Poll: What should the age of consent be?

[Kev]

People enter puberty around age 10 (some younger, some older). Girls are pretty much completely done puberty when they're 15. Yet we must make them wait until they're 16 to have sex?

I got my period when I was 11. That was the age at which I was biologically ready for sex. Yet I only had sex when I was 15 because that's when I met the person I knew I wanted to be my first.

Just because a women's body is capable of having sex doesn't mean their mind is. Theres alot of emotions that come into play when one enters a sexual relationship. I'm not sure if young teenage girls or boys for that matter can deal with it, or should have to deal with it.

I agree with the member above if i had a daughter i would want her to wait until shes 25.

 

[noneasgood]

I would agree with that. Generally speaking is not everyone though. The rights of that minority must be protected.

The rights of the miniority must be protected? Does this imply a certain percentage of those under 16 are ready for sexual activities and therefore their rights should be protected. That sounds like where you're coming from, but if so how do you determine who's ready and who isn't? What if a 10 year said he/she was ready, do we simply believe them?

No. We are adults, they are legally children until they reach the age of 18, until then we are their legal guardians and therefore each parent, never mind society, has a legal obligation to look out for their best interest. And as far as I'm concerned the best interest of my child is to not engage in sexual activities until they are old enough to understand the full ramification of their actions. No way can anyone under 16 understand the the long-term consequences of child rearing or std's. If you have to be 18 to vote it seems to be this decision is at least as important as this.

 

[Marvin]

Great replies Bobbi, chilli and reddog.

Holly, this thread is not about slamming you, however, on the merits of the voting on your own poll, could it be possible that your views are in the minority? (I am still confident that the lone vote for no age of consent is your vote Holly.) I genuinely believe that you do not fully comprehend the purpose of the Age of Consent. I hope you read the attached and can understand my and others on this thread's reasoning to why we are for the age of consent being raised.



The Ages of Consent
Canadian Criminal Code, sections 150-159

At any age, sex without consent is assault. It is a crime. Consent is not valid if it is obtained through force, threats, fear, or lies about what is going to happen.

Age-of-consent laws go one step further and make sexual acts legal or illegal based solely on the age of the people involved, whether they consent or not. We know that not everyone who is 13, or 17, or 25 has the same level of maturity as everyone else the same age, but the law tries to protect young people by assuming that, under a certain age, they are too young to know what they're doing and cannot give meaningful consent.

The maximum penalties for breaking these laws range from 5 to 14 years in jail. Some violations, especially if repeated - whether or not the acts were invited and nonviolent - can result in a person's being classified as a dangerous offender and imprisoned for life.

The Criminal Code does not apply to the actions of those under the age of 12. But even though they have broken no criminal laws, sexually active young people may still be taken into custody under provincial child-welfare legislation.

In Canada, for both males and females, the basic age of consent is 14. Anyone who is 14 or over can consent to having most kinds of sex with anyone else who is 14 or over. But here are some exceptions that prohibit (or allow) sexual activity below and above 14.

At any age incest and bestiality are illegal. Bestiality is sex with animals. Incest is defined as sexual intercourse with a parent, child, brother, sister, half-brother, half-sister, grandparent, or grandchild.

For the other laws described here, someone who mistakenly believes a sexual partner is over the legal age of consent must be able to show they took "all reasonable steps" to know the age of the young person.

It is illegal, for a sexual purpose, to expose your genitals to a person under 14, to touch a young person "directly or indirectly," or to "invite, counsel, or incite" them to touch themselves or anyone else.

Except ... people who are 14 or 15 can have sex with people under 14 who are no more than two years younger than them (14-12, 15-13) as long as neither is in a position of trust or authority over the other.

And 12- or 13-year-olds can have sex with anyone of any age without being charged themselves, unless they are in a position of trust or authority over their partner.

It is illegal to have sex with a person under 18 if you are in a position of trust of authority, or responsible in a relationship of dependence, with them. This applies to teachers, lifeguards, coaches, guardians, social workers, childcare workers, babysitters, etc., whether or not they are under 18 themselves. It doesn't matter whether they are male or female.

Regardless of age, prostitution is restricted by other parts of the law - see Criminal Code sections 210-13 (soliciting, procuring, bawdy houses).
Selling sex is not itself illegal at any age. But it is illegal to pay (or offer to pay) someone who is under 18 for sex. That is: the person who breaks the law is the person who gives the money, not the person who takes it. This also applies to offers of food, housing, drugs, gifts, etc.

In 1997, the law was amended to make it illegal to pay someone believed to be under 18 for sex. This allows undercover police officers posing as young prostitutes in sting operations to lay more serious charges than before. If a police officer was represented as being under 18, the accused must prove they knew this wasn't true before the offence occurred.

The Criminal Code section on anal inter course was declared unconstitutional in 1994 by the Ontario and federal courts of appeal and in 1998 by the Quebec Court of Appeal, but Parliament has not yet amended the Code. People are still occasionally charged under this section, which says that anal sex is legal only in a private place when no more than two people are present and they are either married to each other or are both at least 18 years old. This discriminates against gays and lesbians (whose marriages are not recognized by the government) and anyone 14-18 years old.

Most criminal laws apply only to acts committed in Canada. But in 1997 the law was amended to apply to sexual acts committed anywhere in the world as long as they are sexual offences against persons under 18 as defined in the Canadian Criminal Code. What might not be a crime elsewhere can now be prosecuted in Canada if a Canadian citizen is involved.

 

[Sweetiepie]

In conjunction with what others have said...

...Holly between this and your post about the e-mail you received, you come across as missing some pretty basic smarts that should be a prerequisite for entering this business. I don't know if your advocacy for sex at any age is some kind of strategy for attracting a particular clientele, or if you are just incredibly naive. But in either case, I just had to let others know that this doesn't sound or feel right. So, for the guys out there is your spidey senses are tingling, there's likely a reason.

 

[CJ Tylers]

I voted 16 & I wouldn't object to 18.

Children grow up too fast as it is, why must we burden them with low age of consent limits as well? For every child that is ready, responsible and knowlegeable... there are 20 or more that aren't.

Laws are made for the majority, not for the exceptions. The teen years are a time of expanding realms of thought and influence. Hormones, friends and societal pressures can be nearly overwhelming.

Let the kids have their childhood. Sex, at least sex with someone who isn't with a year or 2 of their age (which can't be stopped anyways)... shouldn't be something expected of them. By having a low legal age, it's like society is saying: "We expect you to not only be having sex by this time, but we encourage it."

It isn't about rights... it's about protecting people who are in a vulnerable position... in a second formulative stage, if you will. Pliable young minds, with emotions and hormes running amok are hardly the most suited for making such decisions... especially if an older, more experienced mind is guiding and twisting the younger.

:|

There are a few things I'm pretty hardline on... and letting kids be kids is one of 'em.

PS: Whoa... a young Sandra Bullock!

Awesome pic

 

[Marvin]

...Holly between this and your post about the e-mail you received, you come across as missing some pretty basic smarts that should be a prerequisite for entering this business. I don`t know if your advocacy for sex at any age is some kind of strategy for attracting a particular clientele, or if you are just incredibly naive. But in either case, I just had to let others know that this doesn`t sound or feel right. So, for the guys out there is your spidey senses are tingling, there`s likely a reason.

I agree wholeheartedly.

Her posting seems to reveal her naivety, very similar to another young 19 year old SP who a number of months ago was banned. Anyone else remember Cute Rookie?


https://perb.cc/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=36603

 

[stryker]

...Holly between this and your post about the e-mail you received, you come across as missing some pretty basic smarts that should be a prerequisite for entering this business. I don't know if your advocacy for sex at any age is some kind of strategy for attracting a particular clientele, or if you are just incredibly naive. But in either case, I just had to let others know that this doesn't sound or feel right. So, for the guys out there is your spidey senses are tingling, there's likely a reason.

Sweetiepie,,Good analogy,I'm for bumping the legal age just for the fact that parents today,just don't know how to raise their children,there isn't any old school rules any more as far as manners and discipline go and a 12 year old CANNOT make a rational decision.

 

[butter]

We are adults, they are legally children until they reach the age of 18, until then we are their legal guardians and therefore each parent, never mind society, has a legal obligation to look out for their best interest. And as far as I'm concerned the best interest of my child is to not engage in sexual activities until they are old enough to understand the full ramification of their actions. No way can anyone under 16 understand the the long-term consequences of child rearing or std's.

I can not argue the necessity of having the younger generation legally protected from adults. However as they need to be protected from sexual predators, they also need to be protected from those that would force their views on religion, politics and sexuality on them. They must also be protected from those that do not credit them having the ability to make informed choices. Older and more intelligent are not the same thing. Or maybe I am too young to know any better. *shrug*

 

[CJ Tylers]

Butter, you should know by now that it isn't intelligence that is the issue... but emotional, intellectual and physical maturity. Also, experience and knowledge go hand in hand.

Simply being smart means nothing in life.

What's the saying? Wisdom is the application of knowledge.

 

[noneasgood]

I can not argue the necessity of having the younger generation legally protected from adults. However as they need to be protected from sexual predators, they also need to be protected from those that would force their views on religion, politics and sexuality on them. They must also be protected from those that do not credit them having the ability to make informed choices. Older and more intelligent are not the same thing. Or maybe I am too young to know any better. *shrug*

Perhaps. But what's the downside to imposing restrictions if the restrictions are ultimately in the child's best interest?

And as long as someone is under the age of 18 I think parents have a moral, legal and societal right to do exactly what you disagree with, which is to impose their views and morals on their children.

One only hopes that it's done in a manner that allows the child to understand and respect these points of views and ultimately lead to a child becoming a productive and, hopefully happy, member of society.

 

[butter]

CJ I would agree with you. Knowledge and experience go hand in hand. I would argue that age and experience/knowledge do not go hand in hand in many cases. Perhaps having spent the last 10 years in one form of post secondary education or another often working with people that are 16, 17, or 18 and with older people with limited world views has skewed my perception somewhat. That is just the knowledge I have to apply.

 

[noneasgood]

More than likely it's just a young lady who remembers being told what to do and didn't like it. Certainly there was a time when I too thought I knew everything only to find out that you learn as you age. Nothing wrong with trying to defend a position, if you believe in it, but unfortunately once she started defending the right for 12 year olds to engage in sexual behaviour her position became unsupportable.

 

[CJ Tylers]

CJ I would agree with you. Knowledge and experience go hand in hand. I would argue that age and experience/knowledge do not go hand in hand in many cases. Perhaps having spent the last 10 years in one for or post secondary education or another often working with people that are 16, 17, or 18 and with older people with limited world views has skewed my perception somewhat. That is just the knowledge I have to apply.

My uncle works with alcoholics, drug addicts and other people addicted to a variety of things. Hence, he percieves the world very differently from my father, who is an elementary school teacher.

Having 2 younger sisters all my life, perhaps has also tinted my take on things. Having worked with people anywhere from years younger to nearly retired provides me with many insights as well.

Experience...now, what are we talking about there? Life experience... not schooling experience. Knowledge of human behavior and motivations, how to handle yourself in certain situations... these are all things that anyone who isn't a hermit eventually learns with age.

So yes, knowledge and experience DO go hand in hand. This is in no way a reflection of education or specialized knowledge, of specific experiences.

Taking into consideration the views of people... well, most people tend to drift into a specific set of views with age. We harden, become set in our ways. As youths, we were pliable and open to new ways of thinking.

There is a difference between limited views based on ignorance and limited views based on indifference or preference.

 

[Big Trapper]

Remember, the age of consent laws are referring to sex between individuals, one of whom is in a position of power (of suggestion) over the minor by reason of age. If a 12 yr old wants to get it on with a 14 yr old, the law sees it as an act between persons of similar age and therefore legal.

The problem is, as somebody else suggested, when the act is between a much older person and a 12 yr old (say 42 yr old man and 12 yr old woman). This is not legal under the present laws, nor should it be.

The history of the present laws is as follows. This sounds hard to believe but I can assure you it is true - I know because I was around then and I was an adult who kept up with the news. It is a long standing tradition in the House of Commons that the page boys are fair game for the politicians! One can become a page boy at the age of 14. So the politicians passed a law that the age of consent for homosexual sex (at that time only homosexual sex) would be 14. I believe this all happened during the reign of that black-hearted scoundrel, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, but I might be wrong there.

Later, after the passage of the equality laws, some real bright-light lawyer noted that this age of consent law was discriminatory. So to even up the laws, they passed an amendment removing the reference to homosexuality and making it legal for people to have sex with all persons of 14 years of age.

Nice people these politicians, eh? Remember, you heard it from the Big Trapper first!

When I was a kid, we referred to women under the age of 16 as "jail bait". My vote in the poll was for 16 years old. 16 is a bit young in white suburban Canada, but some 16 year olds are ready, willing and able to assume the duties and responsibilities of adulthood and parenthood, and so they should be allowed to if they so choose.

 

[Big Trapper]

Why else would this be getting attention now? It's not exactly at the top of the list of public discussion otherwise.

It doesn't appear to be on the list of public discussion. Because the Liberals and the liberal owned press have suppressed any mention of it.

 

[dick slap]

Should the age be different for m/f

I was thinking after reading all these posts that mayby the age should be different for males and females.

At 13 if you told me I could hump the milf next store I'd be all over that (in fact had that fantasy). My risk of getting pregnant was zero and I don't think I'd be emotionally damaged by it. In fact, my other 13 yo buddies would be calling me a God.

At 13 if my sister was humped by the guy next store she could risk getting pregnant, could not tell her friends and probably be emotionally scared for life.

DS

 

[chilli]

All of you are wrong! (how's that to start a post) Just kidding.

Moving the age from 14 to 16 doesn't significantly reduce the risk of an adult taking advantage of a minor. A large age difference might be prima facie evidence of an exploitative relationship but I do not think that is sufficient evidence on its own.

ARE YOU FRIGGEN NUTS?????????????

A large age difference doens't mean sufficient evidence on it's own?

OMG - we can't raise the age of consent fast enough to 16 with people like you using that kind of logic.

Right now at 14 the adult can argue there was consent, if they raise the consent law to 16 - that same adult won't have any legal leg to stand on.

Jail time buddy - and that my friend is why they should raise the consent to 16.

Because people like you make innane arguements like you just did - Don't ever come around my kids buster.

 

[Big Trapper]

...I do not think Conservatives have the capacity to do anything sophisticated.

You got that right, buddy!

 

[Randy Whorewald]

Marvin, how can you speak for every 12 year old? Some are ready and some are not! It's as simple as that.

Those laws are NOT about protecting people. We have laws that do just that already. Rape is illegal. Sexual harrassment is illegal. Just because someone has sex at a young age, it doesn't mean any harm was involved. And if there was, then we already have other laws in place to deal with that.

By having an age of consent, we end up punishing people for doing nothing wrong, as well as the people who do something wrong. And I think that's awful.

I was ready when I was 12! But I think over 16 is a good idea since it would stop a lot of the exploitation.

 

[Sweetiepie]

At 13 if you told me I could hump the milf next store I'd be all over that (in fact had that fantasy). My risk of getting pregnant was zero and I don't think I'd be emotionally damaged by it.DS

Which is adding to the argument towards raising the age for boys as well as girls. Because the way you say it here, it sounds like the boy has no concept that he had anything to do with the pregnancy.