Sorry to interrupt your off topic circle jerk…
Here’s some local politicians behaving badly. Maybe they have a secret pizza joint in Orange Cove where it all happens.
1 Like
I said homophobe, not homosexual. Go look at the comment of your I was responding to, it’s exactly as you describe above except that you said it.
That’s funny because you were the one who said this:
What happened, people had enough of your strawman arguments so you took your bullshit to the next level? I almost feel sorry for you.
You realize I said this in response to you saying you don’t think grown men should be allowed to fuck kids in the ass maybe you can explain that one?
I mean you said that (which no one has argued for in this thread) and asked me to explain it. Which doesn’t make any sense so my comment was a why don’t you explain this then.
I thought that was pretty fucking obvious I was creating a dumbass question for you to answer based off the one you were asking? I guess it’s ok for you to ask people to explain positions no one in this thread is taking but it’s a problem for people to ask that of you?
I still think you’re struggling with a law you initially brought up and didn’t understand at all and now you’re just grasping at straws to I guess save face?
Not sure but you keep asking people to explain things they aren’t talking about so maybe you’re just drunk right now? Sober up and then come back at it when you’re making a bit more sense and can follow with what people are saying.
So in your opinion it should be allowed then?
Grasping at strawmen
I understand it, I just don’t see any imperative for it to be changed and there was no public discussion. Because really, what sort of person thinks it is a priority to lower the age at which kids can be fucked in the ass by adults? Maybe there was a reason in mind when that law was made in the first place.
I think you’re misinterpreting the purpose of this law. It was legal to have vaginal/oral sex at X age. Anal sex, for whatever reason had been designated a higher age for consent. Such disparities don’t make sense, if you can be having vaginal sex at X age then you should be able to have anal at X age. Hetreosexual people also enjoy anal sex, not everyone has purely vanilla tastes and that’s fine. As I’ve said, laws shouldn’t be present based upon your individualistic sense of morality. Laws should be instated on the basis of whether an action induces harm or not. Having purely consensual anal sex isn’t hurting anyone.
I highly doubt passing this law was on the list of high priority interventions. However it would be an injustice if kids were getting arrested for having sex (16 with a 17 y/old etc), hence the need to reform stupid laws.
This isn’t about kids anyway, what’s the age of consent in Canada? Probably around sixteen to seventeen right? You’re not exactly prepubescent at sixteen/seventeen. Is it creepy for an adult to have sex with a 16y/old? Yes, same goes for 18… or even 20. That being said, most 16-17 y/olds are at a stage of neurological development wherein they should be capable of giving consent.
They wouldn’t be if they are no more than 2 years apart
I’m not interpreting anything one way or another. If there was a line of reasoning that led to a disparity in ages of consent for different things then maybe that should be taken into consideration. Like you can drive at 16 but can’t drink until you are 19, should you learn to drink responsibly before you can drive or the other way around?
It was barely publicized. I read about it because of some right wingers linking an article on a gay website.
How long you going to troll with this one?
That’s not what the law does can you even read? Are you getting it confused with something else? Have you had a stroke?
I laid out what I understood about it and now you’re going from saying you don’t know what it says (despite bringing it up initially) to changing what it says and digging in your heels.
Changing the law makes perfect sense you just don’t like anal sex so you’re against it. It’s important to you for the government to enforce the sex positions that people can consent to I guess. Why should a 16 year old be able to have vaginal sex and not anal sex? That makes no sense. Why is it ok for a 17 year old to have vaginal sex but not anal sex but if that 17 year old is married then the government decides that position is ok? Would you complain if the government just said “we’ve decided to ban all types of sex Chris isn’t a fan of.” No that would make perfect sense.
I found out a few years too late that there’s a guy up the street that was convicted of producing child porn and various other related charges, but he’s far enough away I guess, and positively identified, etc. But I’m still not exactly happy about it. .
Huh?
Gotta be a bot
Stupid analogy, how can this possibly relate to sex? If anything, vaginal sex could be considered riskier than anal. Can’t get pregnant through the ass… The only reason you have a problem with this law is because you’ve got an issue with homosexuality. Anal sex is the only way homosexuals can have penetrative sex therefore you’ve got an issue with this law. If a 16 year old is having consensual sex with an 18y/old (16 with 18 yrs two months etc) there’s no harm done. Are you one of those people who thinks gay people brainwash younger people into having sex?
Just spitballing here as you’ve infered you believe this law is aimed at allowing kids to get fucked in the ass by older men. Drinking ages are set in place based upon sociocultural normalities present within a country coupled with taking into account neurological development of the population at X age. Depending on where you live this could be as low as 14 or as high as 23.
To equate the drinking age/driving with having sex is really dumb. What, should someone learn how to have regular sex before they can have anal? Or do you merely not like the idea that anal sex is associated with homosexuality, therefore people shouldn’t be able to have gay sex at the same age people can have regular sex
Because it doesn’t matter, this law isn’t a big deal at all. If anything it’s a positive as it lessens discriminatory disparities between heterosexual/homosexual couples and lessens the chances of people ending up in the criminal justice system for committing a victimless crime.
I think you fail to see homosexuality isn’t a choice, nor is pedophelia. Both are associated with neurological hardwiring that can’t be changed. The DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO that you fail to comprehend is whether the actions associated with each orientation equate to detrimental impacts induced upon either party. A child can’t consent, and having sex with a child will permanently scar the child. Two grown men/teenagers having sex doesn’t hurt anyone
You might not like homosexuality, you may think same sex sexual interaction is gross… but that doesn’t mean it should be illegal. I think the prospect of people shitting on each other for sexual pleasure is disgusting, but at the same time each to their own… It shouldn’t be illigal no matter how gross it is.
He’s just shifted that because he realized when I called him out on it a strong argument doesn’t exist for the law being bad in the least bit. So it has to be changed to “uh guess you guys want kids raped then.” The law makes sense now it didn’t make sense before in the least bit.
Obviously, many Americans haven’t the foggiest idea what the definition of pedophile is. The politicians on the list who had sex with 16 and 17 year olds don’t belong on a list with pedophile in the subject. 16 year olds are not children. They’re adolescents. Treating them like children is one reason they live with their parents from birth to age 35.
Why are military recruiters allowed to go into high schools and solicit 14-17 year olds to enlist when they turn 17 with parental consent or 18 without it? What would happen if a porn recruiter tried that? I don’t think porn recruiters should be talking to 14 year olds, and I don’t believe the military recruiters should be either.
As others have written, some of the people on the list were accused, not convicted. A conviction doesn’t necessarily mean guilty. Several times a year I read a new article about someone who was released from prison after spending 20+ years there for a crime they didn’t commit.
All forms of human trafficking are bad. I agree. The statement that it’s destroying the earth was very dramatic. The earth will probably still be here long after humans are gone and there will more than likely be other forms of life. If governments cared about sex trafficking, they would legalize prostitution. Getting it into the open, rather than driving it underground would not eliminate, but would reduce sex trafficking. Legal transactions between consenting adults is much better than the alternative.
Sex between a child and adult is wrong. I concur. Like others have written, this is far from exclusive to politics. Are people who are politically connected more likely to get away with their crimes than people who are not? Probably.
2 Likes
I read the 1st 10 comments and then skipped a bit to add this so sorry if its been discussed.:
In the UK one of the 2 big parties had a governing body called the 1922 committee.
In an interview (that I can not longer find) the once leader of the committee said to VERY similar effect:
“When a prospective candidate comes to us with problems. Be that money, wife or if there are issues with small boys. Then we help them. Get put them in a safe seat. That way went we want to ensure party loyalty - we can lean on the using the information we have. It ensure the party gets what it wants in the commons.”
The upshot being - they actively promote people with the worst back grounds. That way the black mail is stronger.
FYI - if you think the UK Labour party are any better think again. The Labour MP for Slough was investigated for electoral fraud in my constituency and was then moved to a safe seat in the next election…
They’ve actually done this where I live and it expectedly panned out for the better
STD’s, = way down (condoms are mandatory), sexual assault/rape claims within relation to sex work dropped significantly, lower incarceration rates, government mandated regulation of brothels and independent agencies (weeds out pimps/traffickers) and more.
Legalisation was seen as the “lesser of two evils” so to speak. I personally don’t have a problem with prostitution, but I can see how someone could object on religious merit etc.
Are they offering anything like the GI Bill?
Being found not guilty doesn’t necessarily mean not guilty.
Although terrible, for every innocent person in prison, how many guilty are not?
Yes, make the sexual exploitation of vulnerable people legal. How many prostitutes suffer from drug addiction, mental illness, emotional traumas, child abuse, sexual abuse, broken homes, poverty, etc.?
1 Like
Far worse for a nation to imprison people for years who are innocent than screw up and not have every guilty person in there.
Looking at our nations incarcerated numbers I don’t think “we’re letting too many people off the hook” is as significant.
3 Likes
Of course and that’s how are system ends up working. My point is, saying that some of these who are accused and end up convicted might actually be innocent is a lot less likely than them not being guilty as charged.
1 Like
Haha. If the porn industry had access to the money the Department of Defense does: hundreds of billions of tax payer dollars and whatever the federal reserve prints out of thin air, there’s no doubt that they could offer a Bill that would pay for a hell of a lot more college than the current GI Bill.
Obviously.
Agreed. How many guilty of crimes that harm nobody but themselves are incarcerated?
They’re adults. Let them make their own decisions. There’s a good chance that a lot of prostitutes suffer from those things. Making prostitution illegal doesn’t make any of that go away. If someone is engaged in legal sex work, wouldn’t they be more likely to report abuse that occurs during a legal job than an illegal one? Drugs should not be illegal for adults either. People will use and abuse drugs whether it’s legal or not. Government has no business trying to regulate nearly every aspect of human behavior. If governments wanted to drastically reduce violent crime, all drugs would be legal for adults. Without a black market, most gangs would either greatly reduce in size or dissolve.
3 Likes