14 year olds and sex with adults

[Argus]

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'.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Certainly true. Why, can you imagine what a 1950s dad would have done if his teenage son had been caught stealing a valuable ring? He'd have kicked his son's arse up and down the street all day long. A little tears would not have stopped that boy from having to do chores all evening and weekend long for weeks, if not months to "keep him out of trouble".

But we're no longer in an era of personal responsibility.

[kimmy]

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.

If anything, society is moving the opposite direction regarding sex and children. As Fleabag pointed out, it used to be commonplace for girls to be married before they were 18, and now the idea is viewed with contempt. Some of the new laws against child pornography are pretty much unprecidented in terms of the restrictions on personal freedom and the legal consequences that can result. The public is increasingly aware of child molestation as the authorities become better at detecting it and more aggressive in punishing it, and with this increasing public awareness has come increased public anger at the offenders. We've entered an era where even the classic "baby's first bath in the kitchen sink" photo that every parent used to take now raises potential legal consequences if the guy at the photo-developing lab decides to call the cops. I don't see any evidence to suggest that society is moving in a direction towards increased tolerance or permissiveness toward pedophilia. I see lots of reason to think the opposite.

You argue that the media could change that within a couple of decades, but I strongly doubt it. Given the intense public dislike of the subject, I think that any media executive who even suggested putting "Older Eye for the Adolescent Guy" on the air would be fired on the spot. No media outlet would dare risk the kind of public furor that would result from such a thing.

-k

[I Miss Trudeau]

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.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well yes, there is always the difficulty of determining whether the accused is guilty. How is that different than any other criminal code offense? I'm a little troubled by your contention that we ought to pass laws based on consensus, though. If it were the consensus were that a small minority was entitled to no rights, would that make it permissable to discriminate against them? Of course not. Do you see any other limits to the creation of law by consensus?

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.

What about corporations playing upon that naivety of young people that Argus pointed out? Churches? Etc.

[RB]

the age of consent is mostly to regulate girls and affect women no? tell me this is not mostly gender biases

it is a shame that women in this age are content to be taken advantage of at age 14 with such rulings. I mean these women are allowed to have sex and marry and become dependant on someone else. But how about having a job and contribute to society, stay in school at age 14 and when they are deemed adults, and responsible citizens do whatever.

In my opinion women still need to speak up, access the court systems, and political systems easily and be free of judicial and other obstacles in their way

[kimmy]

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.

Well yes, there is always the difficulty of determining whether the accused is guilty. How is that different than any other criminal code offense?

The issue is not just of determining whether the actions in question were committed, but in deciding whether the actions were illegal in the first place.

I'm a little troubled by your contention that we ought to pass laws based on consensus, though. If it were the consensus were that a small minority was entitled to no rights, would that make it permissable to discriminate against them? Of course not. Do you see any other limits to the creation of law by consensus?

The issue here is not violation of rights.

Do people have the right to have a consenting sexual relationship? Of course.

Is that right without limit? Should it be permissible for a 30 year old have a consenting sexual relationship with a 10 year old? Of course not. An 18 year old? Yes, that's permissible. Somewhere between 10 and 18 there is boundary to draw.

Ok, so how are these boundaries drawn? Consensus. Our elected officials will try to arrive at some sort of guideline that they believes reflects the values of Canadians.

What limits are there in this creation of law by consensus? Well, if our elected officials step too far, or arrive at something which is not consistent with our guaranteed rights, then it will wind up before the Supreme Court, and it will be struck down. Isn't that the case for any law in this country?

What about corporations playing upon that naivety of young people that Argus pointed out? Churches? Etc.

Well, we've discussed several instances of how government restricts corporations' right to commerce when dealing with young consumers. If you wish to discuss something we haven't already discussed then be specific. Same deal with churches. We've placed limits on freedom of religion, for instance forcing Jehovah's Witnesses children to undergo lifesaving medical procedures agains their religion. If there's something specific you wish to address, then go for it.

-k

[cybercoma]

Because the challenge becomes defining what is an exploitive relationship.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That's what the courts are for, let them determine what is exploitive through a series of decisions.

[Yodeler]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Even Turks are more civilized, setting the age of consent at 15.

Speaking of Turks, is anyone going to start a thread about them trying to sneak into the EU?