Tories move to raise age of consent

[Maritime Q-Scout]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

I know what your getting at, and I would probably feel the same way. But, just because what the guy is doing to your daughter is not illegal, doesn't mean you dont have a motive.

The police would definately be checking you out.

Oh I know they would be, but in an earlier post I stated I know people that think because something's legal it's perfectly ok. Going by that logic the police would never suspect me

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by peter12

What?! How is that fair? At 14, the girl ran off to the streets and hooked up with an older guy. It speaks volumes that the parents have been trying so hard to get her back home.

Just trying to be funny. At the risk of spouting off in some area that I have zero experience in (even though that usually doesn't stop me) it just seems that there were a variety of things that probably happened before said girl turned 14 that would lead her to take off with an older guy. Some of those things could have been attributed to the parents. Many could not.

I'm not a parent and I'm no parenting guru. So pile on or continue discussing the change to the laws.

[FlamesAddiction]

Personally, I don't see the big deal.

Honestly, some older males (and on rare occasions - females) are going to have sexual relations with minors. This will happen regardless of whether the legal age of consent is raised to 16 or stays at 14.

At least with the lower age of consent, it gives a person in such a relationship the option to be open and seek advice on sexual health matters without fear of sending their partner to jail, or being sent to jail. All this will do is make people hide their relationships and not seek help or advice when it is needed.

[sadora]

I hate that president, I mean Prime Minister Harper is calling this "Age of Protection" I mean how sweet and caring and full of BS does that sound. If Harper wants to in fact "protect" the children then why not introduce tougher laws against sex offenders and repeat offenders?

MOD DELETION - Over the line.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Honestly, some older males (and on rare occasions - females) are going to have sexual relations with minors. This will happen regardless of whether the legal age of consent is raised to 16 or stays at 14.

....

All this will do is make people hide their relationships and not seek help or advice when it is needed.

If you're going to take that stand, why not lower the age to 12 or 10?

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by sadora

If Harper wants to in fact "protect" the children then why not introduce tougher laws against sex offenders and repeat offenders?

Ummmm... he is.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Personally, I don't see the big deal.

Honestly, some older males (and on rare occasions - females) are going to have sexual relations with minors. This will happen regardless of whether the legal age of consent is raised to 16 or stays at 14.

At least with the lower age of consent, it gives a person in such a relationship the option to be open and seek advice on sexual health matters without fear of sending their partner to jail, or being sent to jail. All this will do is make people hide their relationships and not seek help or advice when it is needed.

What kind of statement is that? It's wrong plain and simple. There is absolutly no reason for a 40 year old person to be having sexual relations with, IMO, anyone under 18 and most certanly not 14.

If you think that these people are going to seek advise on sexual health matters, you are living in a dream world.

It is just unbelievable how anyone can make an arguement like you are making.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by sadora

I hate that president, I mean Prime Minister Harper is calling this "Age of Protection" I mean how sweet and caring and full of BS does that sound. If Harper wants to in fact "protect" the children then why not introduce tougher laws against sex offenders and repeat offenders?

MOD DELETION

As for you..... I hope your being sarcastic.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by calculoso

If you're going to take that stand, why not lower the age to 12 or 10?

I would argue that 10 and 12 year olds are not sexual beings, and are therefore NOT capable of consenting.

Whether we want to admit it or not, most 14 year olds are sexual beings. They have biological impulses at that age, and most have secondary sex characteristics at that age (can't say the same thing about 10 and 12 year olds). Trying to stop all of them from having sex would be impossible.

I'm not saying it isn't a slippery slope, but 14 seems reasonable. I'm not saying it's right for an adult to seek a relationship with such a person, but it is going to happen no matter what. Might as well be upfront about it when it happens.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

If you think that these people are going to seek advise on sexual health matters, you are living in a dream world.

Why wouldn't they?

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Why wouldn't they?

Would they be denied Sexual health advice if they were considered underage? Honestly, you've made a really stupid argument to try to not get the age of consent lowered - I think you are just debating for the sake of it.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I would argue that 10 and 12 year olds are not sexual beings, and are therefore NOT capable of consenting.

Whether we want to admit it or not, most 14 year olds are sexual beings.

14 year olds never used to be sexual beings. They have evolved into such over time from their outside stimulii (Britney Spears, etc). Just look at their clothes when at the mall and compare that to years ago. It's night and day.

If you're still going to use that argument, why won't 12 year olds be sexual beings in a few years? They are in other parts of the world, aren't they?

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Trying to stop all of them from having sex would be impossible.

That's not the point.

The point is to deter the adults from even going after them. Sure there are always going to be some deviants who do it anyway. That's a given. Why accept it and plan for it instead of deal with the exception when it occurs?

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I would argue that 10 and 12 year olds are not sexual beings, and are therefore NOT capable of consenting.

Whether we want to admit it or not, most 14 year olds are sexual beings. They have biological impulses at that age, and most have secondary sex characteristics at that age (can't say the same thing about 10 and 12 year olds). Trying to stop all of them from having sex would be impossible.

I'm not saying it isn't a slippery slope, but 14 seems reasonable. I'm not saying it's right for an adult to seek a relationship with such a person, but it is going to happen no matter what. Might as well be upfront about it when it happens.

There is a HUGE difference of 14 & 15 year olds have sexual encounters together rather than 14 yr olds and 40 year old and there is nothing you can say to change that fact.

Any 40 year old that has sex with a 14 year old is a pedophile. There is no way you can argue that a 14 year old has the same maturity level as a 40 year old. The 40 year old has a CONTROL factor over the 14 year old.
Just because they are sexual doesnt mean that they need to be sexual with a 40 year old.

Unbelievable.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CaramonLS

Would they be denied Sexual health advice if they were considered underage? Honestly, you've made a really stupid argument to try to not get the age of consent lowered - I think you are just debating for the sake of it.

Just consider this for a second.

Forget about the "40 year old" everyone is talking about. Say a 20 year old knocks up a 15 year old. If the legal age of consent was 16, then the 15 year old might opt out of prenatal care in fear of sending her boyfriend to jail.

While health services may not be denied to her, they would still likely be punished. Such a thing could deter someone from opting for pre-natal care or STD testing.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Just consider this for a second.

Forget about the "40 year old" everyone is talking about. Say a 20 year old knocks up a 15 year old. If the legal age of consent was 16, then the 15 year old might opt out of prenatal care in fear of sending her boyfriend to jail.

While health services may not be denied to her, they would still likely be punished. Such a thing could deter someone from opting for pre-natal care or STD testing.

Under the new legislation they would not have a problem because they are within a 5 year difference. So your argument doesnt fly.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by calculoso

14 year olds never used to be sexual beings. They have evolved into such over time from their outside stimulii (Britney Spears, etc). Just look at their clothes when at the mall and compare that to years ago. It's night and day.

If you're still going to use that argument, why won't 12 year olds be sexual beings in a few years? They are in other parts of the world, aren't they?

That is completely 100% false. Recent outside stimuli has no effect on millions of years of evolution.

In fact, up until modern times, it wasn't unusual at all for a 14 or 15 year old to be married and have children. It was a necessity back in the time when human life expectancy was in the 30s and infant mortality rate more than 50%.


While we may not have those problems in our country today, it doesn't change the fact that nature has made humans evolve in such a way that gives them sexual desires as an teenager.

The point is to deter the adults from even going after them. Sure there are always going to be some deviants who do it anyway. That's a given. Why accept it and plan for it instead of deal with the exception when it occurs?

I seriously doubt it would deter them though. That is the point.

Most data I have seen shows that punishments are rarely a deterrant.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

Under the new legislation they would not have a problem because they are within a 5 year difference. So your argument doesnt fly.

Well, change it to 21 then.

[Lombogirl]

Originally Posted by calculoso

14 year olds never used to be sexual beings. They have evolved into such over time from their outside stimulii (Britney Spears, etc). Just look at their clothes when at the mall and compare that to years ago. It's night and day.

You can be a sexual being without having sex.
I'm not advocating minors having sex, just sayin'
With that said, young people do not have the maturity to make decisions about sex, especially when its with someone who is much older and more experienced. Even a 14 yr old and an 18 yr old shouldn't have sex - there are huge leaps in development in those years, even though its technically under the 5 yr difference law.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by jolinar of malkshor

There is a HUGE difference of 14 & 15 year olds have sexual encounters together rather than 14 yr olds and 40 year old and there is nothing you can say to change that fact.

Any 40 year old that has sex with a 14 year old is a pedophile. There is no way you can argue that a 14 year old has the same maturity level as a 40 year old. The 40 year old has a CONTROL factor over the 14 year old.
Just because they are sexual doesnt mean that they need to be sexual with a 40 year old.

Unbelievable.

I never said that a 40 year old having sex with a 14 year old is normal or morally right.

I'm just saying that it is a much more complex issue than that.

[jolinar of malkshor]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I never said that a 40 year old having sex with a 14 year old is normal or morally right.

I'm just saying that it is a much more complex issue than that.

No it is not.