 'coddled and protected'. It is not a sheltering from (bad) influence, but rather from responsibility. In most families nowadays, both parents work, leaving Madonna, "Puff Daddy" and pop culture (television, mostly) to be their moral influences, and have coupled that with countless 'cop-out' excuses why their actions 'aren't their fault'.