Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Apr 4, 2010 14:01:12 GMT -5
Let me throw a debate question into the mix (and this time into the correct thread):
If a girl claims to be 18, and looks like she's 18, but she's only 17 (and for the sake of other countries, substitute your own age limits here), and she and her boyfriend have consensual sex, is it right or fair that the boyfriend can be arrested for statutory rape? (Is it his responsibility to card her?)
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Apr 4, 2010 14:05:20 GMT -5
Let me throw a debate question into the mix (and this time into the correct thread): If a girl claims to be 18, and looks like she's 18, but she's only 17 (and for the sake of other countries, substitute your own age limits here), and she and her boyfriend have consensual sex, is it right or fair that the boyfriend can be arrested for statutory rape? (Is it his responsibility to card her?) I think it's similar to my post earlier. Truthfully, if they give consent, then there really shouldn't be any legal action taken, but the law says that because she's a year below consent age, she can't ACTUALLY give consent. Even if she was a day away from turning eighteen, she can't ACTUALLY give consent in the eyes of the law - which is complete bullcrap, but if the laws were lifted, it goes to a slippery slope. What if a twelve year old and easily manipulated child gives consent from manipulation to have sex with a forty year old? What happens then? It's a total grey area.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Apr 4, 2010 14:14:19 GMT -5
It does leave quite a mess. I'm less concerned with whether or not she gave consent with my question, though, than I am concerned with whether or not the guy had a reasonable chance of realizing she was under 18. (Not that the former is a bad topic, I just wanted to touch on the latter as well.) If she's tall, built, looks and acts mature, should the guy be responsible for checking her card to see if she's 17 instead of 20? Maybe she can't give consent under the law, but does he know that she's of an age where she can't?
//Edit: Consent laws in Canada attempt to tackle the grey area years by allowing couples of close age ranges under the age of consent. It works like this:
The basic age of consent is 16. The following exceptions apply:
1) The age of consent is raised to 18 for circumstances where the other person is (a) in a position of trust or authority (such as a teacher), (b) if the relationship is exploitative, or (c) if the youth is dependant upon the other party (such as for food/water/shelter). 2) Youth of age 14-15 may have sex with anyone less than 5 years older than they are. 3) Youth of age 12-13 may have sex with anyone less than 2 years older than they are.
|
|
MCPuppet
Moon
I shall overcome
Posts: 127
|
Post by MCPuppet on Apr 4, 2010 15:24:05 GMT -5
I think there is a clear indication of what is right and what is wrong. You know if you're 20 years old, you should keep your hands off a 12 year old. There is a lot of gray area in the middle, I understand, but I think at that point, you really have to consider if both parties fully understand what's happening. If a 18 year old tricks a 14 year old into sleeping with him, or anything of the sort, and the 14 year old really doesn't understand what's happening. That's wrong. However, if the 14 year old is fully aware and willing, sure it may be frowned about a bit, but I believe that is fine. I agree that Canada's system has gotten it pretty down. While I don't support a couple 12 year olds hooking up, at least by that point they understand, even if very little, about what they're doing.
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Apr 4, 2010 15:46:06 GMT -5
I'm quite surprised that sex between 12 year olds is legal, but would count myself as glad, provided there is a good sexual education scheme from before that age in Canada. Personally, I think that it should be worked out on age difference, and that Canada has the right idea. I also think that children should be given more mental responsibility from an earlier age. I do understand that actual levels of maturity vary, though, and that with respect to the question of safety of children, safe is better than sorry. I have to say I'm a bit queasy about 12's... has anyone ever been that mature that young? Can't be many. But then, nothing would happen between 12's unless they started it... and if someone else did, then they're out of the age range and subject to child molestation laws. So I guess it works out fairly well. To answer your question about sex ed, it begins right from kindergarten which I'm fully in favour of. Of course, at that age it's only the vaguest things -- what the names of body parts are, and that nobody should ever touch them without your permission. That sort of thing. It continues annually through elementary and most of high school (as a part of mandatory Career & Personal Planning classes). I should note I'm in BC, and school curricula are provincial, so I don't know how it is in other provinces.
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Apr 5, 2010 12:30:10 GMT -5
Cheers. And the between 12's thing - in Britain it counts as "mutual molestation". Great job, Parliament.... So does anyone think that passive paedophilia is wrong? So far everyone's said it's fine because there's no choice and it causes no harm. The general conclusions so far seem to be that it's the age difference that really counts, but that the acceptable age difference gets smaller as the participants get younger. Also, there's a general disapproval of full active paedophilia, but general tentative acceptance of ephebophilia. Mutual molestation? Isn't that like an oxymoron? Anyway, I have no problem with paedophiles. The problems only arise when they either molest children or support anything abusing children (child pornography and such).
|
|
|
Post by stephen5000 on Apr 5, 2010 14:04:14 GMT -5
Most people on this thread agree that child pornography is a bad this. I'd be interested to hear people's opinions surrounding virtual child pornography, that is pornography not involving actual children, notably drawings and computer images often not intending to represent actual children. The legal standing of this seems to be on shaky ground, and is often illegal when it is deemed to be "obscene".
|
|
Nakor
Star
Non-Prophet
Posts: 991
|
Post by Nakor on Apr 5, 2010 14:36:15 GMT -5
I was wondering if we'd come around to that. I wonder if there's been any real study to that end. It seems that people who tend to like lolita animated/drawn porn often speak out against real-world paedophilia all while defending their own tastes. Half the time though I think that's just kids following what everyone else is claiming to be cool or something, which makes any of that data highly questionable at best, and totally useless at worst.
|
|
|
Post by Lex on Apr 5, 2010 15:48:50 GMT -5
Well, the arguments against child porn so far have been that it causes harm to children while it is being made, and that its purchase encourages further creation, causing more harm. Both of these do not apply to virtual porn. The argument for child porn has been that it helps paedophiles deal with their orientation, helping them stop themselves from acting on their urges with real children. If this is indeed the case, then virtual child porn is not only not a bad thing but a very good thing. I would dispute that it is the case though: I would argue that coming into too much contact with material relating to unacceptable ideas can contribute to the idea in the mind of the user that it is acceptable, even if this process is subconscious. Also, coming into contact with the virtual could make paedophiles want the real more. Suppressing it entirely, if successful, could be a safer and perhaps better option. Virtual child porn? What? Like computer generated or drawn stuff?
|
|
|
Post by RandiKthxxx on Apr 5, 2010 21:06:11 GMT -5
1st. Why would "taking advantage" of them necessarily be wrong, Are we talking about something like a grown man/woman taking advantage of a 6 year old? If so, you're sick if you don't see something wrong with that. That's just plain wrong.
|
|
Duffy ze Emu
Meteorite
I'm not egotistical, you're just inferior.
Posts: 8
|
Post by Duffy ze Emu on Apr 5, 2010 21:40:18 GMT -5
I know I've come late to the discussion, but I'd nonetheless like to give my opinions on most of the stuff brought up here. If I forget any points, forgive me, but it's 3AM and a lot of points were brought up.
Ages of consent: It seems that Canada has hit the nail on the head with this one, although I would see 12 as "too young", and might like to perhaps move this up to 13 - 14 within 2 years. I'm also not so sure about 15+ within 5 years, as a 19 yr old would, in my mind, be taking advantage of a 15 year old- one is almost certainly fully mature whilst the other is still developing. Here in the UK, as has been previously mentioned, the age of consent is 16. If you're going to set any one limit, this seems sensible enough because, as I said, a 15 year old wouldn't, most likely, be fully developed. I'd like to perhaps add another point here, though it's not related to paedophilia. If you can have sex at 16, you technically cannot watch it, as the age for watching pornography is 18. You also cannot star in it until 18 (understandably), but the above seems to make no sense at all.
Child Molestation: By this I mean any sexual act with a pre-pubescent child. People seem to have brought up the fact that if the child consents/enjoys it then it can't be wrong. I beg to differ. I know this is just me, but I'd like to point out how I've felt about sex. I must have found out "how it is done" when I was 8 or 9 and was, frankly, disgusted. I couldn't even understand how it could possibly be considered "fun" until I hit puberty myself. I felt absolutely no sexual urges up until that point. If pre-pubescent children could really enjoy sex, then we'd probably be hearing of stories where two 8 or 9 year olds went of with each other. It just doesn't happen, because pre-pubescent children physically cannot enjoy sex. In addition, most children who become involved with sexual activity with an older person develop mental disorders/instabilities when they themselves grow up. Just as children who are abused and suffer grievous bodily harm frequently whilst growing up are far more likely to abuse their own children in the same way, children abused sexually are far more likely to respond in kind to their own children (or other's), perceiving this as "normal"/"acceptable" behaviour. Quite simply, sexual acts before the child is ready irreparably damage them.
Child Porn: For all of the reasons brought up by myself and others, live action child porn is wrong on pretty much every level. It just shouldn't be done. Ever. "Lolita" is another kettle of fish, but it's still bad. While people cannot do anything about their sexual orientations, I would say that burying paedophilic feelings is the best anyone can do. I would recommend psychological courses, but this never worked with people who were homosexual (Whilst homosexuality was still illegal), so there is no reason it should work for paedophiles. As far as I can tell, any form of child pornography (Whether drawn or real) would make it seem more acceptable in the viewer's mind, whether consciously or no. I admit that it would, perhaps, enable them to let out their feelings without any collateral damage to actual children, it could lead to such acts seeming acceptable or normal to the paedophile, as I already said. At the very least, it means accepting the fact that one is attracted to children, which could lead to horrifying situations in and of itself.
To touch on another point, although I already said it is futile to attempt to "recondition" paedophiles, it should perhaps be attempted. Even if the feelings are buried, they could be unleashed. I recall a Louis Theroux Documentary where he went to a paedophile detention centre. One of the men he spoke to explained the scenario which caused him to be locked up. To put it in short, he was babysitting his best friend's kids when he just felt the urge to. And he could. So he did. As I recall the boy involved was 7 years of age. The scary thing was, so many of these child molesters seemed so normal, human, friendly. I honestly found myself feeling sorry for some of them, despite knowing what they had done.
|
|