Low age of consent luring pedophiles to Canada: report

[WestViking]

In our amazing left / liberal / libertarian society, we are far more concerned over teenagers learning to drive than teenagers who are learning to deal with emotions, hormones, sex and the rocky roads of interpersonal relationships.

We realize that many teens lack the maturity to be given a cart blanch right to drive, but at the same time fail to realize they lack the maturity to spontaneously reproduce.

I am thoroughly tired of the argument that teens will experiment with sex so there is no way to stop them. Some will and others won’t. We will never hear about responsible teens that listen to sex education lessons and take precautions to avoid disease and pregnancy. We certainly want to hear about and deal with adult predators who prefer to entice teens into sexual experiment rather than risk rejection by their peer group.

Have we become too busy to tell teens that intimate relationships are a minefield of potential hurts and possible long-term harm? How will they know to deal with intimate relationships with caution proportionate to the potential consequences if we don’t tell them that some people never manage to find the ‘right’ partner, others suffer for years from mistreatment or rejection, some are infected with unsavoury or life threatening diseases and spousal abuse is very real and all too common?

In comparison learning to drive responsibly is rather simple. I have never heard of a driver picking up an STD from her vehicle or being rejected, beaten up or murdered by her car.

We need to raise the limit for legal consent to sex to age 18. I think it is ludicrous to allow teens who have restricted driving privileges and cannot legally buy a beer or cigarettes to lawfully agree to participate in intimate relationships that can seriously harm or kill them. Love may conquer all, but unchecked lust can and does do a lot of damage.

WV

Low age of consent luring pedophiles to Canada: report

CBC News

December 19, 2006

Canada is becoming a destination for child sex tourism because of its relatively low age of sexual consent, according to an international report released on Tuesday.

The Global Monitoring Report on the Status of Action against the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children, prepared by a Bangkok-based children's advocacy group, says Canada must take action to protect its children from foreign pedophiles.

It urges Canada to raise the age of sexual consent to 16 from 14 and to make the national sex offender registry retroactive, as well as more easily accessible. The Harper government has already introduced a bill that would raise the age of consent to 16.

The report, by End Child Prostitution, Child Pornography and Trafficking of Children for Sexual Purposes, or ECPAT International, urges Canada to adopt 17 recommendations in all.

Det.-Const. Paul Krawczyk, an undercover police officer with the Toronto Police Service's child exploitation unit, said he is well aware that the relatively low age of consent is a draw for pedophiles from other countries. He said the age of consent is a topic discussed online.

"I've been in pedophile chat rooms that discuss Canada having such a low age of consent that they tell other pedophiles to travel to Canada because of that. Sixty-year-olds engaging in sexual activities with 14- or 15-year-olds is not appropriate, and we need to change that."

Federal Justice Minister Vic Toews said the Conservative government is trying to amend the Criminal Code to raise the age of consent to 16 because it recognizes the current age is a problem.

Bill C-22, which would raise the age of consent, passed second reading on Oct. 30.

"Americans and other pedophiles are coming north to Canada because of our very lax age-of-protection laws," Toews said.

"In fact, Americans are being prosecuted under American sex tourism laws for coming to Canada and having sexual relations with children over 14. It's ironic in Canada we can't prosecute them, and yet Americans coming here and taking advantage of our children, when they go back, can face criminal prosecutions and lengthy imprisonment."

New Democratic party MP Judy Wasylycia-Leis said increasing the age of consent is a good move, but the government should also strengthen laws to prosecute pedophiles and develop a better system for tracking convicted sex offenders.

"If a country is measured by the extent to which it protects children, Canada should hang its head in shame," she said.

ECPAT International was set up to assess the progress made by 122 countries on implementing the measures they pledged to work toward 10 years ago in Stockholm at the First Congress against the Commercial Sexual Exploitation of Children. A second congress was held in Japan in December 2001.

Under Canadian law, the age of consent is 18 years where the sexual activity involves exploitative activity, such as prostitution, pornography or situations where there is a relationship of trust, authority or dependency. For other sexual activity, the age of consent is 14 years.

[jbg]

Have we become too busy to tell teens that intimate relationships are a minefield of potential hurts and possible long-term harm? How will they know to deal with intimate relationships with caution proportionate to the potential consequences if we don’t tell them that some people never manage to find the ‘right’ partner, others suffer for years from mistreatment or rejection, some are infected with unsavoury or life threatening diseases and spousal abuse is very real and all too common?

As a father of two boys, the older of which is almost 11, that says it all. Many people do not bother to communicate with often resistent children. That is a major and often tragic mistake, and also sacrifices some of the richness of parental experiences.

These amorous relationships among teens, or certain aspects of them, are meant for adults. Adults can handle the consequences, such as children. Also, hopefully, adults can handle forming and breaking relationships is a more constructive manner than 13 year olds.

Again, the "non-CBC" portion of the article is a must read, and for reasons well beyond the issue of age of consent.

[jbg]

We realize that many teens lack the maturity to be given a cart blanch right to drive, but at the same time fail to realize they lack the maturity to spontaneously reproduce.

I am thoroughly tired of the argument that teens will experiment with sex so there is no way to stop them. Some will and others won’t. We will never hear about responsible teens that listen to sex education lessons and take precautions to avoid disease and pregnancy. We certainly want to hear about and deal with adult predators who prefer to entice teens into sexual experiment rather than risk rejection by their peer group.

Back during the often lamented days of "shotgun marriages" (prior to legalized abortions) the simple fact is that fewer teens had sex, since the consequences were serious. Now (and even when I was a high school student between 1971 and 1975, just after New York legalized abortion) there is a certain air of impunity. In those days, the expression was "do your own thing". I don't know what it is now.

It should be generally known that a decision to have sex is a serious decision, in many ways, for a teen, as serious as a decision to drive while drunk or high.

[Argus]

Pedophiles have no interest in 14 year olds, and paying for sex with anyone under 18 is a crime. So either the report or the reporter telling you about it is seriously confused.

[guyser]

Touchy subject WV , but sadly I could not disagree any less. Do we really want our boys and girls going to jail for the same things we did at that age? I certainly don't.

Teen sex is going to happen, we do NOT need a law to try and change that and frankly that is what they are trying to do. Eighteen years old and under for charges...?....no way that can happen.

As it is now, under 18 sex does have restrictions , such as authority status over the minor, a person in a position of authority cannot engage a minor in sex , and the age difference can all lead to charges.

Pedophiles get off on your average advert flyer coming into your home depicting ads of underwear and such . A sickness is a sickness and charges are relevant where warranted, but my daughter and/or her boyfriend (or vice versa) do not deserve criminal charges.

There are plenty of creepy men out there, and it is the parents responsibility to ensure they teach their kids the warning signs to keep them safe.

[Higgly]

Here is what I think.

I think we should define certain ranges for sex, and we need to define what sex means.

For example...

For sex between a consenting male and female where one does not have authority over the other and sex means a male and a female ....

- A boy and a girl under a certain age should be discouraged from having sex. For example, 15 years old.

- A boy and a girl should be allowed to have sex, but only within their age range. For example, it would be OK for 16-17 year olds to have sex.

- A boy and a girl of a certain age range can have sex within an age range that is a particular number of levels above or below their own.. For example, a 17 year old girl could have sex with a 19 year old boy.

The trick is to define acceptable sexual behaviour.

I think that it is also important to define a range of disciplines. The idea of two consenting teen-agers being labelled as sex offenders for the rest of their life as a result of a night on the town is really stupid.

[jdobbin]

Back during the often lamented days of "shotgun marriages" (prior to legalized abortions) the simple fact is that fewer teens had sex, since the consequences were serious. Now (and even when I was a high school student between 1971 and 1975, just after New York legalized abortion) there is a certain air of impunity. In those days, the expression was "do your own thing". I don't know what it is now.

It should be generally known that a decision to have sex is a serious decision, in many ways, for a teen, as serious as a decision to drive while drunk or high.

You've seen the link that was put up that said even grandma was having premarital sex?

[guyser]

- A boy and a girl should be allowed to have sex, but only within their age range. For example, it would be OK for 16-17 year olds to have sex.

- A boy and a girl of a certain age range can have sex within an age range that is a particular number of levels above or below their own.. For example, a 17 year old girl could have sex with a 19 year old boy.

There already is an "age group exclusion " based on being within two years of each other.

[Black Dog]

Have we become too busy to tell teens that intimate relationships are a minefield of potential hurts and possible long-term harm? How will they know to deal with intimate relationships with caution proportionate to the potential consequences if we don’t tell them that some people never manage to find the ‘right’ partner, others suffer for years from mistreatment or rejection, some are infected with unsavoury or life threatening diseases and spousal abuse is very real and all too common?

Jesus Hectoring Christ.

I don't think the "scared straight" apporach is one that will meet with much success. We're seeing the failure of such approaches right now in the States where "abstinence only" education (with a healthy side of fearmongering) is all the rage.

Maybe proponents of this approach can explain why uptight, sexually conservative North America consistently ranks lower than slutty ol' Europe in such areas as teen pregnancy and STDs.

We need to raise the limit for legal consent to sex to age 18. I think it is ludicrous to allow teens who have restricted driving privileges and cannot legally buy a beer or cigarettes to lawfully agree to participate in intimate relationships that can seriously harm or kill them. Love may conquer all, but unchecked lust can and does do a lot of damage.

Sure, why not clog up our already creaky legal system with unenforceable, unprosecutable laws. This plan cannot possibly go wrong....

[Higgly]

- A boy and a girl should be allowed to have sex, but only within their age range. For example, it would be OK for 16-17 year olds to have sex.

- A boy and a girl of a certain age range can have sex within an age range that is a particular number of levels above or below their own.. For example, a 17 year old girl could have sex with a 19 year old boy.

There already is an "age group exclusion " based on being within two years of each other.

It was an example. As far as I am concerned, this should be the same as hockey. You have your levels. You start out in Peewee, then Bantam, then Midget.....

Tell them that helmets are mandatory from the get-go.

It is all a question of development and experience. Much better that kids should learn from each other.

[Slavik44]

Messed up priorities. You know whats messed up? A 17 year old getting sentenced to 11 years for getting a blow Job from a 15 year old. That is messed up. Then on the other hand we have a mother who sold her 9 year old daughter for 20 bucks a session on hundreds of different occasions getting a 10 year sentence. I realise these are cases from the states, but it highlights just how screwed up the justice system is. We need to stop getting so stuck up about teen sex...who cares. I am more concerned about a mother pimping her 9 year old daughter out...give her a couple life sentences, I certainly won't complain. But 11 years for a blow Job from a 15 year old? Then I see this defense that, it won't happen anymore the laws have been changed and it would only be one year in prison. Oh, okay...Yeah one year in prison for a 17 year old recieving a blow job from a 15 year old...makes perfect sense.

Now you are comming on here and talking about checking the Lust of teenagers, I would rather Check the stupidity of mothers who make prostitutes out of their 9 year old daughters, not sexual relations between teenagers. But this is what I log on to see, someone talking about teens, Hormones, and raising the age of consent to 18. Their are screwed up people in this world, make laws to fight them, not teenagers.

[WestViking]

The age of consent should be raised to 18 which is the age of majority in most provinces. Teens who engage in sex with peers are not known to ask permission from anyone.

The 'teenagers will engage in sex' argument is a non-starter. Teenagers will also drink alcohol, use drugs and steal cars. That does not make these actions right or mean that society has to tacitly condone such behaviour.

The argument that we will be jailing teens for experimenting is sex is also a non-starter. If a 17 year old cannot maintain enough self-control to avoid sex with a 15 year old minor, what stops him from the same engaging in the same behaviour at 24 or 44? Part of maturing is to learn self-control. Why should teen sex be exempt? Please explain how this improves our society.

Raising the age of consent will not stamp out teen sex. That is not the idea. However, intimate relationships are involved and can be devastating to some. There is no reason society cannot send a signal to teens that intimate relationships go a bit deeper than scratching an itch and require caution and prudence.

Pretending that teen sex is an insolvable problem is nonsense. Claiming that teens should be free to do whatever their hormones leads them to is irresponsible. Some teens will engage in actions that will bring harm to themselves. That is a fact of life.

However we must do what we can to minimize the instances and allow as many of our teens as possible to live long, happy and healthy lives. Taking a cautious approach to sex will not result in long-term harm to our teens. Pregnancy, STDs, HIV and AIDS can result in permanent damage or premature death.

Why would we not encourage teens to be very careful in choosing a partner to engage in sex with? Why would we not warn teens of the potential psychological and health risks?

[Slavik44]

The age of consent should be raised to 18 which is the age of majority in most provinces. Teens who engage in sex with peers are not known to ask permission from anyone.

Not having permission [consent] for sex is called rape.

The 'teenagers will engage in sex' argument is a non-starter. Teenagers will also drink alcohol, use drugs and steal cars. That does not make these actions right or mean that society has to tacitly condone such behaviour.

The argument that we will be jailing teens for experimenting is sex is also a non-starter. If a 17 year old cannot maintain enough self-control to avoid sex with a 15 year old minor, what stops him from the same engaging in the same behaviour at 24 or 44? Part of maturing is to learn self-control. Why should teen sex be exempt? Please explain how this improves our society.

What a complete display of Ignorance. You are comparing a blow job between a 15 and 17 year old to stealing a car? Honestly I don't know what to say other then you have some really screwed up morals.

Furthermore, at 17 you should theoretically be attracted to people your own age...and that is a trend to continue. As an example, I picked up my old elementary school year books and looked at a picture of a girl I was attracted to in grade 7. Do I find that picture at all attractive now? Absolutely not. It is a completely un-scientific view you are espousing to suggest that being attracted to young children when you are young means that you will be attracted to young children when you are old. It shows your absolute ignorance on these topic. Please give your head a shake.

Raising the age of consent will not stamp out teen sex. That is not the idea. However, intimate relationships are involved and can be devastating to some. There is no reason society cannot send a signal to teens that intimate relationships go a bit deeper than scratching an itch and require caution and prudence.

You kow how you do that? You talk to your children, develop a relationship with your children and then you explain your views. Why does the government have to be your Nany? If raising the age of consent will not stop teen sex. Then why bother, you are still free to tell your children that sex is an evil thing and will cause blindness...go right ahead. But most human beings will find it utterly disturbing to send a 17 year old to jail for 11 years over a blow job with a 15 year old.

Pretending that teen sex is an insolvable problem is nonsense. Claiming that teens should be free to do whatever their hormones leads them to is irresponsible. Some teens will engage in actions that will bring harm to themselves. That is a fact of life.

No pretending that teenager having sex with another teenager, means that said teenager will continue to have sex with teenagers even at age 44. Is nonsense. That is irresponsible. That is Unscientific. That is disgusting.

However we must do what we can to minimize the instances and allow as many of our teens as possible to live long, happy and healthy lives. Taking a cautious approach to sex will not result in long-term harm to our teens. Pregnancy, STDs, HIV and AIDS can result in permanent damage or premature death.

11 years in prison over a blow job is not long term harm? Why would we throw a teen in jail for having sex with another person of the same age? That also causes long term harm.

Why would we not encourage teens to be very careful in choosing a partner to engage in sex with? Why would we not warn teens of the potential psychological and health risks?

Oh I get it, in order to avoid negative psychological impacts on teenagers, we should throw them in jail for having sex...yeah. Bullshit.

------

There are real pedophiles out there. There are real sex offenders out there. there are mothers selling their nine year old daughters for $20 a sex session. There are people filming videos of sex session with pre-teens. There are young children being sexualy abused. Yet people like you have decided it is better to waste valuable resources throwing teenagers in Jail for havinh sex, who compare Teen sex to stealing a car.

GIVE ME A BREAK.

[guyser]

West viking, can I reasonably assume you skipped the years 14-21 ?

You seem to be advocating the state lookout in the best interests of our teenage children. Frankly no thanks.

What kids need is information, tons and tons of information and the truth needs to be told by parents to children. This applies to everything, the truth about soft and hard drugs and how some are not going to screw you up for life, and the truth about pregnancy and sex and the wonderful joys associated with it, and obviously the pain that can occur from the same sexual act.

Curiosity will always be the forte of the teenager. Never has changed, never will. That should not be used to put kids in jail for the simple act of a 15 and 17 getting together. Thats is also why, in lieu of the case that slavik is mentioning would not occur in Canada because of the close peer age group clause. Good for us, we may be a little more pragmatic than those who wrote the US laws.

The church (es) and their ilk are IMO, more responsible for messing with the truth vis a vis the teen sex problem. Abstinence is advocated, and while that is all well and fine, it certainly is not enough and thats where they stop .

Condoms, RU486, and plenty of other sexual aids and or info should be available 24-7 from our schools, community outreach centres and frankly the church.

Look, no one is advocating 14 yr olds getting laid. I dont and wont, but upon discovery of said action, I would be sure to inform my child that here is the deal. You want to get laid, then this happens and this happens etc etc. So they can then walk away with an idea of the results of their actions.If they choose to continue to engage in sex then I want them using condoms, hell I will even pay for them.

Any other backtrack on this issue only leads to more preganancies, abortions , unwanted children and the teens themselves can suffer great harm.

Leave the age consent alone, but raise awareness and sex ed.

[jbg]

West viking, can I reasonably assume you skipped the years 14-21 ?

Given the WV seems to write in complete, coherent English sentences, I would doubt that he skipped those ages. Frankly, his writing skills indicate that he was likely concentrating on constructive, beneficial activities between the ages of 14-21. Having vivid sexual experiences, and possibly getting someone pregnant, is not a necessary part of gaining an education.

You seem to be advocating the state lookout in the best interests of our teenage children. Frankly no thanks.

What kids need is information, tons and tons of information and the truth needs to be told by parents to children.

*snip*

Condoms, RU486, and plenty of other sexual aids and or info should be available 24-7 from our schools, community outreach centres and frankly the church.

The proper use of all of these devices depends on a level of maturity many teens do not have. "Getting caught up in the moment" is not prevented by having a plethora of condoms and sex-ed pamphlets available. As for "sex aids" I leave to the kinky imagination what you mean by that. Teens should receive a very definite signal that their Number 1 priority at that age should be absorbing the education provided for them at taxpayers' expense. They will never have that opportunity again; their is lots of time for sexual thrills.

[guyser]

Any other backtrack on this issue only leads to more preganancies, abortions , unwanted children and the teens themselves can suffer great harm. Leave the age consent alone, but raise awareness and sex ed.

Huh? Having sex makes pregnancies less likely? Most are not like Mary and Joseph, and many conceptions seem to involve sex.

I believe you misread my post.Here is what I said ....Look, no one is advocating 14 yr olds getting laid. I dont and wont, but upon discovery of said action, I would be sure to inform my child that here is the deal. You want to get laid, then this happens and this happens etc etc. So they can then walk away with an idea of the results of their actions.If they choose to continue to engage in sex then I want them using condoms, hell I will even pay for them.

What I am saying is if we go the other way, less sex ed condoms etc, then the end result will be pregnancies and abortions. The christian right movement is advocating less info , more abstinence, and it obviously does not work.

As for my "skipped the years 14-21" posting, it was merely to show that I felt he had lead a very sheltered life. Of course I assumed he went to high school , but what did he see when there? Thats what surprised me.

As for level of maturity , you are right, many of them do not have any. But if they are pre-prepped so to speak, the incidence of teenage pregnancy will decline.

And thank you for the thinly veiled comments as respects my writings.

[Drea]

Huh? Having sex makes pregnancies less likely? Most are not like Mary and Joseph, and many conceptions seem to involve sex.

No. Educating teens about the responsibilites that come with having sex makes pregnancies less likely.

[jbg]

And thank you for the thinly veiled comments as respects my writings.

Edited to remove. My apologies. I had not seen some very compliementary posts about others of mine you wrote. I make some wrong posts. This was one of them.

[WestViking]

The age of consent should be raised to 18 which is the age of majority in most provinces. Teens who engage in sex with peers are not known to ask permission from anyone.

Not having permission [consent] for sex is called rape.

Teens engaged is sex with peers do not ask permission from parents. Got it, or are you too thick to read the obvious?

The 'teenagers will engage in sex' argument is a non-starter. Teenagers will also drink alcohol, use drugs and steal cars. That does not make these actions right or mean that society has to tacitly condone such behaviour.

The argument that we will be jailing teens for experimenting is sex is also a non-starter. If a 17 year old cannot maintain enough self-control to avoid sex with a 15 year old minor, what stops him from the same engaging in the same behaviour at 24 or 44? Part of maturing is to learn self-control. Why should teen sex be exempt? Please explain how this improves our society.

What a complete display of Ignorance. You are comparing a blow job between a 15 and 17 year old to stealing a car? Honestly I don't know what to say other then you have some really screwed up morals.

Furthermore, at 17 you should theoretically be attracted to people your own age...and that is a trend to continue. As an example, I picked up my old elementary school year books and looked at a picture of a girl I was attracted to in grade 7. Do I find that picture at all attractive now? Absolutely not. It is a completely un-scientific view you are espousing to suggest that being attracted to young children when you are young means that you will be attracted to young children when you are old. It shows your absolute ignorance on these topic. Please give your head a shake.

Focusing on an improbable situation as justification for sticking your head in the sand and ignoring teens who need guidance in dealing with intimate relationships is reprehensible. Casual sex is neither rewarding nor fulfilling. The notion that all teens spend their high school years screwing one another over is a fantasy you have obviously bought into.

Raising the age of consent will not stamp out teen sex. That is not the idea. However, intimate relationships are involved and can be devastating to some. There is no reason society cannot send a signal to teens that intimate relationships go a bit deeper than scratching an itch and require caution and prudence.

You kow how you do that? You talk to your children, develop a relationship with your children and then you explain your views. Why does the government have to be your Nany? If raising the age of consent will not stop teen sex. Then why bother, you are still free to tell your children that sex is an evil thing and will cause blindness...go right ahead. But most human beings will find it utterly disturbing to send a 17 year old to jail for 11 years over a blow job with a 15 year old.

I am a father and a grandfather with some darn fine children and grandchildren. I have no fear of laws that set out community standards that my peers adhere to. You have made no case for opposing laws that protect teens from predators. Why? Bleating about the plight of some 17 year old getting it on with a 15 year old does not cut any ice with me. A great deal of social angst is rooted in people who refuse to keep their zippers done up when they know better.

Pretending that teen sex is an insolvable problem is nonsense. Claiming that teens should be free to do whatever their hormones leads them to is irresponsible. Some teens will engage in actions that will bring harm to themselves. That is a fact of life.

No pretending that teenager having sex with another teenager, means that said teenager will continue to have sex with teenagers even at age 44. Is nonsense. That is irresponsible. That is Unscientific. That is disgusting.

Tell that to the pedophiles. My point is that teens who cannot or will not try to control their sexual urges are unlikely to improve over time and will continue to abuse partners in adult life. Spousal (partner) abuse is not spontaneous; it is a learned behaviour.

However we must do what we can to minimize the instances and allow as many of our teens as possible to live long, happy and healthy lives. Taking a cautious approach to sex will not result in long-term harm to our teens. Pregnancy, STDs, HIV and AIDS can result in permanent damage or premature death.

11 years in prison over a blow job is not long term harm? Why would we throw a teen in jail for having sex with another person of the same age? That also causes long term harm.

Your fixation on this 17 year old, draconian application of law and improbable prison sentence suggests that you have a very guilty conscience. Even if your scenario could come to pass, you miss the obvious benefit of having his peers much more aware of the value of keeping their peckers in their pants.

Why would we not encourage teens to be very careful in choosing a partner to engage in sex with? Why would we not warn teens of the potential psychological and health risks?

Oh I get it, in order to avoid negative psychological impacts on teenagers, we should throw them in jail for having sex...yeah. Bullshit.

No, you don't 'get it' in any way shape or form and won't until you mature yourself.

------

There are real pedophiles out there. There are real sex offenders out there. there are mothers selling their nine year old daughters for $20 a sex session. There are people filming videos of sex session with pre-teens. There are young children being sexualy abused. Yet people like you have decided it is better to waste valuable resources throwing teenagers in Jail for havinh sex, who compare Teen sex to stealing a car. GIVE ME A BREAK.

No problem - which arm?

You're the idiot opposing age of consent law to avoid having randy teens called up on the carpet and thus giving pedophiles and predators wide open access to Canadian teens. Do you know anything about human trafficking or are you just spouting off without a clue? Hundreds of Canadian girls are dragged into the sex trade every year through promises of 'modeling careers' and big money. Once they are shipped away from home and family, they are assaulted, raped, possible hooked on drugs and turned out to service customers in a bawdy house. Each year a number of them turn up dead in a ditch somewhere either due to an overdose or because they fall out of favour with their pimp. Others are lured into the pornography trade and get to 'do it' in front of video cameras - their 'pay' is not getting killed by the operators.

Check out the newspapers in any major urban centre and see how may times young children are enticed into a passing car or van so that some youngsters can 'follow their urges'. When the gang is done, they toss out what is left of a young girl with a ruined life and no self-esteem or feeling of security ever again.

Your useless pantywaist sniveling about age of consent and teen sex allows this crap to continue unabated. You bleat about laws to catch the "bad guys" but offer nothing whatever as to what laws to do so would be effective. If you don't have solutions, have the decency to STFU and stand aside as the grownups are going to solve these problems.

[jdobbin]

Your useless pantywaist sniveling about age of consent and teen sex allows this crap to continue unabated. You bleat about laws to catch the "bad guys" but offer nothing whatever as to what laws to do so would be effective. If you don't have solutions, have the decency to STFU and stand aside as the grownups are going to solve these problems.

Any point you were trying to make is lost in the abuse you make on the poster.

Reported.

[WestViking]

Your useless pantywaist sniveling about age of consent and teen sex allows this crap to continue unabated. You bleat about laws to catch the "bad guys" but offer nothing whatever as to what laws to do so would be effective. If you don't have solutions, have the decency to STFU and stand aside as the grownups are going to solve these problems.

Any point you were trying to make is lost in the abuse you make on the poster. Reported.

Re-read the post I responded to; then crawl back in your hole troll!

[jdobbin]

Re-read the post I responded to; then crawl back in your hole troll!

Personal attacks are against the forum policy.

Reported again.

[WestViking]

Re-read the post I responded to; then crawl back in your hole troll!

Personal attacks are against the forum policy. Reported again.

If I attack you, there will be no doubt about it. Your unwarranted sense of chivalry is irrelevant; you chose to butt into an exchange between others. Your uneven fairness is noted without complaint. I can stand on my own two feet.

[jdobbin]

If I attack you, there will be no doubt about it. Your unwarranted sense of chivalry is irrelevant; you chose to butt into an exchange between others. Your uneven fairness is noted without complaint. I can stand on my own two feet.

The moderator was quite clear on personal attacks. I thought you would ignore the other poster's profanity rather than be provoked by it and respond to it. Your exchange is in a forum that others contribute to and read.

Your anger at me is misdirected. I had been reading the thread until the unnecessary personal stuff came into play.

[jbg]

Your useless pantywaist sniveling about age of consent and teen sex allows this crap to continue unabated. You bleat about laws to catch the "bad guys" but offer nothing whatever as to what laws to do so would be effective. If you don't have solutions, have the decency to STFU and stand aside as the grownups are going to solve these problems.

Any point you were trying to make is lost in the abuse you make on the poster.

Reported.

That's not what I would consider abuse. I've had people attack my motives for even posting here.