EGALE

[Tilter]

I don't think I (or the article) said anything about a "different set of rules".

Is a 17 year old guy who has relations with a 14 year old girl a "perverted pedophile" in your view?

You're coming accross emotional and seem to have ignored the content of the article.

. I think 16 and 17 year olds should be able to consent with those within 4 years of thier age.

Now, with my proposal a 15 year old and an 18 year old would be criminal. I'm not totally comfortable with that either, if the relationship is a healthy one.

That is an example of the issue with an "absolute" consent law.

Boy--- are you ever a stable thinker!

I personally don't think that anyone under 16 should be allowed to have sex with anyone 18 or over

Perhaps a better way to express this thought would be "I personally don't think that anyone anyone 18 or over should be allowed to have sex with under 16"

Then you state that

a 15 year old and an 18 year old would be criminal

and then

I'm not totally comfortable with that either, if the relationship is a healthy one.

OK--- do you or do you not approve of an underage person having sex with an older(18+) person? If it is a crime for that situation how can it be a "healthy" relationship???

[Scotty]

OK--- do you or do you not approve of an underage person having sex with an older(18+) person? If it is a crime for that situation how can it be a "healthy" relationship???

People seem to forget that throughout most of our history young women were married off at 14, 15, and 16, often to men in their thirties and forties. This was considered quite normal as parents of these girls wanted men who were successful, had property, and could support and sustain a family. Men, on the other hand, wanted young, healthy women who could bear many children.

I would be suspicious of a relationship between, say, a 23 year old and a 15 year old. However, there have been many such relationships which have been quite healthy and long-lasting, and are no more exploitative than any other kind. I think the point is that such a thing needs to be assessed as to whether it is or is not exploitative and harmful before a punishment can be properly decided. Forcing a mandatory jail term on the older partner serves no useful purpose and can be extremely harmful to an otherwise perfectly normal and harmless person.

Who is exploiting who in this relationship?

51 year old actor marries 16 year old aspiring singer

[Tilter]

People seem to forget that throughout most of our history young women were married off at 14, 15, and 16, often to men in their thirties and forties. This was considered quite normal as parents of these girls wanted men who were successful, had property, and could support and sustain a family. Men, on the other hand, wanted young, healthy women who could bear many children.

I would be suspicious of a relationship between, say, a 23 year old and a 15 year old. However, there have been many such relationships which have been quite healthy and long-lasting, and are no more exploitative than any other kind. I think the point is that such a thing needs to be assessed as to whether it is or is not exploitative and harmful before a punishment can be properly decided. Forcing a mandatory jail term on the older partner serves no useful purpose and can be extremely harmful to an otherwise perfectly normal and harmless person.

Who is exploiting who in this relationship?

51 year old actor marries 16 year old aspiring singer

People seem to forget that throughout most of our history young women were married off at 14, 15, and 16, often to men in their thirties and forties. This was considered quite normal as parents of these girls wanted men who were successful

Key word here is underlined & bold "People seem to forget that throughout most of our history young women were married off at 14, 15, and 16, often to men in their thirties and forties. This was considered quite normal as parents of these girls wanted men who were successful.

In today's society Jerry Lee Lewis would still (Justifiably) be in Jail

At the present time the 51 year old is exploiting the kid. at a future date the 15 year old can exploit the shit (and a fortune) out of the pedophile

Edited August 7, 2011 by Tilter

[Scotty]

Key word here is underlined & bold "People seem to forget that throughout most of our history young women were married off at 14, 15, and 16, often to men in their thirties and forties. This was considered quite normal as parents of these girls wanted men who were successful.

In today's society Jerry Lee Lewis would still (Justifiably) be in Jail

At the present time the 51 year old is exploiting the kid. at a future date the 15 year old can exploit the shit (and a fortune) out of the pedophile

I think you need to look at the picture of the 16 year old and then look up the definition of pedophile. The word for a man who is attracted to a girl like that is 'normal' not pedophile. Pedophiles are people interested in pre-pubescent children.

I agree it's no longer considered normal. That does not mean that a relationship between people of differing ages can't be mutually beneficial and non-exploitative. Not all 15 year olds are naive children and not all 24 year olds are brilliant and conniving cads.

As to the actor, I think both are exploiting each other. He is exploiting her for sex while she is exploiting him for money and help in kick starting her career. I think it's is a mutually consensual type of exploitation, and if her parents are okay with it I'm not about to put him in prison for 5 years.

Edited August 7, 2011 by Scotty

[bush_cheney2004]

I note a minimum sentence for incest with a person 16 or under is to be 5 years in prison. Now at first glance you'd say a father who abuses his underage child OUGHT to go away for a long period of time. But let's remember that the greatest amount of incest which is committed is between siblings and is often consensual. Under Canadian law, incest is defined as having a sexual relationship with a sibling (including half-sibling), child/parent or grandchild/grandparent.

Consensual "incest" between individuals of majority age is technically a Charter Rights violation...if anyone had the courage to argue thus.

[Scotty]

Consensual "incest" between individuals of majority age is technically a Charter Rights violation...if anyone had the courage to argue thus.

While I don't necessarily disagree, my point is that even with underage people I'd prefer the court be able to have some leeway in deciding how serious the situation was rather than automatically relegating the older partner to a minimum of 5 years in prison.

[betsy]

So what.

One guys expressing his opinion - no matter how vile - is not cause for censorship.

If you are offended by threads like this then take your offensive attitude home with you and cry in your own cornflakes.

????

Where did that come from?

[cybercoma]

Bill C54

I note in the bill that the minimum sentence for 'accessing child pornography' is to be six months in prison. Do we really want to take an otherwise law-abiding person and put them in prison for six months because they went to a web site and saw a picture of a naked sixteen year old? I mean, given it's perfectly legal to actually have sex with that sixteen year old, does this make sense??

I note a minimum sentence for incest with a person 16 or under is to be 5 years in prison. Now at first glance you'd say a father who abuses his underage child OUGHT to go away for a long period of time. But let's remember that the greatest amount of incest which is committed is between siblings and is often consensual. Under Canadian law, incest is defined as having a sexual relationship with a sibling (including half-sibling), child/parent or grandchild/grandparent. So if an 18 year old has consensual sex with his 16 year old half sister, that is incest under the law. Do we really want to lock him up for 5 years?

Another law is sexual assault against a person under 16. I'm certainly in favour of heavy, heavy penalties for rape, but let's remember that sexual assault can be everything from rape to grabbing a girl's butt. Now while I'd say it's wrong to grab a 15 year old's ass, regardless of what bikini she's wearing, I don't think a minimum 1 year sentence should be imposed for those doing it. I don't think some drunk who grabs an ass needs to be locked up for a year because the ass in question was under 16.

These minimums, given the nature of the crimes strike me as an invitation to horrible injustices in some cases. Especially given that none of our laws regard it as a defense that they thought the person was of age, or that the person looked of age, or that the person claimed they were of age.

It's not impossible, but I can tell you more often than not that the incest charge typically goes along with the child pornography charge or sexual assault/rape charges. An 18 year old and 16 year old half-sibling sexual relationship would never see its day in court. The only conceivable way for them to even be charged is if one of the parents files a complaint or one of the siblings is being raped or sexually assaulted. I don't think I have ever seen an incest charge just for an incest charge's sake. Also, accessing child pornography, again is usually coupled with other things. A person that happened to stumble upon a 17 year old in a porno is not going to jail or even being charged, as a rule. It's the person that has archives of child pornography and is creating or distributing it that would have this additional charge added on to their case. Many times, these charges are used by prosecutors for plea bargaining. We could charge you with distribution and all these other things. Since you've never been through the courts before, though, plead guilty to accessing and we'll drop the other charges. Again, it's not certain that this is the way the law will be used and in theory a person could be charged.

Edited August 8, 2011 by cybercoma

[Scotty]

It's not impossible, but I can tell you more often than not that the incest charge typically goes along with the child pornography charge or sexual assault/rape charges. An 18 year old and 16 year old half-sibling sexual relationship would never see its day in court. The only conceivable way for them to even be charged is if one of the parents files a complaint or one of the siblings is being raped or sexually assaulted. I don't think I have ever seen an incest charge just for an incest charge's sake. Also, accessing child pornography, again is usually coupled with other things. A person that happened to stumble upon a 17 year old in a porno is not going to jail or even being charged, as a rule. It's the person that has archives of child pornography and is creating or distributing it that would have this additional charge added on to their case. Many times, these charges are used by prosecutors for plea bargaining. We could charge you with distribution and all these other things. Since you've never been through the courts before, though, plead guilty to accessing and we'll drop the other charges. Again, it's not certain that this is the way the law will be used and in theory a person could be charged.

You are willing to rely on the intelligence of POLICE to safeguard us from inappropriate and unjust prosecutions!?!? I'm certainly not! It's interesting to note that what little I've seen of the sentencing hearing of that Bishop caught with "Child pornography" on his laptop found he had something like 150,000 pornographic images on his laptop (!!) of which something like 600 were considered "Child pornography" and almost all of that was soft core poses of teenage boys -- in other words, not little kids, not something a pedophile would likely be interested in at all. I thought these laws were supposed to protect children, not punish dirty old men for looking at teen porn.

"Well, we judge that 5% of these gay porn pictures you have are underage, so it's off to prison for you. Too bad, so sad. Bye bye now!"

Sexual assault is what you get charged with if you get drunk and grab someone's ass. I don't think a one year minimum sentence is appropriate, even if the ass is fifteen.

Edited August 8, 2011 by Scotty

[cybercoma]

I'm not really sure what you're arguing about. I never said we should rely on police. I'm just telling you how the incest and child pornography laws appear to work in the cases that I've had experience with. The police are not the only ones involved. You have the cops, prosecutors, lawyers, juries and judges that all play a part in how a person is charged and sentenced. At no point is a person's conviction, sentencing or charges determined by a single individual (ie. a judge renders a sentence and it can be appealed to a higher court if deemed inappropriate).

Edited August 9, 2011 by cybercoma