Attention Cradle Robbers
- Thread starter fuji
- Start date
It's not a ban on the right of a 14yr old to have sex it's a ban on a 14yr old having sex with a 30yr old.bandita said:
If you are talking about a 30 year old, yes I agree..KWI said:
But if you are telling me about a 17 year old guy and his 19 year old girlfriend, and you think you can possibly make them wait a year to have sex, just because you passed a law, then you really have no idea what you are talking about, and have forgotten all about what it's like to be 17.
With that version of the law you would have criminalized what I did when I was 17, 18, and 19, and what everyone else I knew was doing too. I had sex when I was 17 with a girl my own age. When I was 19 I had a 17 year old girlfriend, we met in University--she had fast tracked through highschool and entered University life young. I was nowhere near her first sexual partner either, nowhere near. What's the point in turing the majority of teenagers into criminals?
There is a big, big difference between a 19 year old dating a 17 year old, and a 30 year old dating a 17 year old. In all probability the pair of teens like each other a lot, but the 30 year old is most likely just a predator.
I think you want to write a law that catches the predators and lets normal teens do what normal teens do.
Actually, the age of adult responsibility in North America is reflected by the age we allow them to drive one tonne machines around with other large killing machines. In many places, that rite of passage into adulthood is as low as 14 years old. Personally I think the ability to easily kill other humans might be a tad more important to raise than the age to have sex with whoever.KWI said:
If you truly believed this, then you wouldn't really care what the legal age is because girls who are properly educated will make the right choices anyways. Perhaps the government should spend less time changing laws that are entirely random and spend more time seeing our children are properly educated for life?
hyperbole
Actually it is a ban on 14 year olds having sex. The proposal is to raise the base age to 16 with bracketing above that, so anyone having sex with someone under 16 (even if that age themselves) would indeed be guilty of statutory rape.Dead2Parrot said:
Anyone else find it funny that the government is doing this one solely on belief with no facts nor stats of how often 14 year olds are actually having sex with older individuals? Personally I'd wager it happens so infrequently that it really isn't worth the cost of changing the law. But then again the Conservatives have to justify paying their consultants for something and appear to be doing something at the same time. Can we say "the new ways to stuff your supporters' pockets with money in the post-sponsorship age"?
hyperbole
Ummmm....you realize this is exactly what the current law does, right? It allows for legitimate relationships while banning those unduly based on authority and influence as well as those of a predatory nature. Technically if you are afraid the 30 year old is a true predator, there are already sections that cover those aspects. But to be honest, I think more teenaged girls are at risk from predators their own age than those who are much older.fuji said:
Just saying.
hyperbole
Horny 14 year old boys while pushy and blinded by hormones are not IMO as predatory as older men. They are not sophisticated or subtle. Everyone knows what they want. Two 14 year olds are on a much more equal playing field then a 14 year old girl and a 40 year old man.
This isn't the first time the conservatives have tried to raise the age of consent. Hopefully they fail again and it's the end of this issue for now.
This isn't the first time the conservatives have tried to raise the age of consent. Hopefully they fail again and it's the end of this issue for now.
Holy fucking crap out of Hell!!!!bandita said:
And I do hope all of you silly moronic Idiotic people that some of us do vote for, somehow kinda stay in the background!!
At the same time I do kinda wish you"ll kinda stay away from my vote, cause I kinda wish you'll kinda.....sorta......kinda....uhm..never mind!!!!!
To be honest, I waited too. I also agree that education is the right way on this one and as such I oppose changing the law because it is truly pointless. The fact is that legal precedent in Canada has allowed for someone charged with statutory rape to have it dismissed by the legal finding the girl (even younger than 14) was able to form legal consent. As such, raising the age changes nothing. There is also precedent in the opposite direction that charges men taking advantage of older people who cannot form consent (like with the mentally challenged). I just don't see why we can't just utilize the laws we have instead of wasting time and money on changing them in a way that will only lead to more of a waste of the courts time. If an older guy takes advantage of a 14 year old girl, then you can charge him now with the existing laws.KWI said:I was stupid to think a review board for guys who hire women to have sex would actually see problems with teen sex. I mean I don't know what I was thinking.
Personally my opinion will stay the same, I think it is not impossible to wait to have sex. I know many who have done it. I think that boys and girls need to be properly educated, to bad I am an in the minor here, so in the mean time I will educate my kids and hope for the best as that is all anyone can do. I will continue to feel that sex with a minor is wrong and if this new law will change the sex laws to a higher age, then I will actually suppost Harper on the issue.
I don't think that a 16 you should be driving, I don't think at 14 you should be having sex. Those are just my opinions, but then again I didn't do some of those teenage things, drinking drugs, partying at 16-17. I actually waited.
My point is that it doesn't matter if they leave it and it won't matter if they change it. The law has provided contingencies for both ends of the spectrum. So when it doesn't matter, I choose the course of action that will save more taxpayers money. That's all I'm saying.
hyperbole
No, it doesn't. It allows for sex between a 14 year old and a 30 year old where the 30 year old is not in a position of trust or authority. What I was suggesting was that raising the age from 14 to 16 might be sensible, provided that the 14 year olds can carry on having sex with one another, or with others near their own age.hyperbole said:
In fact I don't see any problem with teen sex. There is absolutely nothing wrong with it. It may go against the grain of your religion or something, but last I checked we don't go around encoding some particular sect's religious edicts into a law that applies to everyone.KWI said:I was stupid to think a review board for guys who hire women to have sex would actually see problems with teen sex. I mean I don't know what I was thinking.
Not impossible, sure. It's also not impossible to go your whole life without having sex. Some people do that, they take vows of celibacy and never ever have a sexual partner, so plainly it is "not impossible" to wait until 18.
However, that COMPLETELY misses the point. The question is NOT whether it is "possible" to choose wait, but rather whether we should make choosing not to wait a criminal offense punishable by jail time.
I am not going to try and persuade you that you should have had sex when you were a teen like I did, and like most other people did. Instead, I am simply going to tell you that your choice was a valid one, and so was mine. To each his own.
You will have to come up with better than "it is not impossible to wait" to justify throwing someone in jail for doing something that the majority of people do.
I don't disagree with you. However, I think there is nothing wrong with "sex between minors", when you write "sex with a minor" it carries the connotation that one of the persons involved in an adult or something. That is not where we disagree, we agree about that.
Well, welcome to the 1950's. Those 1930's attitudes you have are somehwat dated now.
And that's a fine opinion for you to have, and while I am glad that I didn't wait, I'm not going to tell you how to live your life. I am going to tell you to get off telling other people how to live theirs--which is what you do when you advocate turning your "opinion" into criminal code.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. You do realize that only a few more decades before even that it was fairly common for a 14 year old girl to marry a man even much older than 30, right? Your puritanical views of sex and who should and shouldn't have it is a rather new concept in human history. As such, it's rather amusing you accuse others of being dated with their beliefs when your own has such a short comparative existence.fuji said:
hyperbole
Exactly. So if a woman, regardless of her age, has the maturity to choose a sexual partner, then maybe you should not try to obstruct that. But no, you want to perpetuate the drawing of an arbitrary line. Feminism is about allowing women the choice, not further limiting their choice. Nice try though.fuji said:
hyperbole
So, you are all in favour of criminalizing what most people do. Great, and you call that giving people "choice". Wow.KWI said:
What you are overlooking, apparently, is that in a democracy we also get to choose, as a society, what the laws are. Attempting to shut down the debate by saying "you can go to jail if you don't like it" is a dodge.
I called you on your BS about women marrying at age 14 in the past, when in reality it was more like being sold off or traded as chattel... you are now avoiding responding to that by throwing up some sand about feminism that mostly just shows you don't understand it.hyperbole said:Exactly. So if a woman, regardless of her age, has the maturity to choose a sexual partner, then maybe you should not try to obstruct that. But no, you want to perpetuate the drawing of an arbitrary line. Feminism is about allowing women the choice, not further limiting their choice. Nice try though.
First, you are wrong about "has the maturity to choose a sexual partner", the whole idea of age of consent laws is that when faced with a manipulative predator 14 year old girls do NOT have the maturity to consent. On the other hand, when faced with a peer, they may well have it. Second, ANY solution here is going to be somewhat arbitrary: You either arbitrarily deny that predators go after 14 year old girls, arbitrarily deny 14 year olds protection from the same, arbitrarily outlaw sex above or below a given age, or, yes, arbitrarily picking an age and then setting out exceptions (+/- within age bands) that statistically minmimize the chances of harm while also minimizing the number of normal situations that would wind up criminalized.
Feminism is not about creating loopholes for sexual predators to stalk 14 year olds, but it is very much about strengthening laws that protect women and girls from sexual predators, from rape of all forms, and so on.
Thanks for playing, though.
Buddy, you really need to do alot more reading and get a little educated before shooting your mouth off. The highest bracket by a large margin for predatory sex on 14 to 18 year olds is date rape. That would be the peers you say are okay, by the way. Your problem is that you seem to believe predators are much older than they really are. Changing the age for sex doesn't strengthen protection from predators, it in fact will weaken it through a false sense of security.fuji said:
But whatever.....stay in the bliss of your ignorance.
hyperbole
