I was wondering what people thought about consent laws both in Canada and the US. If I am not mistaken the age of consent in Canada was recently raised to 16. Although there is some sort of extended age bracket for those under 18 or something.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_consent - Definition of age of consent etc

There have been two recent cases related to age of consent that have garnered wide spread media attention. Unfortunately I do not have links to either of them, however the I recall the general idea of both.

Somewhere in the US a 17 year old male and his 15 year old girlfriend engaged in oral sex (she gave him a blow-job). Somehow the parents found out and the kid ended up doing time for statutory rape. Recently his conviction was reduced to a less serious crime and he was released with time served (a couple of years).

Somewhere in utah the leader of a religious sect that practices polygamy was involved in coercing an underage girl into an arranged, polygamous marriage with some much older man. He was recently convicted for some crime along the lines of "accessory to statutory rape".

In one case the consent laws ended up being a vehicle of sexual repression and the oppression of innocent minors, in the other the consent laws provided redress and closure for a terrible crime.

quote:

---

Are a 16 year old and a 21 year old capable of engaging in a healthy sexual relationship?

---

quote:

---

I was wondering what people thought about consent laws both in Canada and the US. If I am not mistaken the age of consent in Canada was recently raised to 16. Although there is some sort of extended age bracket for those under 18 or something.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ward:
The younger you can start conditioning kids to obey the law...the better.

---

quote:

---

An Ottawa MP [Conservative Pierre Poilièvre] is drawing fire for offering teenagers a chance to win a $1,000 scholarship if they write an essay — and collect 25 signatures on a petition to raise the age of sexual consent from 14 to 16.

---

The age of consent is now 16, not 14.

quote:

---

...many youth advocates say that by focusing on age, the new law will confuse teens, make their sexual activities more clandestine and expose them to other risks, including abuse, early pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.

"When you call it the age of consent, that's misleading to kids, who will think it's not permitted, that it's a crime to be sexually active before the age of 16," says Martha Mackinnon, the executive director of Justice for Children and Youth, a Toronto legal aid clinic serving low-income youth. "A huge concern is that kids won't seek medical help, won't seek counselling, they won't seek birth control.

"They won't go to a drug store and ask for condoms," she says.

It is not a crime for youth under 16 to engage in sexual activity, she points out.

"In fact, it's so much more technical than that it's hard for people to understand," Ms. Mackinnon says.

Among the exemptions, sex between peers under 16 is okay, as long as neither is in a position of authority and they are 12 or older. Likewise, under a "close-in-age" provision, if a person under 16 (and 12 or older) has sex with someone less than five years older, they can be considered to have consented unless the older person is in a position of authority.

But in that respect the law has not changed, says Ms. Mackinnon. In the case of, say, a 15- and a 19-year-old, if the 19-year-old is the skating coach, "it would be a crime, as it has always been."

"The fact that it's less than five years doesn't make it automatically legal. It just means that it's not automatically illegal."

Another area of concern for critics is that it remains illegal for anyone under 18 to participate in anal intercourse - critics say this targets gay male teenagers - even though the law has been struck down as unconstitutional by many provincial courts of appeal.

---

As a parent, I find it difficult to be against that.

[ 06 May 2008: Message edited by: Timebandit ]

quote:

---

No, the existing law was already sufficient deterrent to sexual predators.

---

It is meant to keep people more than 5 years older than 14 and 15 yr olds from having sex with them legally.

It has nothing to do with and says nothing at all about kids and teens engaging in or having sexual activities with each other.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
Who supports the right of people over the age of 21 being in legal sexual relationships with 14 and 15 yr olds?????

---

That, in fact, was what the law provided before this new completely unnecessary amendment.

quote:

---

I do, so long as there is no relationship of trust, authority, or dependency between them, and they both consent.

---

ETA: I'm just trying to imagine by what standard objecting to a 21 year old having sex with a grade 8 kid makes one a "morality cop"... Pretty lax one, in my view.

[ 06 May 2008: Message edited by: Timebandit ]

eta: For a typical 14-year-old, simply being a 21-year-old is enough to put you in a position of trust and authority.

[ 06 May 2008: Message edited by: Stephen Gordon ]

No one who supports this "increased criminalization of sexuality" on this thread has addressed this.

[ 06 May 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timebandit:
By right of Mom.

---

But we're not talking parent's rights here, and we're not talking about your specific personal case. That's your own business, not ours.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stephen Gordon:
For a typical 14-year-old, simply being a 21-year-old is enough to put you in a position of trust and authority.

---

(21/2) + 7 > 14

quote:

---

Stephen Gordon: N. Beltov, you are a willfully ignorant hack. Or just stupid

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ghislaine:
Who supports the right of people over the age of 21 being in legal sexual relationships with 14 and 15 yr olds?????

---

This is not a question of who "supports" that.

It is a question of who wants to make it an automatic criminal offence.

Do you support suicide and abortion, Ghislaine?

Do you support anal sex?

Do you support children telling their parents to f*** off and die?

Well guess what, all these have been punishable - in some cases by death - in legal and/or moral codes in which I grew up.

And guess what else - none of them are criminal behaviour any more.

I take it, therefore, that you have NOTHING to say about the difficulties faced by young queers who, faced with the social shunning (or worse) attached to their sexual orientation, choose to start their sexual lives with older, but safer, partners.

Arrest them, or their partners anyway. That seems to be your answer. How "progressive".

[ 06 May 2008: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

Applying the same criteria to people in different circumstances and produce unequal outcomes.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
I take it, therefore, that you have NOTHING to say about the difficulties faced by young queers who, faced with the social shunning (or worse) attached to their sexual orientation, choose to start their sexual lives with older, but safer, partners.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
What do you mean, "on both sides of the line", j r?

---

But if you can understand and appreciate the argument (even if you don't agree with it) that there is an inherent power difference that a straight person aged 21 might have over a straight 14 year-old simply because they're 21 (and therefore might intimidate or impress the 14 year-old with their age, life experience, etc.), surely you could understand how that inherent power difference would be magnified if a 14 year-old felt compelled to date older than his or her age group because of homophobia, and felt that only older people understood him or her, and was scared of being outed to his or her peer group. That much older person would hold even MORE of a position of power due to the much younger person's feelings of dependence on them and fear of being outed to their peers.

That's not to say I agree with the legislation, however. Honestly, I do think that a 21 year-old has no business having sex with a 14 year-old, and I do think there is an inherent power relationship there. But I think the interests of the 14 year-old not being afraid to access sexual health services is more important than criminalizing such behaviour on the part of the 21 year-old.

[ 06 May 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
You can tell your underage daughter whatever you want about what she can or can't do. That's up to you.

But we're not talking parent's rights here, and we're not talking about your specific personal case. That's your own business, not ours.

What we are talking about is the criminalizing of consensual sexual activity where there is no relationship of trust, authority, or dependency involved. Maybe you could direct your arguments to that issue, without trying to personalize it to Your Rights As A Mom.

---

So sorry, lost my mind for a moment and forgot you have no sense of humour. The "right of Mom" comment was a joke, however, as Stephen pointed out, this is a less theoretical question for some of us than it is for others.

It's idiotic to expect that a 14 or 15 yr old isn't going to put more faith and trust in someone significantly older than is wise. It can't be an equal relationship. There is too much developmental difference there. So I have no problem with charging a 21 yr old who would take advantage of a 14 yr old sexually.

Now, if we're talking about me, personally, any 21 yr old who laid a finger on my 14 yr old daughter (heck, even quite a bit older than 14) had better pray the authorities get to him before I do.

quote:

---

...the interests of the 14 year-old not being afraid to access sexual health services is more important than criminalizing such behavior on the part of the 21 year-old.

---

Does the fact that she was very close to 15 and I close to 21 change the dymanics of the relationship? In fact, as I remember it the difference in age between 14 and 18 was enormous gap in terms of esteem and social power. Grade 6 students look up to grade 7 and 8 students like they are gods, in a way that 20 year olds simply do not look up to 22 years olds.

17 year olds routinely abuse their younger associates, and in fact date rape is fairly common in these age categories. Of course people who are 20 are supposed to be adults... well ok... in some fashion that is truly different than that of a 19 year old?

Really?

I think a lot of this has to do with development of the individuals involved, and that emotional context simply can not be defined by arbitrary age categories, though obviously there are going to be clear power dynamics when you are dealing with people who are of different emotional stages of development. I am not really sure if this is not really true in almost any human encounter, whatever the reason for the power imbalance, be it age, or social status otherwise aquired through fame or wealth.

I think its very difficult to make a kind of definition that says this is bad because there is an "unequal power balance" because this is almost universally true in any relationship. Sex is a highly emotionalizing experience, and people often feel very vulnerable when they are experiencing a serious physical attraction for someone, and this almost alway results in feelings of powerlessness of some kind or another, so I hardly think that the relative imbalance of "power" can be used to determine that some sex is bad.

If someone did not look up to the person they were having sex with in some fashion or another, then I'd say that was a pretty weird sexual relationship. Power dynamics can always be exploited of course, but just because they can be, does not mean that they are being exploited.

As for my experience, my friend and I went on to be good friends for a ten years, and even now we are occassionally in touch.

[ 06 May 2008: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timebandit:
There is an inherent imbalance of power.

---

And if so, is it true in all cases? Because the criminal law applies to all without distinction.

I think you're talking nonsense.

[ 06 May 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

I don't see how that matters. Why would a gay 21-year-old get a pass for getting involved with a 14-year-old?

---

Actually, the age limit for sodomy is 18 years old. This remains unchanged under the new law.