hypothetical legal question
- Thread starter Hipster Doofus
- Start date
No, cuz he's still considered a minor.
What would be legal is if he was to have sex with a girl who was 2 yrs within in his age, but it would have to without the biz transaction.
If it was a biz transaction, it would still be illegal since they are still both considered minors.
Aurora xxx
P.S. Why do you ask?
What would be legal is if he was to have sex with a girl who was 2 yrs within in his age, but it would have to without the biz transaction.
If it was a biz transaction, it would still be illegal since they are still both considered minors.
Aurora xxx
P.S. Why do you ask?
I don't have the criminal code handy, and I don't have time right now to pull it up online, but at first brush there is a big grey area here.
Sex with someone under 14 is illegal. As I recall (and I am fuzzy here, hence the need to check the code) it is illegal to have sex with a minor between the age of 14-16 IF they are of 'previous chaste character'.
The transaction is therefore 'questionable' depending on whether it can be proven the 16 year old is not of 'previous chaste character'.
Obviously this is harder to prove with a male than a female.
Sex with someone under 14 is illegal. As I recall (and I am fuzzy here, hence the need to check the code) it is illegal to have sex with a minor between the age of 14-16 IF they are of 'previous chaste character'.
The transaction is therefore 'questionable' depending on whether it can be proven the 16 year old is not of 'previous chaste character'.
Obviously this is harder to prove with a male than a female.
The 2 year age difference rule and age of consent applies to children 14 and under. Therefore a 14 yo can have sex with a 12 yo, a 15 yo can have sex with a 13 yo, and a 16 yo can have sex with a 14 yo. It is legal to have sex with someone over the age of 14 as long as you are not in a position of power over them, ie teacher, doctor, guardian, priest, baby-sitter, etc. However it is illegal to pay someone for sex who is under 18.
In the case of a 16 year old paying a SP as long as its an outcall neither party is breaking any law. Unless the SP also happens to be teacher or something she isn't in a position to exert undue influence on him. Also since he is the one paying for sex, it doesn't violate the prohibition against paying someone under 18 for sex. If the SP happened to be under 18 (say 16) then the 16 year old boy could be charged with paying for sex with a minor but the 16 year old SP couldn't be charged for accepting the money.
In the case of a 16 year old paying a SP as long as its an outcall neither party is breaking any law. Unless the SP also happens to be teacher or something she isn't in a position to exert undue influence on him. Also since he is the one paying for sex, it doesn't violate the prohibition against paying someone under 18 for sex. If the SP happened to be under 18 (say 16) then the 16 year old boy could be charged with paying for sex with a minor but the 16 year old SP couldn't be charged for accepting the money.
Aurora said:No, cuz he's still considered a minor.
What would be legal is if he was to have sex with a girl who was 2 yrs within in his age, but it would have to without the biz transaction.
If it was a biz transaction, it would still be illegal since they are still both considered minors.
Aurora xxx
P.S. Why do you ask?
I dont think it is illegal for a minor to have sex with an adult. ( as opposed to an adult having sex with a minor)
Any vice cops wanna put in their 2 cents?
Any vice cops wanna put in their 2 cents?
yeah... but hipster... your question was "is the transaction illegal"
If it is illegal for an adult to have sex with a minor... then... you have an adult having sex with a 16 year old.
The question is... does a 16 year old qualify as a minor?
If it is illegal for an adult to have sex with a minor... then... you have an adult having sex with a 16 year old.
The question is... does a 16 year old qualify as a minor?
From a google search for the criminal code:
152. Every person who, for a sexual purpose, invites, counsels or incites a person under the age of fourteen years to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, the body of any person, including the body of the person who so invites, counsels or incites and the body of the person under the age of fourteen years, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 152; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 1.
Sexual exploitation
153. (1) Every person who is in a position of trust or authority towards a young person or is a person with whom the young person is in a relationship of dependency and who
(a) for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, any part of the body of the young person, or
(b) for a sexual purpose, invites, counsels or incites a young person to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, the body of any person, including the body of the person who so invites, counsels or incites and the body of the young person,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Definition of "young person"
(2) In this section, "young person" means a person fourteen years of age or more but under the age of eighteen years.
152. Every person who, for a sexual purpose, invites, counsels or incites a person under the age of fourteen years to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, the body of any person, including the body of the person who so invites, counsels or incites and the body of the person under the age of fourteen years, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 152; R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 1.
Sexual exploitation
153. (1) Every person who is in a position of trust or authority towards a young person or is a person with whom the young person is in a relationship of dependency and who
(a) for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, any part of the body of the young person, or
(b) for a sexual purpose, invites, counsels or incites a young person to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, the body of any person, including the body of the person who so invites, counsels or incites and the body of the young person,
is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Definition of "young person"
(2) In this section, "young person" means a person fourteen years of age or more but under the age of eighteen years.
its not illegal to have sex with a minor. ( only if you are in a position of authority or where the minor is receiving money)
14 is the age of consent in Canada. Parliment is trying to raise that to 16.
14 is the age of consent in Canada. Parliment is trying to raise that to 16.
re: your post above clearly states 14 yrs of age.
re: sexual exploitation - in the case of the 16 yr old male - who is exploiting whom?
re: sexual exploitation - in the case of the 16 yr old male - who is exploiting whom?
Of note to the Greek fans...
159. (1) Every person who engages in an act of anal intercourse is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
159. (1) Every person who engages in an act of anal intercourse is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years or is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
But before you get all worked up...
Exception
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to any act engaged in, in private, between
(a) husband and wife, or
(b) any two persons, each of whom is eighteen years of age or more,
both of whom consent to the act.
Exception
(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to any act engaged in, in private, between
(a) husband and wife, or
(b) any two persons, each of whom is eighteen years of age or more,
both of whom consent to the act.
According to the feminists... the male is exploiting the female... prostitution being the subjugation of women and all.Hipster Doofus said:
AND assuming there is no greek happening...LOL
Re: What do you mean by 'legal'?
Actually since it isn't against the law if you had proof you gave a SP money for sexual services and that she didn't provide the agreed upon services you could sue her to get your money back. The problem is that it would be very difficult to prove your case and most people wouldn't want the publicity. You wouldn't be able to sue her to compel her to go through with the service though.soopergrizz said:
Re: But before you get all worked up...
What is of interest is that the way the law is written it specifies anal intercourse can occur between two people. Technically if you are having a Threesome, Foursome, or Moresome in which anal intercourse is taking place you are breaking the law. I wonder if they would ever try to enforce that one.
spaceghost said:
Actually the portion of the law regarding being 18 or over was overturned. It was argued that it was discriminatory that heterosexual men could have vaginal intercourse with girls over the age of 14 but homosexual men couldn't practice their form of intercourse with boys over the age of 14.spaceghost said:
What is of interest is that the way the law is written it specifies anal intercourse can occur between two people. Technically if you are having a Threesome, Foursome, or Moresome in which anal intercourse is taking place you are breaking the law. I wonder if they would ever try to enforce that one.
