Sex with an Underaged Boy in Canada

[augustman]

I have sat on this subject for a couple of days not knowing how to respond but I really cannot take much more of this dancing around the subject. Where has society gone that 14 year olds need to have life experiences. Enjoy being a kid. It does not last long and try to remain innocent and in wonder. And we as adults should try to make childhood remain just that. Too many kids have to face reality way to soon. I live in Milwaukee, think of the kids who at the church service in Brookfield and experience seeing a man shoot down in cold blood men women and children. These kids were not looking for a life experience.

 

Athan no knock against you, I do not know your back ground and its not of issue here. You gave how it felt to be fourteen and have sexual impulses with no one of real understanding available. I am glad you survived it and seem able to make and be happy with, the choices you have made that is great. At least I know I have to think before I speak when my 14 year old wants to ask some questions opposite or same sex questions. Since I do not know how he feels but I love him and I want him to know that.

 

As to the adult, please lets try not to be nice. Its pedophilia, not sex. They are different. The pedophile is about control. The gay community has tried to make this point clear that because you are gay does not make predisposed to be a pedophile. This site has admonished anything associated with that and must continue to do that. There are still many in society who believe that gays and lesbians and pedophiles are one in the same. To allow excuses for someones behavior and even remotely consider that 14 year old was mature is not even in the picture. Sure they are 14 year olds, boys and girls, who will come on to adults because that is what they see on TV, magazines and internent. But it is still up to the adult to say NO! Please lets not encourage this type of behavior it must be dealt swiftly and decisively.

[guptasa1]

>The individual's ability to "figure out what they want" is not

>what we're discussing. We're discussing whether adolescents

>have the ability to understand and control desires which, if

>gratified, may result in serious harm to themselves. Science

>tells us that adolescents are much less likely to have such

>understanding and control than adults. Only someone who

>believes that whatever we desire must necessarily be good and

>right would argue with that. I'm aware that for a lot of gay

>men their entire moral philosophy consists of that one belief.

> Just check out any circuit party if you doubt it.

 

You do have a point, and no, I don't believe if someone desires something, that automatically makes it good. There are of course many disagreements regarding what is good and what is bad. (For example, some would say gay desires are bad, period.)

 

I also agree with you that adolescents are less likely to understand the implications of their desires, but again, I feel this varies from individual to individual. How do you measure that? You can't, at least practically speaking. (I know there are brain scans and such for high-end research purposes, but that's about it.) All I'm saying is, I don't believe every person under the age of 18 is incapable of making an informed and intelligent decision regarding such things, and I don't believe every person over the age of 18 is perfectly capable either. And no, there's no way good way to tell which is which, hence the laws which lump it all together.

 

>The above follows your usual pattern of trying to be on both

>sides of an issue -- so that you end up saying nothing at all.

> On the one hand it's okay for 14-year-olds to be sexually

>active, but on the other hand it's only okay if a 14-year-old

>can meet standards that virtually no one of that age can meet.

 

I disagree. You're right that I do try and look at both sides of the issue. I do this to try to understand where both sides are coming from, and I'm quite happy with my conclusions using this method most of the time. You may find it wishy washy or trying to be on both sides, but I don't. I'm really stating what I believe.

 

First of all, I never set a specific age (though the post does indicate an age, I was actually speaking more in general, but I should have clarified that and acknowledge I didn't). Underage can mean a 16 or 17-y/o too. But who knows, it might apply to some 14 year olds (I honestly don't know the answer to that.)

 

My point is simply that I think some people under 18 ARE competent and capable of making intelligent decisions about sex. As far as the standards you mention, I also believe there are people who can meet those standards. The tricky part is, there probably is no way to tell who can and can't meet those standards, hence the protective law. Just because something is unknowable doesn't mean it can't and doesn't happen though. It just can't be validated for certain.

 

>In a recent book about Enron the author commented that many of

>the people running that company were bright enough to figure

>out how to get around the laws that applied to what they were

>doing, but not wise enough to understand that the laws had

>been made for a reason. I often get the same feeling when

>reading this board.

 

Don't get me wrong. I know the law regarding this is around for a reason, and I would never advocate child abuse, period. And this law DOES help prevent child abuse - no question. So overall, I'd say it's a good law.

 

What I don't necessarily agree with is that the law encompasses every situation and is always "right", and I'd agree with that for the majority of laws out there in regards to just about anything. There are always special instances and exceptions that in an ideal world would be taken into consideration.

 

Legal issues aside, I believe it is possible for someone underage to have a healthy relationship with someone older than 18, though that may be the exception to the rule. That is absolutely all I am saying. I'm not calling for the law to be overturned, or saying that all relationships like that are perfectly healthy. In general, I'd even say the majority are unhealthy. But I think it can happen.

 

Hope I've clarified my points a bit. I'm not arguing with you (or anyone) per se - I'm just trying to provide another way of looking at it, and I know this is a touchy subject.

[Luv2play]

I've heard this argument before on this site that sex with a 14 year old is pedophilia. It isn't. The common law defines children of tender age as being persons under the age of 14. Minors over the age of 15 are excluded from the term.

 

The age of consent in Canada has been 14 for a long time, but before the Charter of Rights came into being in 1984, it only applied to females giving consent. The age for males was higher. Now it is the same for both. The amendment to protect those between 14 and 16 from being lured away from their parents was introduced 20 years ago and it is that provision which is being used against the man from Texas.

 

I personally feel that 14 years olds shouldn't be having sex with (much) older people, whether they be male or female. I am just looking at the law as it exists. And it is different in different countries, so one has to be aware of that as well. People from different jurisdictions may have different outlooks.

[Guest skrubber]

RE: Impulse Control

 

You didn't offend me Athan. I can see your point well.

[woodlawn]

RE: Mesmerized

 

>I also agree with you that adolescents are less likely to

>understand the implications of their desires, but again, I

>feel this varies from individual to individual. How do you

>measure that? You can't, at least practically speaking. (I

>know there are brain scans and such for high-end research

>purposes, but that's about it.)

 

I've already described to you how it is measured. It is relatively easy to examine any adolescent and show that brain development is far from complete. Why do you have such a problem acknowledging that?

 

I'm glad that the Supreme Court recently banned the execution of juveniles, and the fact that science shows they lack an adult's ability to control impulses certainly helped. It seems to me that anyone who disagrees with that empirical finding is asking for a return to the old rule under which juveniles can be executed. No doubt some of the posters here had wet dreams about older men when they were teenagers, but that is a poor excuse for sending teens to the execution chamber -- or into the arms of pedophiles.

 

As for you, on the one hand you claim to respect science, on the other hand you make it clear that if science tells you something that contradicts your own experience, which is based on subjective and incomplete impressions of a tiny number of people, you're quite prepared to ignore what science tells you. What makes you any different from the Bible thumpers who are constantly trying to prevent the teaching of evolution? Nothing that I can see. You both defend your own prejudices no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.

 

Of course, I don't lump you in with the comical old fairies who post here and who will nod in agreement like bobble-head dolls to anything an escort says no matter how absurd it is because they're mesmerized by any young man whose ass can be bought for money. I have far too much respect for you to consider you one of them.

 

Desiring sex with prepubescent boys is pedophilia, and there's always been a nasty undercurrent of that sort of thing on this site. Given the fact that this site used to post on a regular basis pictures of kids that were clearly intended to cater to men who want to have sex with teenagers, perhaps "undercurrent" is too soft a word. I agree with Augustman that pedophiles and those who defend them give the gay community a bad name.

[Guest]

RE: Impulse Control

 

>Our system of tort litigation is basically about forcing

>people to pay for the economic consequences of their own

>actions rather than imposing those consequences on others. In

>one such case, a McDonalds restaurant ignored the company's

>guidelines for making coffee and served a customer with a cup

>so hot that when it was spilled it produced severe burns on

>the customer's lower body and she required more than a week of

>hospitalilzation in a burn unit. Thanks to our litigation

>system the restaurant, rather than the customer, was required

>to pay for the damage done. If someone is not bright enough

>to understand how our legal system works, or too lazy to read

>the facts of a case before he makes a speech about it, do we

>really want him our there in the gene pool?

>

So anyone who disagrees with a particular jury finding in general, or you in particular, isn't bright? It's certainly highly debatable who was imposing economic consequences on whom, and who was most responsible for the injuries which occurred. No one is denying that a serious injury occurred. And I'm sure it hurt like hell. Nevertheless, it is intuitively obvious to most humans (and probably to lower life forms quite a ways down the evolutionary chain) that one does not place boiling hot liquids in containers near one's groin. I strongly believe that not only was it absurd to assign any blame to the McDonalds Corporation, but that the figure the jury came up with was beyond ridiculous. I seem to recall that the figure was over $100 million. This figure would have been ridiculous even if the plaintiff had to have both of her legs amputated!

As hard as it is for some US lawyers to believe, the United States is not the only nation on the planet!!!:o Yet when one hears of ridiculous civil verdicts, they universally come from the U.S. Does this have anything to do with the fact that the U.S. is essentially the only country on the planet to use lay juries for civil cases? And one of the few in which losers in legal actions don't have to pay both sides' legal fees? Last week-end I met at a party a French lawyer who is graduating from an American law school this Spring (Boalt), and even he brought up this case as a big problem with the US tort system (he's not going into trial law, needless to say).

A few months ago, a 19 year-old woman in this area drove her car drunk at around 80 mph, crashed and died. Should her surviving relatives have sued the car manufacturer for making a potentially dangerous product? After all, a serious injury did occur. Is that the logic? Make a potentially dangerous product ==> serious injury occurs ==> suffer legal liability.

On the other hand, I feel everybody should be required to use common sense, and quite frankly simple intuitive and instictive behavior. And I couldn't be more opposed to lay juries in civil cases.

[Guest]

RE: Mesmerized

 

>I'm glad that the Supreme Court recently banned the execution

>of juveniles, and the fact that science shows they lack an

>adult's ability to control impulses certainly helped.

 

Before you give too big a pat on the back of the U.S. legal system, you should acknowledge that (1) The US Supreme Court threw out juvenile executions by the narrowest of margins, over the vehement dissent of the minority in the 5 to 4 decision. If, for some reason, Stevens had kicked the bucket during Bush Jr.'s first term, the decision would have gone the other way, and (2) The US was the very last nation on the planet to ban juvenile executions--this includes China, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, where adults are executed rather willy-nilly! (In fact, O'Connor alluded to that fact, implying that she came to her opinion after noting that the US's system was off-kilter with the rest of the planet).

That being said, I do agree with you (and the narrow majority of the SCOTUS) that executing those under the legal age of majority is rather off-base.

[guptasa1]

RE: Mesmerized

 

This'll likely be my last reply (or one of them - lol) to this thread as I've said what I feel and don't want to beat a dead horse or argue indefinitely. I respect your opinion, but I don't agree with it, and I think you're making a lot of assumptions about me that are unfounded.

 

>I've already described to you how it is measured. It is

>relatively easy to examine any adolescent and show that brain

>development is far from complete. Why do you have such a

>problem acknowledging that?

 

Yes, an adolescent brain can be analyzed and shown to be different than an adult's. That wasn't my point though. My point was, I simply don't think everybody's brains (or even parts of their brains) mature at the same rate. That's all. And, under your argument, I would think an 18 year old's brain wouldn't be fully developed either. What about a 21 year old? When IS the brain matured fully?

 

>I'm glad that the Supreme Court recently banned the execution

>of juveniles, and the fact that science shows they lack an

>adult's ability to control impulses certainly helped. It

>seems to me that anyone who disagrees with that empirical

>finding is asking for a return to the old rule under which

>juveniles can be executed. No doubt some of the posters here

>had wet dreams about older men when they were teenagers, but

>that is a poor excuse for sending teens to the execution

>chamber -- or into the arms of pedophiles.

 

I'm against the death penalty for juveniles. Always have been. And I *never* implied that I wanted to return to that.

 

>As for you, on the one hand you claim to respect science, on

>the other hand you make it clear that if science tells you

>something that contradicts your own experience, which is based

>on subjective and incomplete impressions of a tiny number of

>people, you're quite prepared to ignore what science tells

>you. What makes you any different from the Bible thumpers who

>are constantly trying to prevent the teaching of evolution?

>Nothing that I can see. You both defend your own prejudices

>no matter how much evidence there is to the contrary.

 

While I do think personal experiences are important too (not as important, but still applicable), I don't think I've ever ignored the science. I merely stated I think some people under 18 are competent to make that decision. How exactly does it disagree with science that says adolescent brains aren't fully matured? My statement doesn't required a fully mature brain...just a brain mature enough to make a decision it won't regret about one particular topic. Look at it this way. MY brain hasn't fully matured yet. I still have a lot I'll learn, and probably my views on some things will change as I gain more experiences and knowledge. Does that mean I can't make any decisions now? Doubtful. I know this isn't exactly analogous to the adolescent brain, as it is developing at a faster rate and more completely, but I still think it holds merit. I think some adolescent brains are mature enough to be able to make competent decisions about sex and others are not. It probably all depends how they develop. If you have any evidence to prove that NO adolescent brain could make a competent decision regarding this, I'd be intersted in seeing it. I haven't read all the studies, but something that makes a blanket statement conclusion like that would genuinely surprise me.

 

And as far as the Bible thumper comparison, I'm simply lost as to where you get that. I'm simply stating my OWN opinion. I'm not trying to tell ANYONE, including you, that it's the only valid opinion and that if you don't believe the way I do, you're a fool. Far from it. I find the different takes on this interesting.

 

Finally, I could make the same argument about you if I wanted to (which I don't, but just for argument sake). You seem to imply that your views are the only sane views, and that to disagree is downright heresy. At least that's what I get from your tone. You're a smart person, and I respect what you have to say, BUT I find I rarely agree with you, and I think other opinions count too. Just because you don't agree with my views doesn't make them wrong. Just because I don't agree with your views doesn't make you wrong either. Maybe neither of us are right. lol =oP

 

>Desiring sex with prepubescent boys is pedophilia, and there's

>always been a nasty undercurrent of that sort of thing on this

>site. Given the fact that this site used to post on a regular

>basis pictures of kids that were clearly intended to cater to

>men who want to have sex with teenagers, perhaps

>"undercurrent" is too soft a word. I agree with Augustman

>that pedophiles and those who defend them give the gay

>community a bad name.

 

Here's another thing I'm not totally on the same page about. I'm not talking about prepubescent boys. I think most guys that age (especially 16 or 17) have already gone through puberty, and as someone else pointed out, I don't think that's pedophilia. The word "pedophilia" to me has always meant VERY young and truly before puberty, and I don't think I'm alone. (I am NOT saying the other stuff isn't wrong or illegal; I'm just saying I don't know that it classifies as pedophilia).

 

A 14 year old I agree is dodgy, and I do want to note again that a lot of what I'm referring to refers to someone older than that, but still not 18. I don't think there's a magic age or anything like that.

 

As far as the pictures on the site you refer to, my opinion is that as long as the person is of legal age, it's not a problem. In fact, I don't see a problem with being attracted to younger guys as long as it's not harmful to anyone. Again, it's an opinion, and I know a lot of people disagree with it.

 

And yes, pedophilia DOES give the gay community a bad name. As I've said, I don't support pedophilia OR abusing anyone, especially kids.

 

Anyways, that's pretty much what I wanted to say in response. I want to emphasize again that I think the laws are overall very good and protect minors who otherwise could be abused. I'm not arguing differently.

[HotdadENYC]

RE: Mesmerized

 

>I've already described to you how it is measured. It is

>relatively easy to examine any adolescent and show that brain

>development is far from complete. Why do you have such a

>problem acknowledging that?

>

>I'm glad that the Supreme Court recently banned the execution

>of juveniles, and the fact that science shows they lack an

>adult's ability to control impulses certainly helped.

 

 

Apparently adolescents aren't the only ones whose brain development isn't complete. Thankfully the Supreme Court didn't address the execution of adults who obviously fit the inability to control their impulses.......

 

hd NYC

[woodlawn]

RE: Mesmerized

 

>Apparently adolescents aren't the only ones whose brain

>development isn't complete. Thankfully the Supreme Court

>didn't address the execution of adults who obviously fit the

>inability to control their impulses.......

 

This is the second time you've posted that stupid insult in this thread. In case you were in any doubt, you are one of the people I had in mind when I referred to "comical old fairies" who will defend anything an escort says, no matter how absurd, because they're mesmerized by any young man who is willing to sell his ass. In the years I have been reading this board I have seen people like you defend statements by escorts that are blatantly racist, statements that celebrate the betrayal of a spouse and, as in this thread, statements that support pedophilia. At this point I don't think there is anything you lot could say that would surprise me. Nor is there anything you could say that would make me think less of you than I already do. What is less than zero?

[woodlawn]

RE: Impulse Control

 

>So anyone who disagrees with a particular jury finding in

>general, or you in particular, isn't bright?

 

I do hope that you will someday stop this shabby practice of making up some lie, attributing it to another poster, and then yelling at him for "saying" it. It's so dishonest. And so obvious.

 

 

It's certainly

>highly debatable who was imposing economic consequences

>on whom, and who was most responsible for the injuries which

>occurred. No one is denying that a serious injury occurred.

>And I'm sure it hurt like hell. Nevertheless, it is

>intuitively obvious to most humans (and probably to lower life

>forms quite a ways down the evolutionary chain) that one does

>not place boiling hot liquids in containers near one's groin.

>I strongly believe that not only was it absurd to assign any

>blame to the McDonalds Corporation, but that the figure the

>jury came up with was beyond ridiculous. I seem to recall

>that the figure was over $100 million. This figure would have

>been ridiculous even if the plaintiff had to have both of her

>legs amputated!

 

Nothing that you have said about the case above is true. The truth is that but for the negligence of the restaurant in serving a beverage at a temperature far above the safety limit prescribed by its own procedures, the plaintiff would have had a minor mishap requiring no more serious remedy than a trip to the dry cleaner -- instead of eight days in a burn unit. The damage figure you quoted bears no relationship to the actual figure. Do you just make this shit up, or do you have a problem with your memory?

 

What is true is that the same distorted version of the case that you are peddling on this message board has repeatedly been used by right-wing assholes on talk radio and by television "journalists" too lazy to get the facts before they report as an example of the need for "tort reform." I am sick and tired of watching shills for the insurance industry repeat these lies out of dishonesty, laziness, stupidity, or all three, and I wasn't even involved in the case. If I'm sick of it, how do you think the person who was actually injured in the case feels? You should be ashamed.

 

>As hard as it is for some US lawyers to believe, the United

>States is not the only nation on the planet!!!:o Yet when

>one hears of ridiculous civil verdicts, they universally come

>from the U.S.

 

If you ever actually thought about this issue instead of simply repeating the slogans you hear on the radio, it might occur to you that one reason one doesn't hear of large personal injury damage awards in other countries is that other countries have universal healthcare systems in which it isn't necessary for people to sue in order to get the money to pay large medical expenses when they are seriously injured. But you clearly don't care about that, so perhaps it wouldn't occur to you.

 

By the way, are you driving home from your place of work today? Suppose while doing so your car is struck and you are badly injured by a drunk driver. The injury is disabling, prevents you from working for a long period, and requires costly hospitalization and rehabilitation. Is there anyone reading this who believes that you wouldn't react by screaming for a P.I. lawyer to sue on your behalf for every penny you could possibly get? Your lawyer tells you that he can get you a large settlement from the other driver's insurer, but that the insurer will compensate by increasing rates for other drivers. Would you tell him, "No, I want you to get me LESS money because I don't want our litigation system to impose that cost on the economy"? I think we all know the answer.

[woodlawn]

RE: Lies Told by Right Wing Scum

 

>>I strongly believe that not only was it absurd to assign any

>>blame to the McDonalds Corporation, but that the figure the

>>jury came up with was beyond ridiculous. I seem to recall

>>that the figure was over $100 million. This figure would

>have

>>been ridiculous even if the plaintiff had to have both of

>her

>>legs amputated!

 

I thought it would be interesting to point out just how far from the truth your statements about the case really are, so I re-checked the facts with the kind assistance of the Public Citizen foundation and several other sources. See http://www.citizen.org.

 

The plaintiff in this case was a 79-year-old grandmother who purchased a cup of coffee at the drive-through window in a McDonalds in Albuquerque. While holding the coffee in her lap for a moment it spilled. The temperature was such that it caused third-degree burns on her lower body, requiring both skin grafts and scraping to repair.

 

The plaintiff offered to settle the case at one point for $20,000.00. McDonalds refused. The case went to trial and the jury awarded $160,000.00 in compensatory damages and $2.7 million in punitive damages. That's $2.7 million, not $100 million. The punitive damages were awarded because it was brought out at trial that McDonalds was well aware of the problem with the temperature of certain of its beverages, had been warned about it by a national safety organization, and had settled numerous other cases of customers injured in this manner, but had never done anything to deal with the problem -- including warning customers about the potential for injury.

 

Aren't you embarrassed to be caught telling a pack of lies about this? You certainly should be. You and that escort who also posted falsehoods about this case really should stop posting if you're going to use this board as a platform for spreading misinformation.

[trilingual]

As so often happens here, many of the postings on this topic are extremely U.S.-centric. However, different countries and societies have different views on such concepts as "childhood" and ability to consent to sexual relations, and U.S. values and morals are by no means universal. Even in the U.S. there are variances, as each state determines its own criminal laws and age of consent.

 

Canada, for some reason, appears to be trying to have it both ways: on one hand it grants 14-year-olds the right to consent to sexual relations, but on the other hand it undermines that right by its "abduction" law. Personally, I think 16 is a more realistic age of consent in developed countries like Canada, where the majority of adolescents remain under the protection and care of their parents as dependents, and are still in school. Adolescents in such countries for the most part haven't experienced the vagaries of adult life, as is often the case in poorer countries where people go to work and have to deal with all the issues of "real" life at much younger ages, giving them experience and maturity their counterparts in richer countries usually lack. That explains why in many poorer countries the age of consent is lower. One reaches emotional and psychological "adulthood" earlier. It's also worth remembering that kids in such countries generally begin puberty and reach physical adulthood much earlier than do those in richer nations, and that's reflected in their laws and customs.

 

Nevertheless, even in some poorer countries the age of consent is relatively high, as it is in Brazil, where it's a crime for an adult to have sex with someone under the age of 18 and there is a widespread campaign to stamp out sexual tourism by men seeking sex with teenaged girls.

 

In the case in question, while most posters here (including myself) wouldn't consider sex with a 14-year old, the actions of the adult were evidently legal in Canada, where it's not clear from the facts presented if the "abduction" law would apply. In that case, while most of us find his actions distasteful, he did nothing illegal or immoral by going to Canada to meet his 14-year old consenting partner, any more than Americans who went to Canada or Mexico to get a legal drink during Prohibition did. Whatever Americans may think, Canadians, through their Parliament, have expressed their judgment on the age of consent, and if they believe that 14 is an appropriate age, then it's their right to make that judgment, just as it's their right to allow same-sex couples to marry even though the idea horrifies an awful lot of Americans.

 

Discussions on this board and others would be a whole lot more sensible and less disputatious if U.S. posters would take the effort to remember that the whole world isn't the U.S., and that U.S. values and mores are not necessarily universal, on issues ranging from gay sex to capital punishment to reasons for going to war. In fact, in a considerable number of cases, the U.S. is in a distinct minority of nations in its viewpoints, and Americans might want to ponder why their country is so often out of step with the considered judgments of their democratic fellow nations.

[Boston Guy]

>Discussions on this board and others would be a whole lot more

>sensible and less disputatious if U.S. posters would take the

>effort to remember that the whole world isn't the U.S., and

>that U.S. values and mores are not necessarily universal, on

>issues ranging from gay sex to capital punishment to reasons

>for going to war. In fact, in a considerable number of cases,

>the U.S. is in a distinct minority of nations in its

>viewpoints, and Americans might want to ponder why their

>country is so often out of step with the considered judgments

>of their democratic fellow nations.

>

>

 

Tri -

 

This is a point you've made before and it's a good one. But we all have to speak from a context and most (many?) of us are here in the US. I don't think that's an evil, just a fact. Rather than lamenting the fact that we bring our US lives, views and experiences to M4M, you and the others who are outside the US should simply chime in with other points of view when you feel it's appropriate to do so.

 

BG

[trilingual]

I agree that everyone speaks from their particular national/cultural context; it's only natural. However, I don't think it's asking too much for American posters to TRY to remember that theirs isn't the only country on earth, that its values are not necessarily the values of every other nation and culture, and to make a minimal effort to be a bit less provincial and judgmental. Otherwise they fall into the same form of thinking as the KKKristian KKKrazies, who assume that their values and judgments are universal and presume to speak in the name of all Christians on all issues, when in reality there is a multiplicity of views among Christians on a wide range of moral/ethical issues.

[Boston Guy]

It's interesting that you use "they" and "their" and "their country" when referring to the US, even though you're an American citizen. You've posted here before that you are disaffected with the current administration. Is it possible that your views about America are coloring your perceptions here or, at least, making you more sensitive to these issues?

 

BG

[augustman]

First my error I should have stated my discussion refers to developed nations. However, that said this particular line has been one of the subjects the UN (as misconceived and mismangedasit has been) has tried to address in the exploitation of children and international child pornography rings.

Second if this discussion had reference to boys exploring with other boys in same age range I may be less hostile, but I think the difference between adults and children is use of reason. I understand there are exceptions to any rules, but there has to be some minimal boundaries. We as adults are there to guide children, especially teenagers whether they want it or not. And we should not expoilt their internal anger or lust for life. There are plenty of hot looking 18-23 year old men who look way younger that guys can get into.

If you feel this is a US only opinion okay, fine. But I still hope the guy in Canada enjoys his time in jail and is appropriately labeled when he gets out. But you are absolutely right if the law supports him okay but laws do not make things right and wrong.

[Luv2play]

I don't know all the history behind the evolution of our laws on age of consent but I suppose the reason for the relatively low age of 14 for females originally was that in our distant past it was not unusual for girls to get married at that age, particularly in Quebec. When Quebec came into confederation, it had a largely rural population and was French speaking and Catholic, where large families were the norm (having twenty children was not unheard of). Our last Prime Minister, Jean Chretien, came from a family of 13. Today, young families are opting for 1 or 2 children, it has changed that quickly.

 

I read from the newspaper account included in a post above that the parents of the young boy were suspicious about where their son was going and observed him getting into a taxi with an older male. They contacted the police. The abduction provision was tailored for this kind of situation, where a child under 16 is lured away from his parents. I understood from the radio interview that the Texas man was charged under this provision of the Criminal Code.

 

I know a dancer who also escorts who told me he left his family at 14 and was living with an older man from then till he was 19 or so. He is French speaking and grew up in Quebec. His story is not unique. The drive to increase the age of consent is coming from the western region of Canada, which is much more like Texas in their thinking. Quebec will resist this, and since the government listens to Quebec more than to the west (it needs Quebec votes to stay in office), nothing is likely to change anytime soon.

[Juan Vancouver]

Dear Auggie:

 

Reading your post I have the impression that you might be mixing a few things in a shaker and serving them to us as a truth... Let me just share a few things that got my attention:

 

To begin with, Canada IS a developed nation. (And a few other developed countries have a very low age of consent too.) Second, since consensual age in this country IS 14 for both sexes, having sex with a 14 year older is NOT paedophilia, as you call it in your first post. (However, it might be conducent to prosecution, depending on the circumstances, as you can see in this example) Also, having consensual sex with a younger person is NOT considered pornography nor exploitation per se.

 

We have talked before about the very common mistake to confuse ethics and aesthetics. My quaker uncle's aestethic view of life makes him consider a horrible cryme to indulge into homosexuality. That, however, doesn't make homosexuality ethically wrong for him or anyone else. And of course, since he lives in Brittish Columbia, it is his LEGAL right to marry a fag, if he so wished.

 

In your original post you write sharing your aestethic point of view. I interpret that when I read things such as:

 

"(teenagers) should try to remain innocent, and in wonder"

 

"Adults should try to make childhood (from 14 to 16) remain that way"

 

"To allow excuses for someones behavior and even remotely consider that 14 year old was mature is not even in the picture."

 

"(all this) must be dealth (with) swiftly and decisively."

 

While I profoundly respect your personal beliefs, and would never attempt to convince you of anything, I feel that it is my duty to remind you that it is VERY dangerous when a personal ideology is imposed on others. Few examples come to my mind, Nazism, Stalinism, Franquism, Reaganism, Bushism, The holy inquisition, the Macarthism, the KKK.

 

In all those developed countries that have lowered their age of consent, they have had a huge body of experts studying the issue for a long time. Studies, (scientifical, ethical, aestethical and cultural) have been conducted, and revised and implemented, until they have reached a -not definite conclusion about it. They issue a law, and then they revise it... and perfect it... and so on.

 

There is one way to know wether a culture or civilization is thriving, stagnated or irrevocably dying. The same applies to ideologies. The way to recognize it is simple as hell.

 

The thriving and growing ones are ALWAYS open to change, revision, transformation, critizysm and discusion. It sounds a bit like:

 

"Through our extensive research and experience we have found that..... and we believe that if we keep doing .... this way, we might ....., so we are going to try ...."

 

The ones that are in stagnation or even sentenced to irrevocable death sound a bit like:

 

"Just say NO." "This is wrong." "They are evil." "We are the best."

 

Go through every period of history, and whenever an absolute has been accepted as a Universal truth, you might be certaint that the culture that said it is about to die.

 

I DO NOT under any circumstance support child abuse, nor teenager abuse, nor the "early end of pristine childhood" (whatever that might mean).

 

I do, however, strongly believe that as we evolve as a civilization, we will empower our children and youth more and more, so they will be able to begin to think by themseleves in a more healthty way. This will never be achieved by "doing what is right for them", or "Guide them (force them) whether they like it or not". To me that is only another more subtle way of child abuse.

 

To finish this long and boring post, I have to join you in your consternation knowing that those kids at church had to be witness of such horrid cryme... Tough world we are living in, indeed...

 

Juan

[trilingual]

>It's interesting that you use "they" and "their" and "their

>country" when referring to the US, even though you're an

>American citizen. You've posted here before that you are

>disaffected with the current administration. Is it possible

>that your views about America are coloring your perceptions

>here or, at least, making you more sensitive to these issues?

>

>BG

 

No, it has to to do with the general smugness of Americans and their abysmal ignorance about the rest of the world, which is a problem that existed long before the advent of the current sociopathic administration. For the most part, people in other countries know a lot more about the U.S. and other nations than Americans know about the rest of the world. Of course, one only has to look at a typical U.S. newspaper or newscast to understand one of the principal reasons Americans are so unaware of the world around them.

 

Perhaps my expectations are too high, but I get the sense from M4M that many, if not most, of our American posters are well-educated and have had the change to travel abroad and experience other cultures. If travel is broadening, as the theory goes, I would hope that posters would reflect on their experiences before positing American values and mores as universal ones, or even carelessly assuming that this site is only for Americans, when it's clear that there are M4Mers from many different countries, with different values and mores. Americans don't have a unique monopoly on truth. It's worth remembering that there are a number of democratic societies that long predate the U.S., and that most of the democratic societies on earth seem to be arriving at diametrically opposite conclusions from the U.S. about many issues, from the environment to gay rights to issues of personal freedom. Is it possible that they're ALL wrong, and that only the U.S. is right?

[woodlawn]

>Second if this discussion had reference to boys exploring with

>other boys in same age range I may be less hostile, but I

>think the difference between adults and children is use of

>reason. I understand there are exceptions to any rules, but

>there has to be some minimal boundaries. We as adults are

>there to guide children, especially teenagers whether they

>want it or not. And we should not expoilt their internal anger

>or lust for life.

 

 

I want to commend you for your forthright condemnation of pedophilia -- a term that unquestionably applies to sex with 14-year-olds. You have probably noticed that unlike you a number of the posters here have succumbed to the plague of moral relativism that afflicts our era. They are for the most part people who have cast aside the moral framework they were taught in their youth because they could not reconcile it with their own personal desires. Having thrown that moral code out the window, they find it impossible to condemn any sort of behavior, no matter how repugnant, because they have no moral standard against which to measure it. They can't condemn pedophilia, because the moral code they would use to do so is the same one that condemns their own sexual foibles. Quite a dilemma, isn't it?

 

You deserve credit for reminding us that we should not try to wriggle out of this problem with contrived and flimsy arguments about different customs and different societies, but should simply and unequivocally condemn any adult who supports the use of children for sex. Kudos.

[Luv2play]

>

>

>I want to commend you for your forthright condemnation of

>pedophilia -- a term that unquestionably applies to sex with

>14-year-olds. >

 

Before condemning the behaviour associated with pedophilia, it would be useful to know what it is we are talking about. Pedophilia involves the sexual arousal and desires or fantasies related to sexual impulses toward pre-adolescent children. Adolescence is the age following puberty and precedes the age of majority. In males adolescence is recognized as commencing at age 14 whereas in females traditionally it was recognized as commencing at age 12. Your comments above are totally unfounded. Period.

[woodlawn]

>>

>>

>>I want to commend you for your forthright condemnation of

>>pedophilia -- a term that unquestionably applies to sex with

>>14-year-olds. >

 

>Before condemning the behaviour associated with pedophilia, it

>would be useful to know what it is we are talking about.

 

I do. In my country, both the English dictionary and the law define as a "child" any person under the legal age of consent, which is 18 in most states.

 

>Pedophilia involves the sexual arousal and desires or

>fantasies related to sexual impulses toward pre-adolescent

>children.

 

I am not really interested in watching you or others contrive elaborate definitions that are designed to let you avoid the condemnation of pedophilic relationships. The fact that many of your fellow citizens find gay sexual behavior perverse and disgusting may make you feel that you cannot condemn anyone else, no matter how injurious their behavior may be. It does not have that effect on me.

 

> Your

>comments above are totally unfounded. Period.

>

 

Please stop making a fool of yourself by pretending that you are some sort of all-powerful arbiter who has the right to make the "final" statement in a discussion. No doubt you were very impressed by being appointed hall monitor in elementary school, but it really is time for you to get over that now and realize that your statements are entitled to no more weight than anyone else's.

[Luv2play]

>

>I do. In my country, both the English dictionary and the law

>define as a "child" any person under the legal age of consent,

>which is 18 in most states.

 

You mean "American" dictionary. The English Oxford Dictionary defines child as a person under the age of puberty. And a definition of child which is tied to an age of consent when that age varies from state to state is perverse. Which is not surprising, considering the source.

>

>>Pedophilia involves the sexual arousal and desires or

>>fantasies related to sexual impulses toward pre-adolescent

>>children.

>

>I am not really interested

 

No, you are only interested in your own, silly arguments, since you can't directly refute the above statement.

 

>designed to let you avoid the

>condemnation of pedophilic relationships.

 

Who is not condemning pedophilic relationships? It's their definition we are arguing about. You are confusing pedophilic with underage.

 

 

>>

>

>Please stop making a fool of yourself. your statements are entitled to no more weight than anyone else's.

 

They are when they are correct and yours are wrong.

[Guest]

RE: Lies Told by Right Wing Scum

 

>The plaintiff in this case was a 79-year-old grandmother who

>purchased a cup of coffee at the drive-through window in a

>McDonalds in Albuquerque. While holding the coffee in her lap

>for a moment it spilled. The temperature was such that it

>caused third-degree burns on her lower body, requiring both

>skin grafts and scraping to repair.

>

>The plaintiff offered to settle the case at one point for

>$20,000.00. McDonalds refused. The case went to trial and

>the jury awarded $160,000.00 in compensatory damages and $2.7

>million in punitive damages. That's $2.7 million, not $100

>million.

.

.

>

>Aren't you embarrassed to be caught telling a pack of lies

>about this?

 

I said "I seemed to recall," not "I just looked it up," asshole. The actual jury award was $2.9 million according to a couple of sources I just looked up. Who's really being dishonest, here (what can one expect of a lawyer?)? I still feel that it's a ridiculous sum. Of course, I think that any sum over 0 cents is a ridiculous sum. She was a demented 79 year-old and she hurt herself. Sometimes old people hurt themselves. C'est la vie. Next time her grandson should be more careful when taking batty granny through the drivethrough. What are cupholders for?

The issue of lack of medical coverage is obviously completely irrelevant to the case. First of all, if she was 79, she had MediCare, unless she was a foreigner who immigrated later in life and then never worked in the US (although I have hundreds of elderly foreign-born patients who never worked an hour in this country who still get full medical coverage). Secondly, if a person is truly indigent and truly cannot afford health care coverage, they also get free health care coverage. Thirdly, if someone can afford to get health care coverage, and choses not to, it's not the responsibility of a deep pocket to bail him (or her) through when he does something out of stupidity (or dementia, as the case may be). (That being said, I am in favor of universal health care coverage, not at all necessarily government-administered)

FWIW, even the judge felt the punitive award was off-base, and reduced the punitive portion from $2.7 M to 640,000. Of course, why punitive damages are awarded to plaintiffs and their lawyers in this country is another wierdism of our legal system. They are intended to punish plaintiffs, not compensate victims, so they should go to some appropriate charitable organization.