Age of Consent Hearings Moving Forward

mcqueen625 · November 15, 2006

5 posts in a row wow Betsy you're really fired up. The tone of your posts seem to suggest that you're anti-gay...you're not one of those hateful lemmings are you Betsy?

Now that the close in age exemption was added I am in favour of raising the age of consent. However, I can understand why EGALE and Svend are against the bill.

First of all exploitive sex with anyone under 18 is already illegal, so our kids are already protected. Secondly, the teen years are a very hard time for gays. They have the same sexual urges and desires as the rest of us but often face humiliation, persecution and violence if they are outed. As a result many homosexuals do not become open about their sexual orientation until they are older, thus making it very hard for teen homosexuals to find partners. They argue that since young gays are often forced to seek relationships with people in their 20's the bill treats homosexuals unfairly. I can see their point but a line has to be drawn somewhere. I prefer the line to be drawn at 16. Too many stupid young teens think it's cool to be with someone older so this bill will help the situation.

I believe it was Mulroney that actually lowered the age of consent to 14 in the first place so let's try to keep the partisanship to a minimum. I would also request that the gay bashing be turned down a bit but I realize some of the lemmings believe their God commands it.

well said... If your teen is having consensual sex with a person much older then they are that is their choice(as long as the person is not in a professional position of trust ie Doctor, teacher ect.). Probably not a good choice, but a choice none the less. If it is non consensual then there it is clearly a criminal issue. The right always bitches about the 'nanny state' when it comes to social services... so why the overreaching into personal lives? Im not advocating for pedophiles here... but exactly what is the problem with having the age of consent at 14? Hell when i was in school kids were sexually active at 10 or 11, many more were by the age of 14, by 16 if you were not sexually(not nessarily having sex... but other things... u can fill that in yourself) active you were definitely in the minority(cripes don't even get me started on the catholic school kids). I just don't see what problem changing the age of consent from 14 to 16 is supposed to solve. When i was in highschool i was 17, dating a 15 year old, for a brief 2 weeks i turned 18 while she was still 15, her birthday was 2 weeks after mine so she turned 16 shortly thereafter. That would have made me a criminal for those 2 weeks... thats a little silly don't you think? Arbitrary numbers applied to complicated issues and situations are not the solution in they actually created a criminal where none existed.

To be perfectly honest this seems like another thinly veiled attempt to get the government back into the bedrooms of the nation. Don't get me wrong... sexual assault is sexual assault... raising the age of consent 2 years is really not going to have a real impact.

No it doesn't because of the 5 year clause. I don't know of any 14 year old that is mature enough to make a decision that could affect the rest of their lives, since most kids that age think of themselves as invulnerable. Maybe the kids in your day were engaging in sex by 11 or 12, but they certainly weren't when I grew up. In fact very few people where getting any, unless it was in their mind or by themselves. IN this day and age with the prevalence of STD's and let's not forget HIV/AIDS that can kill, people should be especially worried about young kids engaging in sexual activity, and especially with much older adults, because the chances of them being infected are much higher.

MightyAC · November 15, 2006

First of all I believe, but correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't law now allow adults to develop relationships with anyone over the age of 14 years, and the exception only kicks in if that adult happens to be in a position of trust, IE: preacher, councellor, teacher, police officer, probation officer, etc. It does not presently prohibit the ordinary adult from presuing such a relationship with anyone over the age of consent, which presently happens to be 14.

From what I've read "exploitive" relationships with anyone under the age of 18 are illegal. I'm not sure if the term "exploitive" limits the law to the relationships you've listed or if it is one of those terms that give broad discretionary powers to judges. FTA Lawyer can likely provide more insight though.

I'm all for raising the age of consent to at least 16, the exemption of the 5 year clause. This will legally put a stop to any adult from manipulating or otherwise coericing a child into such a relationship. It won't prevent it from happening, but it will allow those caught to be prosecuted, unless one of our moronic, appointed, unaccountable judges rules off the wall as they do more often than not in this country.

I am not a lawyer but it seems to me that judges work with the laws provided to them. Quite often judges hands are tied by the wording of a law or the sentencing guidelines.

I see that the Justices of teh Supreme Court do not want the police to have any say in appointments to the bench. I wonder why, are they afraid rthey may be held accountable for some of their asinine rulings, that they actually be answerable to someone other than themselves in their ivory castles?

This probably deserves another thread, but I'll comment here for now. I think the Judicial Advisory Committees should be as independent from political influence as possible. Adding a police rep to each JAC seems like a reduction in independence and impartiality to me.

gerryhatrick · November 15, 2006

Nope. I do not say all gays are pedophiles.

On page two you made the implication, and I said:

Ah. Gays = pedophiles. Very nice betsy.

To which you replied:

Well?
What am I supposed to think?

Gerry, why didn't you post my entire reply? You left things out to make it sound like the way you want it to sound. You were trolling with your silly little innuendo! Obviously you know I was talking of EGALE!

Trolling with my silly little innuendo? Hardly. The comment you made before my "innuendo" was this:

I wonder what's in it for Svend.

I interpreted that logically. Svend = gay....you believe the benifit is for pedophiles...so your implication is that svend - because he's gay - is perhaps looking to gratify his pedophilia.

I did not post your entire answer, true, but I posted your immediate answer to my accusation that you're labelling gays as pedophiles, which was:

Well?

Don't act hard done by, you exposed your true feelings right there so live with it.

mcqueen625 · November 15, 2006

First of all I believe, but correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't law now allow adults to develop relationships with anyone over the age of 14 years, and the exception only kicks in if that adult happens to be in a position of trust, IE: preacher, counselor, teacher, police officer, probation officer, etc. It does not presently prohibit the ordinary adult from pursuing such a relationship with anyone over the age of consent, which presently happens to be 14.

From what I've read "exploitative" relationships with anyone under the age of 18 are illegal. I'm not sure if the term "exploitative" limits the law to the relationships you've listed or if it is one of those terms that give broad discretionary powers to judges. FTA Lawyer can likely provide more insight though.

I'm all for raising the age of consent to at least 16, the exemption of the 5 year clause. This will legally put a stop to any adult from manipulating or otherwise coercing a child into such a relationship. It won't prevent it from happening, but it will allow those caught to be prosecuted, unless one of our moronic, appointed, unaccountable judges rules off the wall as they do more often than not in this country.

I am not a lawyer but it seems to me that judges work with the laws provided to them. Quite often judges hands are tied by the wording of a law or the sentencing guidelines.

I see that the Justices of the Supreme Court do not want the police to have any say in appointments to the bench. I wonder why, are they afraid they may be held accountable for some of their asinine rulings, that they actually be answerable to someone other than themselves in their ivory castles?

This probably deserves another thread, but I'll comment here for now. I think the Judicial Advisory Committees should be as independent from political influence as possible. Adding a police rep to each JAC seems like a reduction in independence and impartiality to me.

I realize that this is a bit off-topic but, I believe the judiciary has far too much power in this country, to the point that our previous PM's have publicly stated that their word in the final word in this country. Myself I elect politicians to be accountable, but if they are going to allow appointed, unaccountable judges to write law in this country than that defeats the whole purpose of having elected representatives. Beverley McLaughlin, while lecturing to law students in New Zealand told them that the judiciary should be emboldened to write law, whether the constitution of their country allowed for that or not. That's called activist judges, who take more authority than was intended for them to have. If we are going to allow these judges to write our laws then maybe we should elect our judges and do away with the parliament, senate, and the G.G.

Argus · November 15, 2006

I interpreted that logically. Svend = gay....you believe the benifit is for pedophiles...so your implication is that svend - because he's gay - is perhaps looking to gratify his pedophilia.

I would say there is a very strong streak of hebephilia running through the male homosexual community, and it would not surprise me if Svend was one of those with such feelings.

MightyAC · November 15, 2006

I interpreted that logically. Svend = gay....you believe the benifit is for pedophiles...so your implication is that svend - because he's gay - is perhaps looking to gratify his pedophilia.

I would say there is a very strong streak of hebephilia running through the male homosexual community, and it would not surprise me if Svend was one of those with such feelings.

Isn't the definition of hebephilia a "sexual attraction felt by an adult to young people"? I am definitely attracted to fit, young, university girls. I think most of the heterosexual community are hebephiles as well.

Black Dog · November 15, 2006

I had no idea the magic maturity pixie come around on one's sweet 16. And who sez you can't learn nuthin' on the internets...

Really, though, since we don't let young people drink until they are at least 18 and they can't vote until then, why not jack the AoC up to 18? After all, if 16 year olds are more mature than 14 year olds, then 18 year olds would be way more mature than both.

I don't really see this law making that much of a practical difference. It's mainintent is to throw the base a bit of kibble.

jdobbin · November 15, 2006

I had no idea the magic maturity pixie come around on one's sweet 16. And who sez you can't learn nuthin' on the internets...
Really, though, since we don't let young people drink until they are at least 18 and they can't vote until then, why not jack the AoC up to 18? After all, if 16 year olds are more mature than 14 year olds, then 18 year olds would be way more mature than both.

I don't really see this law making that much of a practical difference. It's mainintent is to throw the base a bit of kibble.

Mmm, kibble.

Kind of tasteless though.

betsy · November 16, 2006

Nope. I do not say all gays are pedophiles.

On page two you made the implication, and I said:

Ah. Gays = pedophiles. Very nice betsy.

To which you replied:

Well?
What am I supposed to think?

Gerry, why didn't you post my entire reply? You left things out to make it sound like the way you want it to sound. You were trolling with your silly little innuendo! Obviously you know I was talking of EGALE!

Trolling with my silly little innuendo? Hardly. The comment you made before my "innuendo" was this:

I wonder what's in it for Svend.

I interpreted that logically. Svend = gay....you believe the benifit is for pedophiles...so your implication is that svend - because he's gay - is perhaps looking to gratify his pedophilia.

I did not post your entire answer, true, but I posted your immediate answer to my accusation that you're labelling gays as pedophiles, which was:

Well?

Don't act hard done by, you exposed your true feelings right there so live with it.

Okay, you've had your jollies Gerry.

Now can you please humor this anti-gay and bigotted Betsy and get back to answering one simple question.

What's wrong with 16?

gerryhatrick · November 16, 2006

Nope. I do not say all gays are pedophiles.

On page two you made the implication, and I said:

Ah. Gays = pedophiles. Very nice betsy.

To which you replied:

Well?
What am I supposed to think?

Gerry, why didn't you post my entire reply? You left things out to make it sound like the way you want it to sound. You were trolling with your silly little innuendo! Obviously you know I was talking of EGALE!

Trolling with my silly little innuendo? Hardly. The comment you made before my "innuendo" was this:

I wonder what's in it for Svend.

I interpreted that logically. Svend = gay....you believe the benifit is for pedophiles...so your implication is that svend - because he's gay - is perhaps looking to gratify his pedophilia.

I did not post your entire answer, true, but I posted your immediate answer to my accusation that you're labelling gays as pedophiles, which was:

Well?

Don't act hard done by, you exposed your true feelings right there so live with it.

Okay, you've had your jollies Gerry.

Now can you please humor this anti-gay and bigotted Betsy and get back to answering one simple question.

What's wrong with 16?

Nothing is wrong with 16.

The concerns expressed by those who wish to see the act further debated and/or changed are well known. Their websites are linked from this topic in fact. The concerns are legitimate, and portraying them as pedophiles is dishonest.

betsy · November 16, 2006

The concerns expressed by those who wish to see the act further debated and/or changed are well known. Their websites are linked from this topic in fact. The concerns are legitimate, and portraying them as pedophiles is dishonest.

EGALE's main position was to see that there is equality for everyone. Raising it to 16 had solved that. Everyone is equal!

Those who think 14 is too low...and this include the law enforcers, not to mention those who are concerned about the reputation Canada is starting to get for attracting pedophiles to this country....are also satisfied with raising it to 16.

Everyone SHOULD be happy!

So what now? EGALE thinks 16 is too old? :lol:

gerryhatrick · November 16, 2006

The concerns expressed by those who wish to see the act further debated and/or changed are well known. Their websites are linked from this topic in fact. The concerns are legitimate, and portraying them as pedophiles is dishonest.

EGALE's main position was to see that there is equality for everyone. Raising it to 16 had solved that. Everyone is equal!

The websites I read from links within this topic weren't EAGLE, and the concepts were more in-depth than just "equality for everyone".

not to mention those who are concerned about the reputation Canada is starting to get for attracting pedophiles to this country

No please, mention them. Who has expressed a concern that Canada is attracting pedophiles?

betsy · November 16, 2006

No please, mention them. Who has expressed a concern that Canada is attracting pedophiles?

I think they're part of law enforcers operating the pedophile sting on the internet. I had mentioned it before in one of the threads a little while back.

Argus · November 16, 2006

First of all exploitive sex with anyone under 18 is already illegal, so our kids are already protected.

Can you define "exploitive"? If I have a sexual relationship with a 14 year old girl, that in iteself is not, by law "exploitive". Maybe if I'm putting her on the street or something, but otherwise I don't think so. Do you know of any case where anyone has ever been convicted under this law?

Secondly, the teen years are a very hard time for gays. They have the same sexual urges and desires as the rest of us but often face humiliation, persecution and violence if they are outed. As a result many homosexuals do not become open about their sexual orientation until they are older, thus making it very hard for teen homosexuals to find partners.

Teen years are very hard for everyone, and lots of people have a hard time finding partners. But finding someone to have sex with is not a desperate necessity of life for most fourteen year olds. Certainly it's not so desperate that we, as a society, have to welcome the kindly volunteer work of forty year old gay men who want to bend the little boys over and have at them.

I believe it was Mulroney that actually lowered the age of consent to 14 in the first place

Just as in the case of your belief that it's desperately important for 14 year olds to have sex with adults, you are wrong.

Argus · November 16, 2006

I interpreted that logically. Svend = gay....you believe the benifit is for pedophiles...so your implication is that svend - because he's gay - is perhaps looking to gratify his pedophilia.

I would say there is a very strong streak of hebephilia running through the male homosexual community, and it would not surprise me if Svend was one of those with such feelings.

Isn't the definition of hebephilia a "sexual attraction felt by an adult to young people"?

More precisely, to post pubescent, ie, 13, 14, 15 and 16 year olds.

Argus · November 16, 2006

The concerns expressed by those who wish to see the act further debated and/or changed are well known. Their websites are linked from this topic in fact. The concerns are legitimate, and portraying them as pedophiles is dishonest.

EGALE's main position was to see that there is equality for everyone. Raising it to 16 had solved that. Everyone is equal!

The websites I read from links within this topic weren't EAGLE, and the concepts were more in-depth than just "equality for everyone".

I think it was "smooth chested, pretty faced young boys for everyone" wasn't it?

betsy · November 16, 2006

Trolling with my silly little innuendo? Hardly. The comment you made before my "innuendo" was this:
I wonder what's in it for Svend.

I interpreted that logically. Svend = gay....you believe the benifit is for pedophiles...so your implication is that svend - because he's gay - is perhaps looking to gratify his pedophilia.

Others who had read the rest of the exchanges which you have omitted would logically think...that since Svend is heavily supporting the age of 14, and had crusaded for that gag law to pass, effectively gagging practically anyone to voice out any criticisms for this lifestyle....of course any skeptics and cynics to the political world would scoff: what's in it for Svend?

I will say the same thing if it had been Hedy Fry or Harper or Bill Graham who had done what Svend is doing: opening the door for pedophiles through the help of EGALE, with a law that inhibits and intimidate anyone from saying anything that could easily be spinned to be translated into a hate comment. Quite a sly maneuver. What's in it for Hedy, or Harper, or Bill?

That Sven happens to be gay....only add to the skeptism...and drama.

And don't say critics will not have any reasons to be concerned or worried that this gag law can be manipulated and twisted quite easily to squash any criticisms. The accusations of "hate speech," bigot, anti-gay can be, and are easily and loosely levelled at, and irresponsibly, maliciously, and self-servingly thrown about so casually these days.

What more example of what I've said...valid concerns being twisted to be labelled anti-gay or bigotted views than the one you had displayed here right now. You are a shining example of how the gag law can be manipulated and exploited.

Besides, gay or heterosexuals....pedophiles, are pedophiles. Only in this battle, you know that pedophiles will be supporting and rooting for EGALE. After all, what EGALE is fighting for is to the pedophile's advantage. Practically, and mostly (if not solely) to the pedophile's advantage. Or those who like pubescent and post-pubescent children...somewhere around the ages of 14, or 13...or maybe 12 or 11.

Maybe 10 or 9. Or 8.

As for your pre-occupation with this novel concept, gay=pedophiles....like it's an off-shoot of another kind of bisexuality (is it?)....

It is YOU who seem to automatically want to think that, gay=pedophiles. Twice you have insisted on tying the two together, like an old pair of shoes....or a married couple.

Stop it, Gerry. Or we might think that in your subconscious you do really think and believe that, gay=pedophiles....and we just might buy that, thanks to you. :lol:

Black Dog · November 16, 2006

Can anyone provide a citation demonstrating EGALE's opposition to this? That'd be swell.

kimmy · November 16, 2006

Can anyone provide a citation demonstrating EGALE's opposition to this? That'd be swell.

EGALE statement

Northern Liberal blog: EGALE giving ammunition to their opponents:

When organizations like EGALE, the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights, the Ontario NDP "Queer Caucus" speak out against a measure to raise the age of consent that has nothing to do with LGBT rights they do their own movement a massive disservice.

-k

Black Dog · November 16, 2006

EGALE statement

The Justice Minister, in his rush to introduce legislation to raise the age of consent, completely ignored an opportunity to address one of the most glaring examples of inequality in Canada’s Criminal Code.
Bill C-22 was introduced in the House of Commons on June 22, the day before Parliament adjourned for the Summer. The Bill proposes to raise the age of consent for sexual activity from 14 to 16.

...

The more glaring oversight of Bill C-22, however, is that it leaves on the books an unequal age of consent for anal sex. It is the ONE and ONLY sexual activity for which the age of consent is still 18 years of age.

The rest of their opposition seems rather lukewarm. So this is their main issue.

Northern Liberal blog: EGALE giving ammunition to their opponents:

From his link:

Along with organizations such as the Canadian Federation for Sexual Health (Planned Parenthood), the Canadian AIDS Society, Egale Canada, and the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario, we believe that the Criminal Code adequately deals with sexual exploitation and internet luring, the supposed reasons for this bill. Under Bill C-2, passed in 2005, any exploitative sexual relationship with a person under the age of 18 is against the law.
Therefore, the only relationships which will be criminalized by this bill are, by legal definition, consensual and not exploitative.

That 14 year olds aren't mature enough to give infomed consent to have sex is treated on this thread as a prori. But is that so? Also, as I said before, there's an assumption that those two years between 14 and 16 are crucial, but that is, IMO, one of those "just-so" stories. Me, I'm having a hard time seeing why a 16 year old having sex with a 70 year old is any ickier than a 14 year old having sex with the same septugenarian.

kimmy · November 16, 2006

From his link:

Along with organizations such as the Canadian Federation for Sexual Health (Planned Parenthood), the Canadian AIDS Society, Egale Canada, and the Coalition for Lesbian and Gay Rights in Ontario, we believe that the Criminal Code adequately deals with sexual exploitation and internet luring, the supposed reasons for this bill. Under Bill C-2, passed in 2005, any exploitative sexual relationship with a person under the age of 18 is against the law.

Therefore, the only relationships which will be criminalized by this bill are, by legal definition, consensual and not exploitative.

The problem with that, as I've argued already, is that the definition of "exploitive" is said to be "broad and open to interpretation", which I suspect in practical terms means it's virtually useless.

I hate to keep harping on this, but when we saw 2 cases last week where judges were unwilling to interpret bludgeoning people to death with baseball bats as murder, so why would I assume they'd be any bolder in deciding what is or isn't exploitation?

My suspicion is that judges are actually a very conservative lot... and I don't mean socially conservative, I mean conservative in the sense that they don't want to make waves, don't want to create drama, don't want to do anything that's going to get their name on the front page, don't want to do anything that's going to get their decisions reviewed by appeals courts, don't want to break with established definitions and practices that are long-established in the legal tradition.

I suspect that no judge is going to want to be the first judge to decide that an adult with a nice car and an apartment of his own seducing a youth is "exploitive".

Maybe FTA Lawyer could jump in and tell me if I'm out to lunch in thinking that.

That 14 year olds aren't mature enough to give infomed consent to have sex is treated on this thread as a prori. But is that so? Also, as I said before, there's an assumption that those two years between 14 and 16 are crucial, but that is, IMO, one of those "just-so" stories. Me, I'm having a hard time seeing why a 16 year old having sex with a 70 year old is any ickier than a 14 year old having sex with the same septugenarian.

As with any exercise in drawing arbitrary lines, there's going to be lots of exceptions on both sides. There are probably lots of 14 year olds who have highly developed maturity and personal responsibility. There are certainly lots of people who don't develop any maturity or personal responsibility by the time they're 16, or by the time they're 30, for that matter.

But by and large? I'd say yes, on the whole, 16 year olds are on average far more physically and emotionally and mentally mature.

Physically, a 14 year old is in the midst of extraordinary physical changes, and their little brain is pumped full of hormones. A 16 year old has already in large part physically evolved, and has had time to psychologically adjust to his or her new body (for a boy, maybe this is not so dramatic, but for a girl, trust me, it's pretty overwhelming.) The hormones have calmed down a little.

A 16 year old has a little more experience. A 16 year old is less likely to be blown away by the first adult he or she meets who has a car or an apartment or alcohol or a bag of pot.

-k

Black Dog · November 16, 2006

The problem with that, as I've argued already, is that the definition of "exploitive" is said to be "broad and open to interpretation", which I suspect in practical terms means it's virtually useless.

IOW it's arbitrary. Kinda like deciding that 16 year olds are inherently more mature than 14 year olds.

As with any exercise in drawing arbitrary lines, there's going to be lots of exceptions on both sides. There are probably lots of 14 year olds who have highly developed maturity and personal responsibility. There are certainly lots of people who don't develop any maturity or personal responsibility by the time they're 16, or by the time they're 30, for that matter.
But by and large? I'd say yes, on the whole, 16 year olds are on average far more physically and emotionally and mentally mature.

Physically, a 14 year old is in the midst of extraordinary physical changes, and their little brain is pumped full of hormones. A 16 year old has already in large part physically evolved, and has had time to psychologically adjust to his or her new body (for a boy, maybe this is not so dramatic, but for a girl, trust me, it's pretty overwhelming.) The hormones have calmed down a little.

A 16 year old has a little more experience. A 16 year old is less likely to be blown away by the first adult he or she meets who has a car or an apartment or alcohol or a bag of pot.

I beg to differ simply because it's such a broad generalization. Kids mature physically a lot earlier hese days than they used to. A girl who's hormones have cranked up at 12 may be settled by 14, while there are other kids who haven't even hit puberty by 16.

Like I said, it's totally arbitrary and emotionally-based. Personally, I don't care if they raise it (I don't think 14 year olds should be having sex, but then I also don't expect them to listen to me). I just don't see it doing a helluva lot. It's a lot of sizzle for very little steak.

watching&waiting · November 16, 2006

Loking for the exact place to draw the line is futile. Society willnever agree on a definite place and feel good about it. But with certain safe guards in place like the close in age exception, I would say that to draw the line at 16 is probably a good choice. I feel that while yes there are many 16 yearolds who will have learned to be mature in their thoughts, there are also a large number who can not be said to be so. While I would preferr the age to be set at 18, and the close in age clause to be there, then by that time we would have pretty much made sure we covered the issue as best as possible. Most will not agree with me that 18 should be the correct number, but if they look at the fact that it would cover with the 5year close in age rule those from 13 on up. Which to be truthful that is when things start starting to take hold for most people. But as I said since 18 probably will not fly, I would see my way to agreeing to 16 as the age of consent.

betsy · November 16, 2006

But by and large? I'd say yes, on the whole, 16 year olds are on average far more physically and emotionally and mentally mature.
Physically, a 14 year old is in the midst of extraordinary physical changes, and their little brain is pumped full of hormones. A 16 year old has already in large part physically evolved, and has had time to psychologically adjust to his or her new body (for a boy, maybe this is not so dramatic, but for a girl, trust me, it's pretty overwhelming.) The hormones have calmed down a little.

A 16 year old has a little more experience. A 16 year old is less likely to be blown away by the first adult he or she meets who has a car or an apartment or alcohol or a bag of pot.

-k

And may I add this medical info:

"The lining of the vagina is tough, like the skin on our hands, so it can withstand the trauma of intercourse and child bearing. But the lining of the anus is too delicate to withstand any trauma.

Dr Jeffrey Satinover says: "anal intercourse, penile or otherwise, traumatizes the soft tissues of the rectal lining. These tissues... are nowhere near as sturdy as vaginal tissue. As a consequence, the lining of the rectum is almost always traumatized to some degree by any act of anal intercourse. Even in the absence of major trauma, minor or microscopic tears in the rectal lining allow for immediate contamination and the entry of germs into the bloodstream."

"Furthermore, comparable tears in the vagina are not only less frequent because of the relative toughness of the vaginal lining, but the environment of the vagina is vastly cleaner than that of the rectum. Indeed, we are designed with a nearly impenetrable barrier between the bloodstream and the extraordinarily toxic and infectious contents of the bowel. Anal intercourse creates a breach in this barrier for the receptive partner, whether or not the insertive partner is wearing a condom."

In addition to the trauma of intercourse, semen can eat away at the intestinal lining. This allows a person to "infect themselves" as the bacteria from their feces enter the blood stream.

As a result of this, a man is 2,700 times more likely to get an HIV infection from anal intercourse than he is from vaginal intercourse. "

So in considering the age factor, a whole lot of physical damage could result in anal sex with a 14 year old.