Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

New sexual consent law may confuse teens

TRALEE PEARCE

From Friday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 10:03 AM EDT 02/05/08

Youth advocates say raising age of consent makes teen sexual activities riskier ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. PANIC! At The Ice Floe from Ottawa, Canada writes: And this story may confuse readers. Is it just me, or does this article say nothing of substance?

    It's a good bill. The only ones who lose are cradle robbers.
  2. Kevin Desmoulin from Toronto, Canada writes: What does one expect from the Harper organization that does not believe in science or education, A confused policy is not at all surprising from these people.
  3. CD W from Canada writes: And if you stop teens from producing babies, they get a chance to finish school, not live in poverty, and any adult that wishes to bamboozle them into sex gets time in the crowbar hotel where he belongs.
  4. Gary Dale from Toronto, ON, Canada writes: Thanks, Tralee Pearce, for making a confusing law a little clearer. I gather the thrust of it was to reduce the age of consent from 18 to 16, rather than raise it from 14 to 16, once you get beyond the political double talk. The older sexual predation law didn't change, and the age for consent between peers didn't change.

    What did change was the wording. Whereas in the past the age of consent was defined as 14 but sexual predation laws protected people under the age of 18, now the age of consent of defined as 16 but with exceptions for peers lowering it back down to 14. Meanwhile children between the ages of 16 and 18 are now exempted from predation protection.

    What in the world was Harper thinking?
  5. Icon7d . from Toronto, Canada writes: As a High School Teacher I can say with confidence It doesn't take much to confuse teenagers.
  6. Scare Crow from Canada writes: Well Gary in the old law, youths between 16 and 18 are not protected either. What this law targets are the older people who for some reason has developed a liking of teens instead of dating within their own age group. So for youth advocates to say that teens are confused, that's a given and its youth advocates job to educate them that dating someone who is 5 years older than them might land that other person in jail. I still can't think why a 21 yrs old wants to date a 14 years old.
  7. Robert Boyd from Windsor, Canada writes: Politicians - of all people - legislating morality, under the guise of protection.
    Send a copy of the legislation to Rome, it may be of some use;some hope.
  8. Gogh Forit from Canada writes: The Martha McKinnons' of the world then need to better explain to these youth what the law states. Since she is closely connected to these teens through her work, I'd think that she'd be perfectly positioned to interpret what the law intends to these 'confused' young people.
    Just explain it to them as if they were five year olds. I don't know what is so difficult about telling them that if you're fifteen then you can't allow someone who is 20 or older to have sex with you. I guess then the older person has to be careful with respect to gauging whether that sixteen year old or fifteen is telling the truth or if they are actually younger than that when they have sex with them. If the teenager turns out to be 13, then the adult only has himself/herself to blame when they are charged with rape/sexual assault.
    If necessary the Martha McKinnon types should use picture books to explain the law to the teens they serve.
  9. Winston Churchill from London, Canada writes: I'm wondering how common it is for a 15-16 year girl old to 'date' to date a man more than five years older. Cripes! When I was 21 I'd have died of embarrassment even at the thought that somebody would have seen me with a 15 year old. Good law: now enforce it.
  10. Kevin Desmoulin from Toronto, Canada writes: I have no problem with this, other then it is kind of confusing, and it was to be expected with this Harper organization.
  11. Dr. Winston O'Boogie from London, United Kingdom writes: So in say, 5 or 10 years from now, we need to compare the before and after statistics to see whether the rate of sexual predation has decreased. Even if it does decrease (which is unlikely given that laws are not deterrents to those who would offend), the Conservatives would not use this statistic as it contradicts their perpetual use of fear-propaganda by repeating the lie that crime is increasing.
  12. Lowen Wrainger from Canada writes: Why didn't somebody tell me about that 14 yr rule when I was that age. Then I could have at least started thinking about it 2 years sooner.
  13. John McMortimer-Boyles from An Undisclosed Underground Location Safe From Nuclear Attack, Canada writes: Actually, I followed the legislation as it made its way through parliament, and it is not really that complicated. If you are age 16 or older, nothing has changed. If you are under 14, nothing has changed. (The writer of the article made a mistake here in that consensual sex for 12 and 13 year olds has a two year close in age provision, not a five year close in age provision.) The people who are affected are people age 14 and 15, and for these people the general rule is if your sex partner isn't another teenager, it's not OK.
  14. Harbinger from Out West from Prince George, Canada writes: Define sexual orientation for me. If yer an old guy who is oriented towards young stuff, wouldn't that be so? Or is sexual orientation a euphamism fer same sex stuff? It is the word orientation by dictionary definition that is confusing as to how it applied. Know what I'm sayin', dude?
  15. Vern McPherson from writes:
    CD W from Canada writes: And if you stop teens from producing babies, they get a chance to finish school, not live in poverty, and any adult that wishes to bamboozle them into sex gets time in the crowbar hotel where he belongs.

    ----------------------------------------------------------

    That has always been the case ..........
  16. P. R. from Bearbrook, Canada writes:
    I remember being 14 and I fooled around with 19 year old. Time. Of. My. Life. She could've been a year older and I wouldn't have cared. The problem with this law is well shown by the article: it will confuse teens, or they simply will ignore it (I know I certainly didn't consult a lawyer or the Conservative party before my experience). Worst of all, it basically goes against human nature. [This is the part where all the prudes will start to hate me]. 14 year olds are very horny people. Just think back to what you were doing at 14. Exactly. All you need to do is listen (or recall from your own youth) about conversations that Grade 9 teens will have about boyfriends, girlfriends, who's hot, who's gone all the way, who has the best 'bod', etc, and that tells us that teens are very, very sexual people.

    What everyone forgets is that we already have legal mechanisms to protect people. They're called sexual assault laws. Laws that protect 44 year olds from rape protect 14 year olds from rape as well. The worst part is that there come a time when a 14 year old (probably a girl) will genuinely fall in love with a 20 year old guy, and they will get it on, he will get charged, and the experience of police station, the crown lawyers, the court case, and the testimony, will be the most traumatizing thing ever to happen to her. She'll be humiliated, her privacy will violated. The boyfriend's life will be ruined by a jail sentence. End result = nobody wins.

    However, if there were real issues of non-consensual sex, the existing laws deal with this.
  17. Some Other Guy from Canada writes: I wasn't confused until I read the article.

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

    What?!
  18. PANIC! At The Ice Floe from Canada writes: Vern, could you please explain how this has always been the case? I understood that a 30 year old man could legally have sex with a 14 year old (not including people in positions of authority) up until the passage of this law? Are you saying this was not true and that the 30 yr old would have been sent to jail before this law?
  19. Terry F from Edmonton, Canada writes: If teens are confused about a simple concept such as this, sex is the least of their worries.
  20. Alberta Marlowe from Halifax, Canada writes: The kids don't have to understand age of consent laws. This is for the assholes who would exploit them.
  21. DV P from Montreal, Canada writes: Half your age plus seven. Works every time.
  22. PANIC! At The Ice Floe from Canada writes: Ummm... P.R...Not sure how you are defending the scenario where a 20 year old who is dating a 14 year old. Not only is the scenario creepy, it makes you wonder where the CHILD's parents are.

    Myself, I know that if I had a 14-yr old daughter and found out she was dating a 20 year old guy, the bat would be coming out mighty quickly. Perhaps now, I'd just sick the cops after the pervert rather than shattering his kneecaps.
  23. Winston Churchill from London, Canada writes: PANIC!: If my 14 year old daughter were dating a 20 year old man, it wouldn't be his kneecaps I'd be aiming for. No jury in the world would convict me either.

    On reflection, the only thing I wonder about is the consistent repetition of 'not in a position of authority'. What 17 year old is? On the other hand, its better for a young girl to end up with a loser? Why not just add 'not any richer, or better looking than the average' in the interest of reciprocity. I guess, for what its worth, if my teenager had to get pregnant, I just assume that the scumbag father were relatively accomplished rather than the owner of a cool car.
  24. Yvonne Wackernagel from Woodville, Canada writes: Would it not be wiser and more progressive generally to promote NO SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE? Today's Parents are lacking in their guidance because they themselves were promiscuous in the first place. Take the statistics for long lasting and happy marriages (maybe back to your grandparents or great grandparents) and you might find good examples.
  25. H M from Canada writes: If we wouldn't let them drive a car, why would we let them have sex with an adult?

    And any 20 year old who 'genuinely loves' a 14 year old child should realize that they are a child and can keep it in their pants two years. A twenty year old is done high school and potentially done a two year diploma, a 14 year old is in junior high.
  26. Janice Cooper from West Kootenays, British Columbia, Canada writes: Maybe this will protect some of those underage girls in Bountiful who are traditionally married off to much older men, some as young as 12 or 13. This might give the RCMP some teeth in dealing with those creeps.
  27. Eric the Red from Uzbekistan writes: ' Yvonne Wackernagel from Woodville, Canada writes: Would it not be wiser and more progressive generally to promote NO SEX BEFORE MARRIAGE?'

    Yawn. Yvonne, what planet are you from? What do you expect teenagers to do once they hit the mid to late teens? Gather 'round and play hot games of canasta and yahtzee when they're alone?

    And no it wouldn't be wise, because 'promoting' issues like these don't always work. And progressive for you is regressive for lots of other people. You need to speak to people raised in countries where promotion leads to one thing: complete ignorance (including how to make babies, learning how to handle sex-related issue).

    The thing you're fumbling to find is educating responsibility that comes with sex (as in condom use, knowledge of STIs / STDs, trust, etc). You show a teenage kid a pregnant teen mom, explain the consequences of pregnancy at an early age, coupled with HIV and I'm sure that'll go further to educate instead of promoting blanket ignorance.
  28. B L from Canada writes: The point is that a 15 year old can't consent to have sex with a person who is 21 years old. Regardless of whether they are in 'love.' If they are really in love, they can wait until she's 16.

    P.R. says: The worst part is that there come a time when a 14 year old (probably a girl) will genuinely fall in love with a 20 year old guy, and they will get it on, he will get charged, and the experience of police station, the crown lawyers, the court case, and the testimony, will be the most traumatizing thing ever to happen to her.

    So what? Teenagers can also 'genuinely' fall in love with their swim coach or their chemistry teacher. A 14 year old can not legally consent to having sex with any of those people either. My mom married her professor from university (8 year age difference) - but they didn't start dating until after she had graduated.

    I think that the teenagers need to be educated about what this law means so that they can make intelligent decisions about their sexual activity.
  29. Eric the Red from Uzbekistan writes: But yes, my teenage daughter dates a guy 4 years older than she, I invite the guy for dinner and make sure we pass the gun rack on the way to the dinner table.
  30. Eric the Red from Uzbekistan writes: And for the record, my first comment was about teens sex whose ages are 1-2 years apart (from age of 16). If you're in your twenties and having sex with someone in their teens, that's a different issue entirely.
  31. Aaron Flint from Kitchener, Canada writes: I think that penalties 'should' be harsh, or even harsh(er) for those low lifes who need to stoop to dating someone far below their own age. Generally; these young girls, (for purpose of this argument), have no clue what they are getting into, nor do they have ANY power in said relationship. I am sick of seeing, and paying for, countless teen pregnancies which, in almost every case, lead to two or more lives of: confusion; poverty; loss of hope; and lost opportunities. Furthermore, these teen pregnancies seem to lead to an ongoing family TREND of teen pregnancies, single parent births, births while in poverty, and ensuing lifestyle. [to the point that living on welfare, raising multiple kids with multiple non present dads, and overall ghettoizing of our cities is seen by more and more kids as......'the normal life'. (or 'the way it goes') I am not Tory, but I am REAL glad that this Government decided to start addressing the problem of underage sex; which DIRECTLY touches on the issue of teen pregnancy. (That misunderstood, far underprepared for life of child rearing duties and pressures) Pregnant young teens are, generally, teens who are taken out of the race for success, who have been denied the normal and healthy stream of development, and who have now become 'everyones problem'. I read that someone above was concerned about sex for a 14 year old becoming a crime. My response to that concern is that a 14 year old having sex, whether a crime or not, is certainly a sad sad shame. And to Pr, from Bearbrook: In the example you site; the girl would be protected in such a court case; due to her age. (her privacy would be intact) As for the trauma she would experience; IT WOULD PROBABLY BE NEEDED IN ORDER TO GIVE HER THAT KICK IN THE BEHIND OR WAKE UP CALL TO THE DANGERS AND SCUMBAGS WHICH EXIST IN THE WORLD. IN the old days; they had another word for your 'trauma'. (It was called 'life lessons') ;) Cheers
  32. RD Lone from Vancouver, Canada writes: Uhh, 14-15 yr olds dating people 5 years their senior is 'common'? That's like a junior high kid dating someone with a college degree; while certainly not unheard of, it is definitely not common.

    Frankly it is disgusting that people are preying on mentally undeveloped adolescents. I think anyone 'old' here can attest that they thought they knew everything when they were a mid-teenager, but they really knew squat. I'm not saying happiness is impossible in a relationship like that, but one side clearly has the upper hand and rarely does it end in hugs and kisses. You always hear of childhood/school sweethearts getting married; when have you heard of 'creepy old person' and 'young teen' sweethearts having the same ending?
  33. Aaron Flint from Kitchener, Canada writes: 'You show a teenage kid a pregnant teen mom, explain the consequences of pregnancy at an early age, coupled with HIV and I'm sure that'll go further to educate instead of promoting blanket ignorance.'

    Amen.

    How many of those teen moms and dads get the chance to got Aruba, or pursue that dream career they always spoke so highly of. To many teen parents; these things have now become 'something that doesnt even happen to real people'. <---And THAT...is SAD!

    Show them the harsh reality; and let it be known how harsh that reality really is behind the temporary fog of 'seeming cool' for a few years.
  34. Aaron Flint from Kitchener, Canada writes: I think that penalties 'should' be harsh, or even harsh(er) for those low lifes who need to stoop to dating someone far below their own age. Generally; these young girls, (for purpose of this argument), have no clue what they are getting into, nor do they have ANY power in said relationship. I am sick of seeing, and paying for, countless teen pregnancies which, in almost every case, lead to two or more lives of: confusion; poverty; loss of hope; and lost opportunities. Furthermore, these teen pregnancies seem to lead to an ongoing family TREND of teen pregnancies, single parent births, births while in poverty, and ensuing lifestyle. [to the point that living on welfare, raising multiple kids with multiple non present dads, and overall ghettoizing of our cities is seen by more and more kids as......'the normal life'. (or 'the way it goes') I am not Tory, but I am REAL glad that this Government decided to start addressing the problem of underage sex; which DIRECTLY touches on the issue of teen pregnancy. (That misunderstood, far underprepared for life of child rearing duties and pressures) Pregnant young teens are, generally, teens who are taken out of the race for success, who have been denied the normal and healthy stream of development, and who have now become 'everyones problem'. I read that someone above was concerned about sex for a 14 year old becoming a crime. My response to that concern is that a 14 year old having sex, whether a crime or not, is certainly a sad sad shame. And to Pr, from Bearbrook: In the example you site; the girl would be protected in such a court case; due to her age. (her privacy would be intact) As for the trauma she would experience; IT WOULD PROBABLY BE NEEDED IN ORDER TO GIVE HER THAT KICK IN THE BEHIND OR WAKE UP CALL TO THE DANGERS AND SCUMBAGS WHICH EXIST IN THE WORLD. IN the old days; they had another word for your 'trauma'. (It was called 'life lessons') ;) Cheers
  35. Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: They think some law passed in Ottawa a couple days ago (yes, I'm sure the average teenager is up to date on all the workings in Parliament) is going to stop teenagers from having sex?

    ahahahhahaha.... good one.
  36. Regina Filange from Dryden, Canada writes: Let's see if I understand this correctly.

    Example: A 15-year-old having sex with a 20-year old is illegal, but a 16-year-old having sex with a 20-year-old is OK?

    What would the 20-year-old be charged with? Can someone please clarify? The news story seemed to further muddle the issues.

    Honestly, I don't think the legislation changes will affect teens' attitudes, but might make legal adults think twice before fooling around with anyone under 16.
  37. AJ Flint from Kitchener, Canada writes: 'Honestly, I don't think the legislation changes will affect teens' attitudes, but might make legal adults think twice before fooling around with anyone under 16.'

    ;) Mission accomplished then.

    (Heck; I think they should crank it right up to 18 years of age; and five years older)

    Cheers.
  38. B L from Canada writes: Not likely, Jimmy K - but, like a previous poster said - it WILL put some teeth into preventing those Bountiful 'marriages' between the patriarchs and teenage girls.
  39. May Spence from Canada writes: This is a good law and a long time coming. It will stop pedophiles coming to Canada to exploit children under 16 and untie the courts hands when and if they do. As for the confusion. It is probably the result of changes demanded by the Liberal MP's and Senators who did their best to stop the bill entirely.
  40. Tyler Williams from seattle, United States writes: Interesting.

    Okay, it is time for the awards ceremony on this board.

    The BEST two posts are the following:

    1. Ice Floe from Ottawa, Canada writes: 'And this story may confuse readers. Is it just me, or does this article say nothing of substance? It's a good bill. The only ones who lose are cradle robbers.'

    AND

    2. Marlowe from Halifax, Canada writes: 'The kids don't have to understand age of consent laws. This is for the assholes who would exploit them.'

    And, finally, the award for WORST PERSON ON THE BOARD, and the award goes to the guy who said:

    'The worst part is that there will come a time when a 14 year old girl will genuinely fall in love with a 20 year old guy, and they will get it on, and he will get charged...'

    Gack! Blech! Ack!

    Somebody's grade eight daughter getting screwed by a third year engineering student, and his concern is that the police may get involved?

    Crap, it is GOOD the the police get involved, for the sake of HIS safety. If some families had their way, he would not be facing a police officer or a crown attorney, he would be facing little fishies swimming by his face as he realized how hard it is to swim at the bottom of the sea when his chained feet are cemented in a steel tub!
  41. GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Aaron Flint from Kitchener, Canada writes:'... living on welfare, raising multiple kids with multiple non present dads...'

    Long term passive birth control (IUD, Norplant, etc) should be a condition of applying for welfare.

    People who cannot support themselves are obviously totally incapable of raising and supporting children.
  42. Rachael Murray from portage la prairie, Canada writes: Harper government has taken the right step in raising the age of consent. Underage children should not be participating in sexual activity with any age group. They are still children and usually under the care of parents who should be guiding them in self respect, health concerns and future life issues that impact their wellbeing. We only have to look south at the recent events of hundreds of children taken from a cult existance and the fact determined from DNA that these underage children were either pregnant or had been. I think that any law or otherwise is necessary to bring about some ethical and or moral persuasion to alleviate sexual abuse and proclivities that are generated through the exploitation of children.
  43. Nick B. from Oshawa, Canada writes: Regina Filange, in the example you gave, a 20 year old who had sex with a 15 year old would be charge with sexual assault because the law dictates that the 15 year old could not consent to the activity. Pretty simple stuff.
  44. Dave S from Canada writes: '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'

    Obviously both the author and Martha MacKinnon missed the part where they changed the name to the 'age of protection'.
  45. Walker fromtheevilempireofAB from Calgary, Canada writes: This law is for the douchebag 18-20 somethings who think it's cool to use a 13-16 year old for sex. Let's be serious you can't tell me that a 22 year old guy who's dating a 15 year old is in it for love. BS!

    Besides, if you're in your early twenties and can only get a 15 year old to date you then there's something wrong.
  46. Elaine T from Canada writes: I chuckle when reading the partisan comments. Of course it's a good law and anyone who thinks otherwise needs their head examined. Come on now, our children get easily confused? I don't know about yours, but mine are way ahead of me when it comes to understanding new things. By the way, if they don't get it, explain it! To the teacher who said it doesn't take much to confuse children...do your job! It wouldn't hurt for a few of you out there to teach your kids to wait awhile, either. There is so much teen pregnancy now because parents aren't telling their kids no, it's not all right. Let's start taking responsibility. Yes, it's a great law. Be thankful a politician cares about your kids.
  47. Silent Majority from Canada writes: There is only one reason a 21 year old wants to date a 14 year old and it's not so he can hang with her friends.
  48. John McMortimer-Boyles from An Undisclosed Underground Location Safe From Nuclear Attack, Canada writes: Alberta Marlowe from Halifax, Canada writes: 'The kids don't have to understand age of consent laws. This is for the assholes who would exploit them.'

    Bingo!!

    If a 20 something guy is jumping into bed with a 14-year-old girl, he is the one who has to face the music. Not the 14-year-old.

    And as someone else asked, what would this guy be charged with? There's a nice list of possibilities in the Criminal Code that could apply--sexual assault (as another correctly pointed out), sexual interference, and invitation to sexual touching.
  49. William Ross from Victoria BC, Canada writes: If anyone does not support this bill you need to have your brain rebooted. Kids are Kids but when some obvious not borderline ' Adult ' uses their power to mess around with a young gril -> straight to jail do not collect 100 $ and definitely lose a turn!
  50. Toast And coffee from Somewhere, Canada writes: Alberta Marlowe from Halifax has it right. It is totally irrelevant whether teens understand this law (which is unlikely). The adult in the equation is the one who has to know the law.

    Anyone who could critisize this change needs help. To somehow turn this into a partisan discussion is childish.

    Yvonne W.....as another poster asked, what planet are you from?
  51. B L from Canada writes: GlynnMhor of Skywall from Canada writes: Long term passive birth control (IUD, Norplant, etc) should be a condition of applying for welfare.

    What form of sterilization do you propose if the welfare applicant has a penis?
  52. Toast And coffee from Somewhere, Canada writes: Jimmy K......Im not sure whether you can't read or can't think.
  53. Dr. Winston O'Boogie from London, United Kingdom writes: Harper raises the age of puberty to 16.
  54. John McMortimer-Boyles from An Undisclosed Underground Location Safe From Nuclear Attack, Canada writes: Toast And coffee from Somewhere, Canada writes: 'Alberta Marlowe from Halifax has it right. It is totally irrelevant whether teens understand this law (which is unlikely). The adult in the equation is the one who has to know the law.'

    Absolutely right!!

    It's the people aged 20 and up who need to know the rules. Not the kids aged 15 and younger. Though if the kids aged 15 and younger also know the rules, even better. (And as an aside, if the age of consent rules, for some reason, aren't part of the school sex education curriculum, they should be.)

    Raising some kind of argument that teenagers might find the rules confusing is a red herring. It's not the kids who are going to face the music if the rules get broken. It's the adults.
  55. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: Well . . . it's a good thing that Joseph Smith, receiver of Divine Vision and founder of Mormonism, didn't do his obsessive, compulsive marriage-thing HERE.

    Two of his multitudinous (34 ?) wives were . . . 14 . . . when he married them:
    http://www.wivesofjosephsmith.org/

    . . . but this was OK, since, uh, 'God' said it was OK. or something.
  56. J M from Realityville, Canada writes: How would this affect Bountiful?? When does freedom of religion apply?
  57. Philip Fraser from Ottawa, Canada writes: People make me laugh. Has anyone thought of asking the teens what they think about raising the age of consent to 16? or even whether they care? It's obvious parents do but do the teens care? And do they trust their parents when it comes to sex? As for the 21 year old having sex with a 14year old, why does everyone assumes that a 14 year old never tries to seduce an adult? Because some do. Wake up. This law is just a sop Harper has offered to parents. Nothing will change.
  58. Tyler Williams from seattle, United States writes: Interesting.

    Philip Fraser from Ottawa, Canada, in his effort to be runner up for the title of WORST PERSON ON THE BOARD, writes:

    'As for the 21 year old man having sex with a 14 year old girl, why does everyone assumes (sic) that a 14 year old never tries to seduce an adult?'

    Hello?

    By that twisted reasoning, it is okay if a 21 year old man steals somebody's car, just so long as a 14 year old girl gave him the idea and encouragement to do it...
  59. B D from Canada writes: I don't think any teenager i knew growing up even considered consent laws, much less was confused by them. This is really important in now being legally able to go after child predators who would prey on children. Kudos for the Harper government for taking action.
  60. Toast And coffee from Somewhere, Canada writes: Tyler W...... I think Phillip may have some history that he's trying to justify.
  61. Neale Gifford from Toronto, Canada writes: As a schoolteacher many years ago, I had in a class a girl not yet 12 but who physically looked much older. I learned she was seeing a guy aged 18. And I suspected she was sexually active.
    At a parent-teachers’ night shortly after, I mentioned it to her mother. Response? “Isn’t it wonderful she has a boyfriend?”
  62. Kitty Burgers from Hamilton, Canada writes: I'll bet anything that many individuals posting comments on this subject having being 'gettin' any' for quite some time ;)
  63. Nathan Cool from Vancouver, Canada writes: Save me your moral outrage. It's making me ill.
  64. BiB AmomA from Canada writes: ..//

    This not at all confusing. What was confusing was how the Liberal government passed a law that allowed 60 year old men to marry 14 year old boys.

    Now it is simple. Sexual relations with consent when one is near in age to the other is not a crime.

    ..//
  65. J S from Toronto, Canada writes: I think raising the age of consent is a good thing, however, we still have the situation were a 50 year old can legally have sex with a 16 year old but, if he takes/receives a picture of his naked girlfriend he's guilty of creating/possessing child pornography. Teens (and yes, I'm thinking of gay teens here) are also in breech of Canadian law if they engage in anal sex before their 18th birthday. How about we raise the age of consent for 'regular' sex to be consistent with other consent laws?
  66. Mike Z from Saskatoon, Canada writes: I remember being in high school, and 'age of consent laws' were never talked about, either by students or by teachers. That includes sex ed class in grades 6 and 9.

    It is a good law in theory, although I too fail to see the need to distinguish between regular sex and anal sex. Both are risky, but I don't see that the government needs to distinguish between the two. That being said, this is not a Conservative or a Harper thing -- this was in place before they came to power. One would have to go back in history to see which party put that law into place.
  67. Joe Gopher from Canada writes: So 16 year olds can't understand the law but 14 year olds could?
    Wow! Maybe the problem is that the Globe doesn't understand the concept of media bias.
  68. Nathan Cool from Vancouver, Canada writes: Joe Gopher, go get a coffee. You're making no sense.
  69. D M from Canada writes: I don't understand why these people are using the word 'date'. As in, why would a 20-yr old want to date a 14-yr old? People, this is sex we're talking about, not dating. You don't have to be 'seen in public' nor would need to want to, you're just getting in on...

    Someone mentioned the half-your-age plus seven rule. I laughed, but when thought about it, not a bad guideline. I regularly date (here, I use the word date correctly) younger girls, but they always fell in that range. For dating, not a bad rule. For sex, this law seems to be.

    (On another note - I always thought it was 18 too - not that it would matter, 16 or 18, but I don't think anybody is doing math in those situations...)
  70. John McMortimer-Boyles from An Undisclosed Underground Location Safe From Nuclear Attack, Canada writes: Mike Z from Saskatoon, Canada writes: 'One would have to go back in history to see which party put that law into place. '

    I went and did a bit of quick digging. The original law setting age of consent at 14 was in the Criminal Code as enacted in 1890 by a Conservative government under Sir. John A. MacDonald.

    In all fairness, though, that was pretty restrictive in those days whan kids would leave school at age 12 or 13 and enter the workforce. Grade 6 'book learning' was more than enough to manage a farm or work in a general store, mill, or similar business.

    Raising the age of consent to 16 really brings Canada's age of consent laws more in line with what is found in many, many other modern nations. And helps make us a bit less of a destination in the sex tourism industry.
  71. TruthSeeker21 Says from Canada, Canada writes: It's Harper has confused children about sex? Sexual Orientation, Gay, Straight, Homophobic, Trangendered, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transexual, Heterosexist... I know I've missed a few. Here's just a wild suggestion - How about people only have sex once they are married to someone of the opposite gender when they are mature adults, the way God designed us? Oh, what was I thinking - that would be too simple and solve too many of these confusing problems.
  72. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: Truthseeker21: . . . Polygamy is Biblical: Moses, Lamech, Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon (partial list) all had more than one wife at a time.

    . . . although I don't recall if any ages of the various and sundry blushing brides are listed. Anybody know ?
  73. TruthSeeker21 Says from Canada, Canada writes: Mr. Justice - Pehaps you should read the WHOLE book.
  74. Dennis sinneD from Calgary, Canada writes:

    What's new... teens are easily confused.
  75. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: I have.

    Have you ? Oh, why not ?

    In any case, you may or may not wish to respond to my point.
  76. Jacques Shellac from Montreal, Canada writes: We were always confused about the 'statutory rape' thing when I was a teen, don't see why kids shouldn't be confused now. It's what teens are, confused.
  77. Richard Hawrelak from Sarnia, Canada writes: I am sure teens will debate this issue in the heat of the night in the back of the 52 Chevy (my age) ... er, make that the back of the 08 Honda Civic. Ask any teenager what the Age of Consent means and they'll tell you it's how old you have to be to get in the bar. I proved it last night. One an 18 year old student from Mac and the other her date, one year older.
  78. Ghetto Dude from Istanbul, Turkey writes: Human life expectancy almost doubled within a century. We should understand the childhood period lengthens too. If possible, place you grandfather's, father's, your own and your kids pictures that were taken at the same ages. You will notice big differences.
    And yes, today's 16 is certainly the new 14. The law is not confusing at all: it only says the kids can flirt with their classmates but should not with university students or paedophile grandfathers. However, when it comes to how-to-do-from-where's, that is not a matter of law I think, at least what cannot be controlled should not be outlawed.
  79. Tony . from Waterloo, Canada writes:
    No real surprise here, when I tried to put myself in the place of a teenage reading the law, the first thing that popped into my head was 'Why are a bunch of 50 y/o politicians trying to decide who I can or can not have sex with?' Not entirely an accurate description of things, but that's probably not far off what most teenagers are likely to think of this law.

    It's a good law, with the close-in-age exception being key. But it's definitely not straightforward. In the end it's going to come back to the same thing that it always had, parents need to TALK to their kids!
  80. The Oracle from Caiman Islands, Canada writes: This is all about religion nothing else! See: http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=80f6fdff-cc0e-4a08-9b96-76f3db32808e
  81. The Oracle from Caiman Islands, Canada writes: This is Harper the Evangelist trying to 'convert the lost'
  82. John McMortimer-Boyles from An Undisclosed Underground Location Safe From Nuclear Attack, Canada writes: Mr. Justice from Canada writes: 'Truthseeker21: . . . Polygamy is Biblical: Moses, Lamech, Abraham, Jacob, David, and Solomon (partial list) all had more than one wife at a time.'

    So is incest. Abraham's wife Sarah was his half sister. (Let's ignore the fact that, in Leviticus if I recall correctly, incest gets outlawed.)
  83. bj sutherland from Victoria, Canada writes: If teenagers have proper information about sex and reproduction and are taught to respect their own bodies, I don't see that they will be easily exploited by anyone, be they peers or five or more years older. My experience has taught me that it's possible to have really valuable relationships with older people, sexual and platonic. It's an important way to learn how to become an adult.
  84. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: JMcM: . . . How old was Sarah ? 14 ? 16 ? Older ?
  85. Rick C from Canada writes: Oh for God's sake give me a break. These teens are learning to solve algebraic equations, entry level calculus etc.

    It's a pretty simple concept to only screw people that are within 5 years of their age.
  86. sidney Goldberg from writes: Mr. Justice or Mr. Clueless Moses had one wife Zipora. He actually sent her away because he was so busy. Please tell me the name of the other one, who is not mentioned in the bible. The law is a great one for a number of reasons. It makes it much harder for a group of 21 year old guys to put GHB in a young womens drink. At least now they will face a nice long prison term, for taking advantage of a young women. The difference between 16 and 14 years of age is amazing. A young women is about one year away from college at 16 and far more aware of the difference between someone, who has a real interest in her and someone who thinks likes to notch panties on their wall. We have enough sick jerks like the church leader, who just admitted getting married to a 10 year old girl. By the way Mr. Justice if someone 50 or 60 years of age, put a hit on my 15 year or 12 year old grand niece they would really need their Canada Medical Card. This law is long over due and while it's likely the defense attorneys are already crying, if it saves one young women let their tears fall. Sydney Joel Goldberg
  87. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: Mr. Clueless Sidney (your real name ? REALLY ?) . . . Here ya go:

    'And Moses was content to dwell with the man: and he gave Moses Zipporah his daughter.' Exodus 2:21. (See also Exodus 18:1-6.)

    'And Miriam and Aaron spake against Moses because of the Ethiopian woman whom he had married: for he had married an Ethiopian woman.' Numbers 12:1
  88. The Religious Left from Canada writes:
    So the law many confuse teens? Well it's illegal to have sex with horses, I doubt they understand that law. This law is for the sick fu cks who take advantage of 14-15 year olds.

    I rarely say this: Good legislation for our Conservative government.
  89. F. Trevor from Kelowna, Canada writes: I'm going to ignore the Christian comments this time around and point out that religion has nothing to do with this.

    Moving on...

    The bright side of this legislation is that the kids don't have to understand how it works. It's the older predatory types who need to be concerned and personally, I don't care if they understand it so long as they are prosecuted with it. Back in my day, the embarrassment of being caught with a girl under 20 would've been deterrent enough.

    As for teen pregnancy, we'll have an end to that when we make 'the pill' OFFICIALLY FREE for all girls under 21 and advertise that fact. I know a lot of Drs give them away already, no questions asked and thanks to them! We owe them a great deal. Now, if only our gov't were as intelligent.

    Happy safe sex, everybody!
  90. V. Gr from Canada, Canada writes: This article debases teens. The Globe must be wanting for stories because teens are not idiots. How could the concept of age of consent be confusing? The changed law is a good measure, and teens are now more protected then they were before.

    I like how a lot of 'experts' are predicting this will confuse teens. hmm why don't you actually ask some of them then?
  91. Hans Ulster from From the Canadian Oilpatch, Canada writes: So, would the Prophet Mohammed have been charged for taking a 7-year-old bride?
  92. James Young from Brantford, Canada writes: I didn't know sexual activity of teens was a problem until Harper's Mob brought it to the fore. Why did this mob from the West become so interested in young peoples sexual practices? Mostly they rail against homosexuality.

    Generally age is not criteria for sexual activity after puberty. Certainly the maturity of the individual is more important. For many people the knowledge and maturity of a 14 and 16 year old is practically the same. Surely at what age to participate in sex is a personal choice, subject to normal society's mores.

    All this law means is age of consent is 16, instead of 14. The silly efforts to refine the circumstances reflects more on the stupidy of our politicians than addressing anything about real life.

    To those involved don't look at a person for sex unless they are 16 years of age- male or female. Look but don't touch.

    Harper will sleep peacefully as will all the other politicians. Well done boys. The morals of young Canadians are well protected. Be proud.

    Durgan.
  93. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: So, would Joseph Smith -- a Mormon Christian -- be charged with taking TWO 14-year-old wives ?
  94. Janice Cooper from West Kootenays, British Columbia, Canada writes: F. Trevor from Kelowna, you are absolutely correct. The situation in Bountiful, Colorado City, and El Dorado has nothing to do with religion either. Freedom of religion? I don't care if adult women freely choose to help their men become gods by entering into celestial marriages, but I do care when it is young girls, who have barely reached puberty, being forced into marriages with men old enough to be their fathers or even grandfathers. That is not religion, that is sick and predatory.
  95. sidney Goldberg from writes: I understand that since the beginning of time teens have tested each other out. I can remember many Highschool discussions about napkins that had nothing to do with food and much to do with breast size. The word to feel someone up is not original at all. What the law is designed for is to keep more mature guys from using young women and to keep sexual predetors far away from them. If some 30 year old guy get off on 15 year old girls, than he has a very big problem. In my day that guy would of been considered a joke by the other 30 year old guys. Some idot will no doubt give someone GHB or do something else stupid and in my world I want them to pay for that decision dearly. Mr Justice, most Rabbi's believe that Zipora and the Ethiopian women were the same person. Zipora's father Jethro was a preist of another religion and Miriam and Aaron's issue was that Moses had not married a Hebrew. I can understand the confusion but the opinion of people like Hillel and other scholars is that the Ethiopian women is Zipora. Your an interesting guy Mr. Justice for someone who happens to not like religion, you sure have a lot of interest in it. Keep up your studys and comments. Sydney Joel Goldberg
  96. Mr. Justice from Canada writes: Zipporah was 'the Ethiopian woman' ? H m m m m . . . maybe ?

    Zipporah was from the tribe of Midian, no ? Genesis 25:1-3 says that Midian was one of the six sons born to Abraham by his third wife, named Keturah. Thus, Zipporah was 'Abrahamic' (and was also 'Shemitic' (i.e., descended of Noah's son Shem, per Genesis 10:1; 11:11-27) ).

    But the 'Ethiopian woman' (aka: 'Cushite woman' in the Hebrew) would be descended from Cush, who was 'Hamitic' (i.e., descended of Noah's son Ham, according to Genesis 10:1, 6) . . . yes ?

    Obviously I'm not claiming that any of this is factual; I am simply taking what appears in Genesis and discussing it.
  97. TruthSeeker21 Says from Canada, Canada writes: Mr. Justice - The Old Testament is primarily a history book that reports on ancient Jews, warts and all. There are clear statements that men who took multiple wives were getting themselves and their families into trouble and turning away from God's best. In the New Testament, Jesus clears up many misconceptions Jews had about marriage. See Matthew 19. 1 Timothy 3:2 stipulates that church leaders are to have one wife (some translations sa