B.C. teacher may get jail for sex with student
Comments
I won't go through the CFSH reasoning point by point because all the organizations mentioned seem to make the same points.
Here is a 2006 article by Katherine Covell, a professor of psychology at Cape Breton University and executive director of the Children's Rights Centre. The whole article is well worth reading. She doesn't oppose Bill C-2 or Bill C-22, but points out that they won't change reality much:
Ultimately, education may be more effective in protecting children from sexual predation than raising the age of consent to 16 years. In an historic meeting held in Canada in 1998, sexually exploited young people emphasized the importance of education to reduce vulnerability. It is not the law that would have protected us, these young people stated, but knowledge could have helped us to protect ourselves. [...]Without changes in the way law is used, and without acknowledgement that children are independent bearers of rights rather than chattel, we can expect little change in the sexual exploitation of our children. The law may deter some sexual predators and may incarcerate others. But to fully protect children from sexual exploitation we may need to re-focus the discussion from the age of consent to how to respect our children’s rights to sexual health and healthy development. We need to consider why so many children are so vulnerable to sexual predators on the internet and on the streets. We must ask why our children have inadequate information to ensure their sexual health and safety. Only when we address such basic issues will we have a real chance of reducing the number of sexually exploited children.
Thank-you Unionist. That is an excellent and non-biased reference that does help me to understand your perspective a bit better. I don't think we will ever come to agreement on the specific laws but I do agree that children are not chattels and that parent's rights should never supercede the rights of the child. Although it is difficult to draw a specific line, and the UN broadly defines child as under 18, I think we also agree that there is a huge difference between children and youths.
Unionist, I completely agree with what you have posted. My attempt in this forum was to put a human face on the exploitation of these young girls from older men. If any one even bothered, I hope they took the time to read the post where a young girl gets the word "whore" carved into her back by her twisted screw of a "boyfriend".
I am not here attempting to criminalize sex. I am trying to show people that the reality is that many many young girls are being abused, exploited and worse....I think education is a great start, but would like to see men accept some of that responsibility, and start talking to other men about this. It cannot and is not acceptable for women to have to own the horrible behaviour of these predators.
If you could accompany your personal attacks on me with some sort of evidence that I could either respond to or apologise for, it would be helpful. I'm not seeing anywhere in this thread where I've refused to acknowledge sexual exploitation, so if you could point out a particular passage or idea that you think indicates that, I'd appreciate it.
Well how about your first post in this thread for starters?!
As follows:
How does that indicate a refusal to acknowledge sexual exploitation? I was asking why exploitation of young women and older women should be treated differently. I meant that as a completely serious question - if men who take advantage of younger girls should be treated as criminals, shouldn't men who take advantage of older women also be treated as criminals? If not, what is the difference between their behaviour? I don't see how that could possibly be seen as refusal to acknowledge exploitation. My point was that I don't see why age - rather than the behaviour itself - should be what establishes criminality.
First off, there is a difference in age between a 17 year old and a 30 year old women. You levelled them as being the same in agency and power. heads up they are not.
Let's say that there's a 55 year old white man. He has a solid, secure job working in the banking industry. He has made quite a bit of money doing this and is very financially secure. Now let's say he meets a woman, she's 30 years old, black, and a single mother of two children. She has no education beyond high school, and she has difficulty keeping a job due to her obvious difficulties trying to raise two children by herself. The man and the woman begin dating. The man is only interested in the relationship for sex, and the woman is only willing to have sex with him because she needs some secure finances to help raise her kids. There's a pretty clear difference between the agency and power of the two individuals involved in the relationship, and it sure seems to me like the man is sexually exploiting the woman. Should their relationship be criminalised? Further, should all relationships between rich white men and poor black women be criminalised as a way to prevent this sort of situation from occurring?
Sperm for Food, uh?
Let's just say I would forgive her for biting his nuts off.
No, because we make a distinction between adults and youth or children. That distinction is made with good reason because we know that areas of the brain that control risk-taking behavior and impulse control are not as developed as they are in adults. Common sense tells us that a 5 year old cannot give informed consent even if they know the words "yes" and "cookie". Common sense also tells us that 50 year olds, unless suffering from some form of brain disorder, are fully capable of making informed choices. Those are extremes to be sure but somewhere between the two we need to draw lines regarding various forms of activity based on the protection of society but also protection of the young who are not able to protect themselves or see the longterm reprocussions of their behavior.
Go ahead and preach to your kids that their brains aren't developed enough to understand the consequences of having sex. Also, make sure to tell them to dress modestly.
Let me know how you make out.
yep, on both points
Let me know how you make out.
None of your business.I have repeatedly acknowledged that a relationship between a 30 year old male and a 17 year old female could be exploitative. I have also pointed out that I think other relationships are sometimes equally exploitative and have asked why the standard is being applied selectively. But, again, instead of engaging in rational explanation of why a poster disagrees with the particular points I'm making, I'm being attacked for things I haven't said and don't believe. I assumed the purpose of a discussion board was discussion; apparently not everyone feels the same.
The Bish, are you a female? No? Then you have absolutely no idea what I'm talking about.
I'd like to relay the following story and then I'd like someone to tell me how this can possibly be justified.
My friend has a 16 year old daughter. Her boyfriend is 24. She came home yesterday after a night with her older boyfriend with the word WHORE carved into her back. This is a young and beautiful young girl with horrible self-esteem issues. She thinks that he must love her. He is clearly a twisted woman hating piece of shit. She will not and cannot go to the police to report him. That would harm her far more than it would harm him.
My point is, for people like The Bish, who seems to see no harm in the age difference, this shit is REAL. These older guys prey on young and vulnerable females and they WILL degrade them, use them, abuse them and toss them aside. This young girl has no sense of who she is yet. She is 16!! Not 20, not 30. 16 years old!!
How the fuck is this girl supposed to KNOW that this is wrong, and incredibly misogynistic? She can't because she is 16!! Far too young to understand how to stay away from and deal with this type of a twisted screw. I want to smash his head in I am so angry at what he did to her, and I don't even want to think about what he told her as he carved the word whore into her back.
I don't care what the hell some guy says about relationships between an older man and a much younger girl, because you are not a girl, you have absolutely NO idea what many of these girls think like, or feel like, or are able to understand. Now her already bad self-esteem is going to be worse when she is old enough to realize what that twisted fuck did to her and what it means.
In terms of the law, a person in a position of trust cannot have a sexual relationship with someone under 18.
In terms of the teaching profession, a teacher cannot have a sexual relationship with any student even if the student is 18 or over. Heck, teachers cannot even take high school students to East Side Marios while the students drink pop and the teacher drinks a beer. A teacher could lose his or her licence. Remember that a teacher does not stop being a teacher at the end of the school day. A teacher is a teacher 24 hours per day.
Even if a student has a crush on a teacher, that teacher must always remain professional and stop any potential advances by the student. If a student did develop a crush and a teacher knew about it, the teacher should immediately consult a union rep and/or principal of the school.
Teachers must not be blaming students for the misfortunes of another teacher who may be convicted in a court and/or lose a teaching licence. Teachers should not be discussing professional matters about other current or former teachers with students.
Finally, it doesn't matter what the gender is of the teacher or student. Sexual activities by a teacher with any student is always wrong.
You're damn right I did it with my son and if I had a daughter I would be even more vigilant. You don't have to "preach" to get your point across. I see absolutely no reason why parents should not talk to their children about sex, and explain to them that what they think is love is often about control and low self-esteem. They may not get it at first, but they will eventually. The girl I spoke of in my post above is now going to dump that abusive POS. Why? Because I shared with her my experience of being with a very abusive older man. What he did to me and why I let it happen. I told her it is about lack of self-esteem. They aren't stupid. They just aren't wise enough or experienced enough to understand. This has sweet fuck all with trying to keep them virgins, that is clearly unrealistic. It has to do with teaching them about what can and does happen when you enter into a sexual relationship with a much older person.
Again, it is about keeping them safe from twisted screws, not about ensuring they dress modestly or never have sex. This is not just all black and white and I really wish some of you men would get this through your heads. This older man and teen girl thing RARELY works, and rarely is it equal or a "good" experience. Often it is about control and abuse. If that pisses most of you guys off I really don't care. The reality is that there are predators out there. Many many of them. My blood is still boiling over what that bastard did to my friend's daughter. If I could I would personally beat the living shit out of him.
You already know I'm with you Stargazer. My heart goes out to that young girl. This comment bears repeating:
Again, it is about keeping them safe from twisted screws, not about ensuring they dress modestly or never have sex.
There are adults who specifically target teens for the very reason that they are easier to manipulate and control. It's harder to do that with another adult. Currently the law allows a 20 year old to have sex with a 15 year old so it's not like the 15 year old is going to have a difficult time finding sex partners or losing her virginity.
Teens can also be abusive towards one another but the power imbalance is not so great and teen predators don't have the freedom of movement nor the resources that adult predators have.
I do think it's important to maintain a balance between protection and encroaching on people's lives, even youths. It's a value judgement. I think on balance the number of teens adversely affected by sexual relations with people more than 5 years older than them is more often harmful than not.
What's your explanation why this law came from Harper and Toews, and was opposed by youth, sexual health, and LGBT organizations?
Although who proposes something or is against it may cause me to examine it more closely I don't make up my mind based on that factor. I examine the arguments and maybe try to do some research depending on the topic then decide on the merits of the proposal not who made it.
Wow, that's laudable.
Yes, especially when ad hominem arguments are so much more expedient.
In this case, I'm comfortable with being on the side of the youth, sexual health, LGBT, and other activist organizations, with Vic Toews and the religious right on the other side. If that's ad hominem, well maybe we've been unjustly denigrating that term for too long.
Oh, and you're so right, Martin, no arguments have been made against the "age of consent" anti-youth crap for the past 3 years - it just came to your attention this very instant, and it's purely ad hominem. Well done, most convincing.
Thanks for sharing and educating Stargazer. Your point is taken Unionist, no need for the sledgehammer.
Welcome to the thread! Good to see you back around babble. But I'm not sure who has taken my point other than you.
I didn't address these points which was wrong of me. Unionist didn't just list the names of the organizations, he also provided the reasons for the AIDs society. I am not sure about the others but I will explore their actual arguments.
It is legal for them to have sex so why wouldn't they seek out the information? The only time they would be asked to name a partner would be if they tested positive for AIDs. Even then they could just say it was casual and they didn't remember.
I am against the separate treatment of anal intercourse. I would also like a clarification. Is anal intercourse also forbidden between teens?
That's great, but it doesn't cover a lot of the situations described here in which older people deliberately target vulnerable teens. That is, they are unlikely to go after teens that are strong and secure. They pick teens that are gullible and/or needy in some way or they choose someone less mature and use flattery and treat them like grown-ups.
Absolutely. I am all for comprehensive sex education. But it doesn't have to be an either/or situation. They can do both.