Sex with an Underaged Boy in Canada

[Luv2play]

There was an interesting piece on the radio the other day about an arrest of a Texas man found in an Ottawa hotel room with a 14 year old boy that he had met through the Internet. He was charged with having unlawful sex with an underage person but the interesting aspect was that he was charged under a little known section of the criminal act that makes it a crime to "abduct" a person under 16 from their parents for sexual purposes. In Canada, the age of consent is 14 for both males and females. Therefore, since this boy was 14 he could agree to have sex with an older person, male or female. (Incidentally, there is a movement afoot in Parliament to increase the age of consent to 16 in Canada but this is facing opposition.)

 

The lawyer on the radio explained that the lesser known provision is used to prevent exploitation of younger persons by older persons, such as in this case. He went on to explain that consent to sex may even be given by a person as young as 12 as long as the other person involved is close in age i.e another youngster such as a 14 year old.

 

Since this provision is a federal law, it applies all across Canada. The lawyer explained that in the USA, the age of consent varies from state to state. It is obvious, at least to me, that this Texas man evidently knew the law in Canada (at least partially) and had come to Ottawa to exploit the 14 year old cutoff. Unfortunately for him , he wasn't aware of the other provision under which he was charged.

 

While the case has yet to go to trial, it will be interesting to see whether the defendant can argue that the boy he ensnared was under the protection of his parents. It would seem to me that there are some 14 year olds who have left home and this provision would not apply to their cases. We'll have to see how this case develops.

[eastbayguy]

Here is a newspaper article with a few more facts in this case. Turns out the perpetrator used to live in Phoenix, and was notorious around town in his search for youthful companionship. Everyone in AZ that knew this person is talking about it.

 

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/front/3075649

 

--EBG

[Boston Guy]

Regardless of the law in any given jurisdiction, I feel that all adults have a fiduciary responsibility to not abuse kids, just by virtue of being an adult. A 14-year old kid is, to me, just that: a kid. Any adult who lures a 14-year old kid to a hotel so he can have sex with him is, in my mind, necessarily and irretrievably in a position of power vis-a-vis the kid. Further, I don't think a 14-year old can even realistically have consenual sex with an adult, even if they think they are doing so; I don't think they know enough to be able to make an informed decision that they won't regret later. So I think this situation stinks on a bunch of levels and I hope they throw the book at the guy.

 

BG

[Athan]

>Regardless of the law in any given jurisdiction, I feel that

>all adults have a fiduciary responsibility to not abuse kids,

>just by virtue of being an adult. A 14-year old kid is, to

>me, just that: a kid. Any adult who lures a 14-year old kid

>to a hotel so he can have sex with him is, in my mind,

>necessarily and irretrievably in a position of power vis-a-vis

>the kid. Further, I don't think a 14-year old can even

>realistically have consenual sex with an adult, even if they

>think they are doing so; I don't think they know enough to be

>able to make an informed decision that they won't regret

>later. So I think this situation stinks on a bunch of levels

>and I hope they throw the book at the guy.

>

>BG

 

Not to take sides, but merely to express my experience.... I personally became sexual at 14. That's when I got my first boyfriend and when I came out. I was very well informed when I did all this, I knew all the major risks of std's, I knew the general laws about legal age of concent and I was constantly aware of how certain things might have affected me psychologically and/or emotionally for the future...yet, I, for one, lusted after the first gay man I ever met (a friend of my botfriend's at the time...who was probably in his 30's). And I know it was not because he was the first gay adult I met...he was hot! Very manly, very strong features, a man's man. I wanted so much for him to do things to me I had only dreamt about. Unfortunately, I was also very shy back then. So, it would not be until I was 17 that I finally did all those things I dreamt of with a Man.

The moral of the story is: emotional maturity, sexual maturity, maturity in general, is a very inividual thing and cannot be determined by age... yes age is a good indicator, but as we all know, there are always exceptions to the rule. I think laws that govern a humans freedom to choose should be present more as guidlines rather than "laws" and should be dealt with on an individual basis. Instead of seeing the legality of what happened (because we all know the legal does not mean right) it should be observed by the experience...if the experience of those involved was loving and those involved were Honest, Aware, and responsible for their own actions (no lies, not secrets, and nothing done against the will of another) then I think it is the right of their own freedom to do as they see fit. Only when one or more parties involved is proven to be Dishonest, Unaware, and/or Irresponsible, do I think prosecution should begin...even then, punishment should not be the intent of (any) judicial process, instead the intent should be: "To heal what was damaged and learn from it." (I also think getting money involved in a trial that had nothing to do with money is rediculous...I understand sueing for attorney fees, hospital fees and what not...but why should anyone get paid millions of dollars because they were stupid enough to spill hot coffee on themself? This goes against Darwin's "survival of the fittest" idea, hehehe. If you're not fit enough to not burn your crotch with hot coffee then do we really want you out there in the gene-pool? :+)

 

Anyway, that's my view point. But then again, who am I?

[woodlawn]

RE: Impulse Control

 

>The moral of the story is: emotional maturity, sexual

>maturity, maturity in general, is a very inividual thing and

>cannot be determined by age... yes age is a good indicator,

>but as we all know, there are always exceptions to the rule. I

>think laws that govern a humans freedom to choose should be

>present more as guidlines rather than "laws" and should be

>dealt with on an individual basis.

 

Medical research shows that the brains of adolescent humans are not fully developed -- specifically, that the development of the frontal lobe, the part of the brain that is believed to provide the ability to control impulses, is not completed until later in life. That is one of the reasons why many medical professionals oppose executing an individual for a crime committed during the teenage years. It is also a reason for laws that forbid adolescents to make major life decisions without the consent of an adult guardian. When we admonish a teenager to "think with his head" rather than with another part of his anatomy, we may be overlooking the fact that he is biologically incapable of following that advice.

 

>Instead of seeing the

>legality of what happened (because we all know the legal does

>not mean right) it should be observed by the experience...if

>the experience of those involved was loving and those involved

>were Honest, Aware, and responsible for their own actions (no

>lies, not secrets, and nothing done against the will of

>another) then I think it is the right of their own freedom to

>do as they see fit.

 

The notion that the law should not prevent any consenting individual from doing as he pleases with his own life is one that many escorts and clients support -- so long as the words "doing as he pleases" refer only to doing things that THEY approve of. If you ask the same folks whether we should allow individuals to participate in gladiatorial games in which the contestants fight to the death, for example, the problem with creating a moral code by trying to rationalize whatever YOU want to do quickly becomes apparent.

 

 

>I understand sueing

>for attorney fees, hospital fees and what not...but why should

>anyone get paid millions of dollars because they were stupid

>enough to spill hot coffee on themself? This goes against

>Darwin's "survival of the fittest" idea, hehehe. If you're not

>fit enough to not burn your crotch with hot coffee then do we

>really want you out there in the gene-pool? :+)

 

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?

 

>But then again, who am I?

 

Who indeed?

[LurkerSpeaks]

I knew (or more precisely have met) this person. He was friends with an old roommate/friend of mine who was 18 at the time. He used to run a porn site from Phoenix with lots of barely 18-looking boys on it. Then a year or two ago, the website disappeared and so did he. I had heard that he moved to Texas, as well as a rumor concerning underage children. He most definitely was known as a "peruser" of very young appearing boys. It will be interesting to see if more people/families come forward now.

[joel304]

RE: Impulse Control

 

I'm sure that this law would not cover escorts ... right? Could a 14 year old boy escort? If he was emancipated ... or maybe a 16 year old? I hope not.

[Athan]

RE: Impulse Control

 

>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?

>

>>But then again, who am I?

>

>Who indeed?

>

 

Thanks for your input...very informative.

 

I would just like to remind you that I started the whole thing with:

"Not to take sides, but merely to express my experience...." and ended with "Anyway, that's my viewpoint...". I see no need for such blatent rudeness. I understand that your experience differs from mine and you opperate from how the world occurs to you...but please try to understand, not everyone shares your occuring world. I did not directly attack anyone...why would you attack me? The remark about the Hot Coffee thing was a joke, hence the :+ after it. I was thinking of humor in lines with the Darwin Awards books. Forgive me if I offended anyone.

[Uncle Bill]

RE: Impulse Control

 

Sounds like you need a good spanking, Athan

 

Anyone describing you as "not bright" and "lazy" certainly hasn't done his homework. Like most such personal attacks, the comments say a lot more about the attacker than the person being attacked.

[Boston Guy]

Athan,

 

I do agree that people mature at different rates and I accept the possibility that some teenagers are more likely to be able to judge what's right for themselves than others. But I don't think the average teenager -- or even most of the exceptional ones -- are truly able to make an informed decision about having sex with an adult. They just don't have enough life experience and, usually, enough maturity.

 

Moreover, I don't think any adult who is hot to have sex with a teenage boy is in any position to make an intelligent decision about the teenager's ability to consent in an informed way. The adult's desire to have sex with the kid is going to cloud his judgment every time.

 

So while you're right -- there might be cases where sex between a teenager and an adult wouldn't necessarily be destructive to the teenager -- I think the instances where it would be harmful far outweigh those benign cases. And since I don't think adults who want to have sex with kids can choose accurately which kids are truly mature and which aren't, we have a responsibility to simply protect kids on the assumption that any sexual experience with a minor is likely to be harmful to the kid. The gratification an adult might derive from those few cases where the sex was truly consensual in an informed way is greatly outweighed by the harm that would be done to kids in the large majority of cases.

 

BG

[Funseeker 22]

RE: Impulse Control

 

>Sounds like you need a good spanking, Athan

>

HMMM !,

I totally agree and think we might need to pursue this further :-),altho after my last post on another forum I might get the same message from other board/bored members. :+

[joel304]

RE: Impulse Control

 

PacNW and Joel 304.

Would you please take your repartee to the Politic Board.

My thread is about Airport Security amusing experiences.

Not "What We/You" did wrong to Everyone over the last Decades.

 

 

Funseeker 22

 

 

 

 

Ahem, Funseeker 22. Hypocricy here

 

:7

[HotdadENYC]

RE: Impulse Control

 

>>Medical research shows that the brains of adolescent humans are >>not fully developed -- specifically, that the development of the >>frontal lobe, the part of the brain that is believed to provide >>the ability to control impulses, is not completed until later in >>life.

 

 

Apparently this lack of development is not limited to or unique to adolescents, as evidenced by some of the responses here.

 

hd NYC

[joel304]

RE: Impulse Control

 

Dad enters the room. Order is restored x(

[Funseeker 22]

RE: Impulse Control

 

>Dad enters the room. Order is restored x(

 

FUNNY !! :-) ,

Come to an LA Hooville Dinner and I`ll buy ? at least an appetizer.

[joel304]

RE: Impulse Control

 

>>Dad enters the room. Order is restored x(

>

>FUNNY !! :-) ,

>Come to an LA Hooville Dinner and I`ll buy ? at least an

>appetizer.

 

 

Same offer if you get to SF Only I'll buy the dessert.

[Luv2play]

RE: Impulse Control

 

In Canada it is a crime to communicate for the purposes of prostitution, but not for the actual act itself i.e. having sex for money. Therefore, there must be evidence of the communication itself. In this case the sex was consensual and no money was involved. So the prostitution laws cannot be invoked.

 

We seem to be headed in this direction with our laws on pot as well. There is a bill to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of pot but the growing of it or the trafficking in it will still be illegal and subject to sanctions. Weird, eh?

[joel304]

RE: Impulse Control

 

Very weird. Thanks for the info!

[HotdadENYC]

Athan, I applaud your courage for posting your response and details of your experience, but I am inclined to weigh in on BG's side.

 

There is no doubt in my mind that there are 14 year old boys (and girls) who can handle a sexual relationship, based on their maturity and conversely, there are those much older who still haven't learned what sex is all about (mutual respect, etc.)

 

And we can't discount the emotional damage that could be done to a 14 year old boy (or girl) by one of their very own peers. Peer to peer rape and /or sexual aggression are far too common these days.

 

However, the law sets the boundaries and provides guidelines. I do know that all laws aren't perfect, but society has to operate with some stake in the ground in order to function. And while I will admit that there are probably some older-younger relationships that could possibly work, these relationships, in my opinion, have a unbalanced dependency aspect to them, and as BG points out, the power most definitely belongs to the older, not the younger.

 

Some of our greatest civilizations enabled and encouraged these types of relationships. And they were quite open about it. But I'm also sure that the teens of today have far too much stress and other things to worry about than to be a participant in something that may not have a lot going for it.

 

Finally, I think back to the time when I was 14, really really horny and used to cruise the public subway toilets which were notorious in the 70's and 80's for lots and lots and lots of sex. I was interested, I was intrigued, I was begging for it. But I was also fucking scared whenever I ran into a troll who hung around the bathroom and tried to seduce me. I was ashamed to be gay (yeah, I knew it even then) because I was afraid that these trolls were what it meant to be gay, and even worse, I was petrified that there were so little other options available.

 

Once again, while I agree with BG, Athan I admire you for what you posted. I didn't for one minute think that you were flagrantly ignoring the laws. Nor did I perceive any malfunction in your thought process. The genes that produced someone like you should be available for sale (or replacement therapy).

 

Regards,

hd NYC

[woodlawn]

RE: Impulse Control

 

>Thanks for your input...very informative.

 

No thanks needed. It was my pleasure, I assure you.

 

 

>I would just like to remind you that I started the whole thing

>with:

>"Not to take sides, but merely to express my experience...."

>and ended with "Anyway, that's my viewpoint...".

 

 

You started and ended your post by suggesting that you don't want to generalize from your experiences. But between those two comments, you did indeed generalize from your experiences. You talked about your own experiences and then you proposed general principles that we should all follow and that are based on your experiences. It would be more honest if you simply acknowledge that rather than denying it.

 

>I see no need

>for such blatent rudeness.

 

>I did not directly attack anyone...why

>would you attack me? The remark about the Hot Coffee thing was

>a joke, hence the :+ after it. I was thinking of humor in

>lines with the Darwin Awards books. Forgive me if I offended

>anyone.

 

 

The plaintiff in the burn case you "joked" about is not a fictional character but a real person who suffered a very serious injury. I see no need for you to suggest that her misfortune shows that she has a lack of intelligence and is a detriment to the human gene pool. But that is exactly what you did. If you're going to attack others, don't whine when you get the same treatment from others. If you can't take it, don't dish it out.

 

>I understand that your experience

>differs from mine and you opperate from how the world occurs

>to you...but please try to understand, not everyone shares

>your occuring world. >

 

 

I said absolutely nothing about my experience. Instead, I referred to empirical evidence that has been produced by medical research and to the conclusions that researchers and jurists have drawn from that evidence. That the human brain develops over a period of years rather than being fully developed at the moment a human infant emerges from the womb is not a matter of opinion, but a matter of fact -- a biological process that can be observed and charted. You may prefer to ignore facts that don't support your own personal prejudices, but your desire to ignore them doesn't mean they aren't facts. It simply means that your arguments are too weak to survive contact with the facts.

[guptasa1]

While I'm all for science and would completely agree the human brain takes time to fully develop, I have to say I also agree that maturity (sexual or otherwise) depends at least somewhat on the person. I do think some people figure out what they want sooner than others.

 

I've known people who knew what they wanted (sexually) at a pretty young age (by legal standards anyways), and that hasn't seemed to change as they aged. I myself was a fairly LATE bloomer - I didn't have a clue until I was 19 or so.

 

Do I personally think it's wrong if an underage person goes out and looks for/gets what he (or she) wants? Nope, not as long as he or she is responsible about it and in control of the situation. (That in itself is a whole can of worms, and I completely understand that. I'm not saying there's an easy answer to this. I think the law's there for a definite reason, but I also think MOST laws have flaws and deficiencies - I tend to believe NO law is absolute.)

 

I would have to say I think it's wrong if that person is pressured into something, especially by some person in authority over them. But to me, that's a different situation entirely, and I have no idea what happened in the case mentioned. (I haven't read all the stuff associated with it either.)

 

Anyways, just my opinion. Not trying to change the world with it or say it's the right one. =oP

[Athan]

>Athan,

>

>I do agree that people mature at different rates and I accept

>the possibility that some teenagers are more likely to be able

>to judge what's right for themselves than others. But I don't

>think the average teenager -- or even most of the exceptional

>ones -- are truly able to make an informed decision about

>having sex with an adult. They just don't have enough life

>experience and, usually, enough maturity.

>

>Moreover, I don't think any adult who is hot to have sex with

>a teenage boy is in any position to make an intelligent

>decision about the teenager's ability to consent in an

>informed way. The adult's desire to have sex with the kid is

>going to cloud his judgment every time.

>

>So while you're right -- there might be cases where sex

>between a teenager and an adult wouldn't necessarily be

>destructive to the teenager -- I think the instances where it

>would be harmful far outweigh those benign cases. And since I

>don't think adults who want to have sex with kids can choose

>accurately which kids are truly mature and which aren't, we

>have a responsibility to simply protect kids on the assumption

>that any sexual experience with a minor is likely to be

>harmful to the kid. The gratification an adult might derive

>from those few cases where the sex was truly consensual in an

>informed way is greatly outweighed by the harm that would be

>done to kids in the large majority of cases.

>

>BG

 

True Ture

[woodlawn]

>While I'm all for science and would completely agree the

>human brain takes time to fully develop, I have to say I also

>agree that maturity (sexual or otherwise) depends at least

>somewhat on the person. I do think some people figure out

>what they want sooner than others.

 

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.

 

>Do I personally think it's wrong if an underage person goes

>out and looks for/gets what he (or she) wants? Nope, not as

>long as he or she is responsible about it and in control of

>the situation. (That in itself is a whole can of worms, and I

>completely understand that. I'm not saying there's an easy

>answer to this. I think the law's there for a definite

>reason, but I also think MOST laws have flaws and deficiencies

>- I tend to believe NO law is absolute.)

 

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.

 

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.

[HotdadENYC]

RE: Impulse Control

 

>>>Dad enters the room. Order is restored x(

>>

>>FUNNY !! :-) ,

>>Come to an LA Hooville Dinner and I`ll buy ? at least an

>>appetizer.

>

>

>Same offer if you get to SF Only I'll buy the dessert.

 

 

Same offer if either one of you or both get to NYC.

 

hd NYC

[joel304]

RE: Impulse Control

 

I'll take you up on that. I'm there quite often.