Split from this thread http://emptyclosets.com/forum/showthread.php?t=566 by Paul_UK Actually, my bad. I was typing so fast I didn't watch myself. in post #8, I meant to type 19, not 18. I'm 19 now!!!!!! As in, Nhine-Teanne (incase I type wrong again). LOL! Speaking of which, this is something that randomly came to mind. I thought that last year, at that same time (10:03, 26 secs. a.m.), if I had a boyfriend who was 17 3/4-years-old, I would legally had been a pedophile... :eusa_danc (!) ROFWLOL (!)
Re: Is there a person her with a username macauboy? It is true that a couple can be only a few weeks or months apart in age such that one is each side of the age of consent, and the older can be accused of raping the younger. Yet when both were younger, although it is still illegal sex, it is probably not as severely punishable. In practice the police etc are normally more intrested in prosecuting cases with larger age-gaps.
Re: Is there a person her with a username macauboy? yes and no. Most prosecutors will jump on any prosecutable case - even if it just barely makes the criteria. But in many states the age of consent is 16 and prosecutors won't look at cases where the victim is over 16.
Re: Is there a person her with a username macauboy? I think in Canada the age of consent is like 14. (for pornography and prostitution it's 18) Anyway, im not sure...and there's something like a four year gap thats allowed . Im not quite sure because recently its been undergoing some changes. http://www.justice.gc.ca/en/dept/clp/faq.html If you're bored why not read that link...it was updated last year so its probably a little off.
Re: Is there a person her with a username macauboy? I think a smallish age-gap at lower ages is a sensible law, as it allows younger people to do what they probably will anyway but addresses the issue of older guys who would otherwise be legally able to prey on youngers.
Re: Is there a person her with a username macauboy? But what if it's the teenager or adolescent who preys on an innocent adult? How does the government deal with that? That's actually a bit interesting to think of because I've never thought about THAT. Oh, and what if the young and the older male are in consent with eachother? Will the older male still be legally in trouble for dating an "underaged" male? In general, I think governmental regulations like these ones which label adults who are in a relationship with a teenager or adolescent "pedophiles" is stupid. While I understand the original idea was to protect the youth generation from unwanted sexual advance because that may affect the "minor" in many ways, the extent which the government takes the law to is just incredibly rediculous and unnecessary. If I was 19 (which I am), and I dated my friend Jordan who turned 16 this year (I think he's 16 1/2 now), I would be breaking a law??? I've known him in choir ever since he was 11 and we've been great friends eversince!! I mean, wouldn't y'all agree with my feelings for the law??
Re: Is there a person her with a username macauboy? Age of consent in Canada is 14-16 depending on where you live. For marriage it is 16, unless you're in Quebec where it is 12 for girls and 14 for guys. And Lowest, how can an adult be innocent if a younger person is "preying" on them? An Adult is an Adult, therefore they should act like one and know right from wrong. I don't see how they can be preyed on unwillingly. You either want it or you don't. No means no and an adult should be able to enforce that response. The courts sure as hell wouldn't side with the adult. They have the mind capacity to know not to sleep with someone underage. Anyway, you can argue that the courts are wrong but I think fair is fair. A lot of young people are sexually abused and hurt. The law is meant to protect them. You might think it's unfair for you, but in the end I agree with the law. Canada law anyway. If you're wondering, I took Law class in High School. I practically aced the mock trials and the stuff we needed to know.
Re: Is there a person her with a username macauboy? Though I got my answer there, I'm a bit ambiguous about that answer. If I have the time, I might want to look into that more. For now, answer taken. Chaos, we're not talking about the same thing. Was I talking about sexual relationship or was I talking about dating? What I was aiming at was: If I were to ask Jordan to be my boyfriend (or if he asks me), I would legally be considered a pedophile, and I think that kind of measure from the government is a pile of bulldung. As I said, and I'll say it again, while I agree on a law which punishes pedophiles for sexual advances and favors aimed at minors, the extent which the government takes the law to is just rediculous. While the law is technically aimed at adults who commited SEXUAL harassment, the government likes to set the bar higher than that. If the gov. saw me and Jordy dating (DATING!), it would have eyes all over me as if I committed a felon! The date could be sexual or non-sexual, but reguardless, if I was 17 and Jordy was 14, the gov. wouldn't care. If I was, however, 19 (an adult), like I am now, and Jordy was 16, I would be in trouble for pedophilia. Or, how about this: If I was 18 and he was 17 1/2-years-old, I still would be in trouble for pedophilia!! And I'll say it once more, the extent which the government takes it's pedophilia law(s) is just trashbags. It's kind of like punishing me for killing a mouse, or better yet, a grasshopper. I'm simply stating my personal oppinion, that legal measures like these are just plain stupid. And what do I think is unfair? If I were to rape Jordan (which I never would, and he knows that), of course it's fair what would happen to me! I would have every right be in jail for sexually harassing a minor (I never said that THAT was rediculous). But again, that's not what I'm talking about. And basically, you just repeated what I have already said: The pedophile law is meant to protect the younger generation of unwanted sexual advances from adults, which I was also implying that the youth generation has been hurt by sexual abuse (from pedophiles). added-After reading over my posted post, I will say this. I'll admit my mentioning the word felon is a bit exxagerated. Still, my point goes to say that if I were to date Jordy, the government would have eyes all over me.
Re: Is there a person her with a username macauboy? By the way, Jordy is a real person. He and I are just choir friends. We aren't actually dating or anything. I would, however, like to use him in a hypothetical situation like this to make my point. He was the only sophomore in our advance choir that year!! We' were so proud of him and still are!
Re: Is there a person her with a username macauboy? That law was undoubtly enforced and supported by christian and catholic morales without a doubt...msot of our laws our...i have no respect for the law...no one but me can change that either...so its in anyones best interest not to try...i spit on the law...murders, rapists, pedahiles, druggies...i dont care...i wouldnt turn them in...karma and love and light will eventually change them...and if they dont...their punishement will be unimaginable...im the kind to take the law into my own hands...limiting sex and alcohol....incredibly foolish and CLEARLY catholic and xian values... If Pagans were the ones backing the law...sex would be encouraged not illegal...of course with strong preventative measures for contraceptives and infection-prevention...while we are very liberal, we're not stupid...we'd very highly sex-educate youth at the earliest possible age...sex has been made taboo because of the xians and their values...not to offend anyone...im just very opinionated and if you dont like it fine...hate me for it...but i wont stop... And alcohol...pfft...who cares...while it wouldnt be encouraged....it wouldnt be illegal...if you're 13 and wanna put some miles on your liver...so be it...we do it anyway... Anyway, Lowest i totally agree with your views on law...and then some. Anyway sorry if i offended anyone...but suck it up buttercup...cuz this is one area where i dont care:icon_wink .
yeah, its a pity that the courts do care and thus it is a crime to drink when ur 13 or be a pedophile (or technically ephebophile/hephebophile if its w/ a teen...thank u law and order svu) and i mean, some laws arent necessarily protecting chritian values but are practical and just keeping citizens safe, like enforcing the speed limit and locking up murders because, while some (including me) may believe that in the end karma will catch up to them, not everyone believes that and the perp won't necessarily learn his/her lesson the first time around and will just keep hurting people until they finally do. and as for the stupid fact that its illegal for a 17 and 11 month yr old and an 18 year old to have sex, it's, like i said, stupid and the police probably arent going to go out and look for these couples, bring them back, and interrogate them to try and find out if they were engaging in illegal sex because the police who would be handling these "cases" honestly have better things to do with their time then try and bust the 18 yr old over this highly petty charge when there are real victims of statutory rape out there who legitimately do need help and, after all, that's what the police are for. however, if you are an 18 yr old brought in for a different crime and the police find out and the DA's can prove that you have had sex with a 17 yr old, they will definitely use charge you on that and use it in their case.
Well, the police might have better things to do but a) you're assuming the police are rational and not, as they often are in the States, run by people who need to get re-elected and "protect the children" campaigns seem to resonate extremely well with (extremely stupid) electorates (both in the US and in Canada, sadly). And (b), even if the police are rational, the parents of the younger person involved may not be. I truly believe that most of the use of these types of laws (when they involve teenagers) is for stricken parents who cannot possibly believe little Cody knows what sex is, let alone wants to do it with *gasp* another (predatory dirty) boy (or "man" if the person in question happens to be a microsecond past the legal age of majority).
Actually, no. Age of consent for sexual intercourse is governed by the Criminal Code of Canada, which is federal and does NOT vary from province to province. It is 14, unless the older party is in a position of trust or authority (coach, babysitter, doctor, teacher, etc.), in which case the younger person must be 18. Just in the previous Liberal minority government, they also added that the relationship cannot be "exploitative" (perhaps it was "sexually exploitative") to the "position of trust or authority" clause, so that if the older person is not in a position of trust or authority but they are somehow "exploiting" the younger person, then the younger person must be 18 (to, ironically, be old enough to be exploited). The Conservatives are attempting to raise the 14 age to 16. It will (frustratingly) probably pass because anyone attempting to argue against raising it gets automatically labelled a pedophile without being able to say much of anything else. There's also a "moving window" clause for people younger than 14 but older than 12, where it is legal for them to have sex with someone up to 2 years older than them. That is, a 12-year-old can legally have sex with a 14-year-old, a 13yo with a 15yo. That's to prevent people who are "fooling around" from being considered criminals in the eyes of the law. I don't know but I suspect the Conservatives will eliminate this type of sliding window, potentially criminalising a bunch of under-16 people or 17- and 18-yo who are involved with people shy of 16. Quite easily... the definition of "adult" is arbitrary. I think it's quite possible for a 17yo to be more mature (or certainly have more sinister motives) than a 19yo. It's very obvious if you move to more extremes, like say 25 and 17 or 30 and 17, but even above the legal age of majority, I've known 20yos who were much more shrewd than some 30yos I've known. So you have to ask: why is it okay for adults to exploit other adults but not children? Or rather, the slightly less creepy-sounding question is: what is it about "children" (another arbitrary definition) that makes them innately pure and innocent, not only deserving but requiring the protection of the law? Again, it seems really simple at the extremes: obviously an 8yo is at a serious disadvantage to a 16yo. But is it impossible that a 14yo can manipulate a 16yo? You also have to consider who is pushing for the raising of the age of consent in Canada. The Conservatives. Does that mean the Liberals, who did not push to raise it during their 12 years in power, are pedophiles? More pedophilic? I think that would be a hard argument to make. So why, then, do conservatives (in Canada and other jurisdictions) favour a higher age of consent, when ostensibly conservatives believe less government interference in our private lives is better than more? And while we're on this whole topic, as I believe someone mentioned, a pedophile is technically someone who is sexually turned on by children and I believe that's children in the more biological sense. That is, we generally make a distinction between people who haven't gone through puberty (children) and those who have (adolescents/teenagers). Because if you call someone who commits statutory rape (which is really what we're talking about here, the legal crime of having sex with someone under the age of consent) a pedophile, then some people are pedophiles in one legal jurisdiction and not in another, and that's just silly.
*whistle* Wow, that was alot of info...but i did take it all in. Highly informative, thank you joey for keeping up with the news unlike me. As for the "moving window" clause, i was pretty sure it was 4 years? But 2 sounds more reasonable...maybe i wasnt listening close enough. Oh and the A.O.C may not vary from province to province, but i think Choas was right in saying it is different in Quebec...:tantrum: apparently Canada's laws isnt good enough for their governement.
Marriage is partially governed provincially, and I suspect Chaos was mixing up the various ages of majority (right to vote, get married, drink, drive, accept medical treatment, etc.) with the age of consent. The ages at which one may vote (provincially) and drink and drive and get married DO vary across Canada by province. However, all Canadians, including those in Quebec, are convered by the Criminal Code of Canada. Quebec has its own civil code, not its own criminal code. Not completely definitive sources but definitely suggestive: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent_in_North_America#Canada http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache....pdf+age+of+consent+quebec&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2
Alright, alright Mr. research....your right we were wrong, happy? :rolleyes: lol, but i wouldnt put it past Quebec'ers and their referendum to get their own criminal code...eventually.
