Attention Cradle Robbers
- Thread starter fuji
- Start date
Oil Please said:So I take it by your post that you are into kids. May you rot in HELL!
Nice play on words.. the law defines them not as kids but "young persons"
btw... do you have a hot daughter who is a ripe "young person"?
The youngest I have had is 17... i was 21... Personally, I don't see what I would have in common with a young person... but if some people are into that than that is their perogative and as long as they do it carefully, within the constraints of the law.. I see it something like walking a minefield.
You may not agree with their choices.. but who are you to judge anyone, unless you have lived your life, free from sin.
Some would call you a rapist for paying.Oil Please said:So I take it by your post that you are into kids. May you rot in HELL!
There are some cases that are plainly disgusting and I don't mind seeing them banned. A 30 year old having sex with a 14 year old is highly questionable in my mind. On the other hand, is it really unbelievable that a grade 9 student might be dating someone in grade 12? That would be considered rape under Harper's proposal.
Raising the age of consent to 16 or even 18 is OK so long as those age bands are widened at the same time. Two years is too narrow if the age of consent is going to be raised. It should be more like within 4 years of their own age for those 14-16.
Raising the age of consent to 16 or even 18 is OK so long as those age bands are widened at the same time. Two years is too narrow if the age of consent is going to be raised. It should be more like within 4 years of their own age for those 14-16.
Homosexual activists are lobbying for Harper to lower the legal anal sex age from 18 down to 16 as a rssult of this.
No way Harper willl even think about that.to-guy69 said:Homosexual activists are lobbying for Harper to lower the legal anal sex age from 18 down to 16 as a rssult of this.
Not entirely true. The courts insisted that gay unions have the exact same legal rights and privileges (and responsibilities) as hetero unions do. Fair enough, I think people should be entitled to half if they're gay and gay people shouldn't have it better off than anyone else in that regard. I also think it's fair for gay couples to pay more taxes too.enduser1 said:I seem to remember it wasn't the government who legalized gay marriage. It was the courts.
But it was the Liberals who went the step further and required that the actual definition of "marriage" be changed instead of merely adding a gay union bracket as they were required. Really it was the mistake that likely killed them, as everyone expects even the Tories to be skimming money eventually (as the sponsorhip program was actually started by Mulroney).
hyperbole
Back to the topic at hand, the real legal issue has less to do with morality and more to do with the legal definition of "informed consent". Sure, people try to make it about morality and Harper will be no different but the truth is that a 14 y.o. these days is alot more mature and aware than ever before, so it'd be unlikely this change would ever survive a serious legal challege. Not that I think it'll get challenged anytime soon but it'll happen someday. Why, you ask? Hell, I've read it was a few years back when there was a case of a guy screwing his 12 y.o. babysitter and the statutory rape charges were defeated when it was found that the girl in question has the mental ability/maturity to understand her legal position and make informed consent. As such, you also will never see the law change to make the age 18 because that will effectively make the driving age 18 across the country as well (and we all know there will be serious resistance to that).
Not what the guys with daughters want to hear but the reality is parents should be talking to their children about these issues instead of sticking their heads in the sand and hoping the law will maybe fall their way. Knowing and communicating with your daughter will go further to protecting them from the older men than the law ever could.
hyperbole
Not what the guys with daughters want to hear but the reality is parents should be talking to their children about these issues instead of sticking their heads in the sand and hoping the law will maybe fall their way. Knowing and communicating with your daughter will go further to protecting them from the older men than the law ever could.
hyperbole
If 14 is a child, there are provinces where children are mature enough to drive.Oil Please said:I think 14 is not a young woman but a child. I would not touch a child but it sounds as if its normal for you.
In Alberta there are many 14 year old drivers
Slightly different, in rural, they must drive to farm. It doesn't mean they are adults.Papi Chulo said:If 14 is a child, there are provinces where children are mature enough to drive.
In Alberta there are many 14 year old drivers
In a certain town in rural Ontario, there are many underage moms that think a career is making babies & collecting social benefit.
Oil Please said:I think 14 is not a young woman but a child. I would not touch a child but it sounds as if its normal for you.
if a girl is 13 or 14 and wants to have sex what difference does it make if she has sex with a 15 yr old or a 40 yr old person , sex is sex .
booboobear said:if a girl is 13 or 14 and wants to have sex what difference does it make if she has sex with a 15 yr old or a 40 yr old person , sex is sex .
OH OH, look out the excrement is heading towards the rotating device even as we speak. I am now running to take cover from this storm.
Sex with your peers even at 13 is far different than having sex with someone 10 or 20 years older. The predator factor is far greater, the older one isn't interested in a relationship.
I don't know what the legal age should be, each of us learns to handle it at different ages - some never do and are too vulnerable even at 40.
I don't know what the legal age should be, each of us learns to handle it at different ages - some never do and are too vulnerable even at 40.
Svend said:Sex with your peers even at 13 is far different than having sex with someone 10 or 20 years older. The predator factor is far greater, the older one isn't interested in a relationship.
I don't know what the legal age should be, each of us learns to handle it at different ages - some never do and are too vulnerable even at 40.
Don't tell me a 14 yr old boy is interested in a relationship . I agree with you I don't know what the legal age should be but I don't think the courts should necessarily decide , like you said people learn to handle it at different ages . Some girls would never think of having sex at 14 , 15 or 16 yet others seem to seek it out . I don't agree that a man should necessarily be punished if he has sex with a girl 14 or 15 , I believe in some states in the U.S.A they can marry at 14 yr
KWI said:I am sorry but I have to disagree. I think that a man/woman, at the legal age of 18 and above should not be having sex with a minor period. There is something very wrong with a 30-40, even a 20-25 yr old sleeping with a 14 yr old. That is my opinion and anyone who does have sex with a minor should be punished as fully as possible.
I don't care what anyone says, the mind-set of a teenage is completely different from an adult even if that adult is completely immature.
KWI
I respect your right to diagree but what does legal age mean , it's only a man made arbitrary figure.
How can you decide when it is and isn't right is 19 and 15 wrong but 18 and 16 ok and 22 and 16 wrong but 16 and 14 ok or 24 and 15 which is 9 years difference and there are a lot of marriages with a difference of 9 years.
My point is there ar too many variables for you to decide what is right and wrong.
The way that reads, you have a problem with a 17 year old getting together with an 18 year old. I think there has to be considerable allownace for people to hook up if they are within a few years of each others age.KWI said:I am sorry but I have to disagree. I think that a man/woman, at the legal age of 18 and above should not be having sex with a minor period.
I agree with you outside that, and suspect that perhaps you didn't mean it quite like that.
As for 14 year olds and 30 year olds... while there might be some very, very unusual cases where it is healthy/normal for the 14 year old, I suspect that the overwhelming number of cases would be exploitative, harmful relationships. The costs to the great many 14 year olds who would be injured simply outweigh the benefits in the few freak instances where it would not be harmful.
Plainly there is no good cutoff year. People mature at different ages, and a freakishly small number of 14 year olds may well mature enough that they are capable of consenting adequately to sex with a 30 year old. However, we have to pick some number, and picking a number like 16 (or even 18 with wide enough "bands" for sex with peers) seems like the best way to get it right most of the time.
It is unclear what great harm befalls a 30 year old if he has to wait 2 years for the 14 year old love of his life to turn 16. I just don't see how anyone is really harmed by having to wait, whereas I see a great many people harmed by allowing predators to go after the majority of 14 year olds who aren't mature enough to fend them off properly.
They should leaVE the law as it is.
Twelve year olds in Ontario have the right to decline inoculations against their parents wishes. I approve of these gradual autonmy rights we grant with age. I think 14 year olds should have the right to have sex if they want to. I support the age restriction on their partners to avoid exploitation.
Twelve year olds in Ontario have the right to decline inoculations against their parents wishes. I approve of these gradual autonmy rights we grant with age. I think 14 year olds should have the right to have sex if they want to. I support the age restriction on their partners to avoid exploitation.
