The Nation has no business in anyone's bedroom, right?
Why not concentrate on something more important, like banning handguns again or something? Let people live their lives in peace. If young teenage girls want to have sex with older men, whose business is it anyway?
"There's no evidence of exploitation," Oppal said. "In fact, it was surprising to me the number of young women who told police that they were the aggressors, that they wanted to have sex with the older men."
Yes, and just remember - Religious freedom trumps everything - unless some bigger special interest group complains.
Oh, man. This is so much fun! I love being a leftie.
* * * *
Update: Interesting discussion here - BC Polygamy and Gay Marriage.
Correction: The above-noted Star article contained a factual error. This was addressed in today's edition:
This error was actually pointed out by yours truly. Unfortunately they didn't include the part I wrote about "unelected Liberal-dominated" Senate.
Ah, well. I tried.
* * * *
Correction: The above-noted Star article contained a factual error. This was addressed in today's edition:
The age of consent for most sexual relations in Canada is 14, not 16, as erroneously reported in a Canadian Press article about a B.C. polygamous sect published Aug. 2.
Federal legislation to raise the age of consent to 16 is before the Senate.
This error was actually pointed out by yours truly. Unfortunately they didn't include the part I wrote about "unelected Liberal-dominated" Senate.
Ah, well. I tried.
44 comments:
Sure.. not only do you get to declare whatever belief or feeling or even a passing fancy that you hold to as being incontrovertibly right and true.... you also get to call anyone who questions your belief names!!
You can also justify any of your thoughts (or delusions) by saying "Everyone Knows that!"
Ain't that a load of fun??
That's right, PGP. Just don't try pushing your beliefs on me!
Just don't try pushing your beliefs on me!
You mean that only progressives have that right? Perhaps I should also think about becoming one. Hmmm. On second thought, I don't think I will. It takes too much imagination and faith. And, if I don't have enough faith to be an athiest, I sure don't have enough to be a progressive.
It takes too much imagination and faith.
No, it only takes the ability to do what you want, and make the government deal with the consequences.
Cult members insisting on something that most rational people would find disturbing - how unusual...
"No, it only takes the ability to do what you want, and make the government deal with the consequences."
By which you mean, of course, hardworking taxpayers and society as whole will deal with it. But as a lefty, you don't have to worry because your actions no longer have consequences!
Ugh, that's my blogger profile pic still? I've gotta change that
Cult members insisting on something that most rational people would find disturbing
Anon, are you trying to say that this 'isn't normal'? Bigot!!!
Wow, I'm getting good at this.
Matt, I like your pic.
By which you mean, of course, hardworking taxpayers and society as whole will deal with it.
Of course. Thank you Pierre Trudeau! I love you even if you got that worst Canadian award.
So Joanne, you're saying that the government needs to have a law for what two consenting guys about 32, and 29 (random numbers), would be doing to each other in a bedroom? What about a man and a woman of those ages?
Saskboy, you lost me there.
"If young teenage girls want to have sex with older men, whose business is it anyway?"
Wasn't your point that the government should be keeping tabs on Canadians' in their bedrooms, just in case they are deviants?
Wasn't your point that the government should be keeping tabs on Canadians' in their bedrooms, just in case they are deviants?.
Hey no, man. Anything goes. Just as long as it's consensual, right?
I will now pretend to be a social conservative. Who needs handgun bans when you can install supramolecular sexual activity monitoring devices on the polygamists and homosexuals? If that doesn't work, we should install video cameras in their bedrooms and have someone review them daily. Because as a conservative, i believe that the government deserves to know all about my personal life-and tell me who i can and cannot have relations with or marry. And tell me what I should do with my uterus. But don't tax me or pay for my pap smears, because that's nanny state socialism.
In the meantime, we can enforce laws like getting men to register everytime they have sex so we know who the town s**ts are (Virginia and Ohio) so if they get pregnant the impregnator can determine their future! Thats what they get for enjoying sex now, isn't it? The men don't need to take any responsibility after the egg is fertilized. Isn't conservatism fun? Its so easy!
although i find it kooky and mysogynist, i don't really see a problem with polygamy when it occurs between two (or more?) consenting adults (18+). I do, however, see a problem with older men taking advantage of young girls-in any facet of life or culture. So, as a "progressive" I have no problem with raising the age of consent laws. Unfortunately, unless the girls are willing to admit to being abused, and there are no marks on them, there is not much we can do. We can't install video cameras in their bedrooms. Which is what I think Saskboy was getting at.
So, as a "progressive" I have no problem with raising the age of consent laws.
That's fine, but the Senate appears to have an issue with it.
. We can't install video cameras in their bedrooms.
Which is exactly why it's so difficult to prove exploitation, which is why in all seriousness, we really do need the law.
Wait a minute... wasn't one of the complaints about SSM that it would inevitably lead to an 'anything goes' perspective on sex?
Wow.. what a stupid argument that was eh?
Sexual exploitation is done and people get away with it all the time. A 40 year old teacher has sex with a 15 year old student, and its punishable by a slap on the wrist.
A 50 year old has sex with a 15 year old and its completely legal. Why? Because the age of consent is 14. Remember when the 'progressive' Liberal party ridiculed the idea of raising the age of consent any higher?
Women work as sex objects because they are too poor, too sick (addiction) or just desperate to enter Canada. And so-called 'progressives' support allowing them. (Judy Sgro..)
'Progressives' want to have an 'anything goes' society when it comes to sex. But predators out there are willing to take advantage of women and little girls. And 'progressives' have opened up door after door to allow them to.
I could rail on forever, but it'd do no good. People like Saskboy and Rosie will never be convinced that their position is incorrect.
raising the age of consent? Yes, I agree. I can't see how someone could think that a real relationship could possibly exist between an adult male (19+) and a 14-year old female. Every girl, including myself, I knew at that age had NO idea what was going on.
HOwever, unless the girls actively admit they were abused raising the age of consent won't do anything in those cases (polygamists). They are brainwashed from an early age that getting married at 12 is normal. Most likely they are not educated about their bodies and rights.
Actually, if you've never seen "Big Love", I'd recommend it. Its a good show. I almost felt myself sympathizing with the polygamists at some points, before I'd snap out of it and realise its a sexual free-for-all for the men. While I am not flat out against polygamy, it can't work. The 50/50 ratio of men to women is suggestive of something...hmmmm...what could it be?????
as a "progessive" I don't get the senate sometimes.
"People like Saskboy and Rosie will never be convinced that their position is incorrect."
Nor do you. If you want others to consider your opinions, you'd do well to consider theirs as well. Even if only to better understand where they're coming from.
Southern Onatiorn....huh?????
I just said i AGREED with age of consent being 16. And don't start with the slippery slope thing...its so been done already. I just don't see anything wrong with people living the lifestyle they want to (straight, homosexual, polygamist, etc) provided they are old enough and mature enough to understand those consequences. I would not be against the legalization of polygamy. You will never find me crusading for it mind you, but why should I care......of course when they are marrying off young girls i DO care.
How do YOU suppose we catch them diddling young girls? How would you like it if you were in a store and alarms went off and you got arrested and put behind bars because we have a "guilty until proven innocent" thing going on here? Of course I believe they are guilty, but how could you prove it in a court of law?
Unless the girls admit to abuse, then there is nothing you can do. I will eat crow if I've missed the fact the girls had admitted to sexual activity underage and it was left alone. And yes, I do agree that some of these supreme court decisions are a bit wacky, k? So, are you finished pigeon-holing me into a school of thought? (to be clear my "conservative" post was sarcasm.)
I may be a bit biased, but I believe Joanne has the handle on this little role-reversal exercise, and rosie missed it. Social conservatives generally place more importance on the family than the guvamint. Progressives really are for regression. As the family unit disintegrates, so goes the society.
Horrible post, Anon @ 12:43. I don't blame you for not attaching your name to it.
As if there are progressives running around saying "Let's nuke the nuclear family!" or "Devolution! Take back our thumbs!"
You would do well to at least try to understand where "progressives" are coming from before making assumptions. I don't believe all conservative-thinking people are knuckle dragging rednecks. I get the conservative positions on a number of the issues touched on at this blog -- I just don't agree with many of them. And it's not because I'm for "regression" or the destruction of the family unit.
Rosie:
The problem doesn't start with polygamy or the abuse of young girls. It starts with the mindset that we have allowed the majority of the country to slip into.
Sex is no longer about love, it is about 'fun'. 'Do what feels right' has replaced 'Do what is right'.
Women of any age are able to be deceived and abused by their partners/husbands. But it is happening more often now than ever before and instead of fully matured young women we have damaged goods being produced.
Young men learn to treat women like sexual objects now and will never learn to stop. This is our future, a future where men treat women like SHIT and where it is tolerated because 'both sides are consenting' Women consent thinking that 'they can't find anything better' or that they 'don't deserve any better'.
University newspapers encourage girls to become exotic dancers to pay for tuition. Escort services are viewed as respectable businesses.
Once we started down this slope it was impossible to stop. Religious groups (rightly IMO) saw the SSM issue as simply another step down but what they didn't understand is that they chose a battle they could not win. And it IS a slippery slope. Remember anti-SSM advocates who said that legalization of SSM would lead to polygamy? And remember how 'progressives' laughed their heads off and said that would NEVER happen.... Well.. who's laughing now? (or crying)
Society as a whole has decided to allow (or tolerate) such actions. If society was to take a hard line against such social deviants then perhaps things could change. Perhaps if women knew that being raped wasn't their fault and that the man who raped them would be brought to justice maybe they would be willing to come forward.
In all my years, having talked with rape victims the one thing I hear over and over again is a lack of faith in the justice system. "Why should I tell the police? He'll be out in a year anyways.."
Oh and believe it or not Dirk.. but I put 'progressive' in quotations because I am a former NDP.
My family has long been involved in the NDP but left when these so called 'progressives' took over. Its sad really, because some of the issues the NDP champions (prop. rep., abolish the senate, etc..) I wholeheartedly agree with.
HOwever, unless the girls actively admit they were abused raising the age of consent won't do anything in those cases (polygamists). They are brainwashed from an early age that getting married at 12 is normal...
Rosie, I think we see eye to eye on a number of things, and this is one of them. I do agree that even if the age of consent legislation is passed by the Senate, it still may be difficult to convict polygamists if the 'cult' keeps to themselves.
It would be an excellent tool however, in the situation where a 14 year old is having sex with a much older person and the parents are concerned/ worried sick.
As far as polygamy goes, I think it will be legalized someday (and that's my real view on it; not my born-again leftie view). I think it's inevitable, given the influx of immigrants who do not see this as an issue and are already covertly practicing it today.
In all my years, having talked with rape victims the one thing I hear over and over again is a lack of faith in the justice system. "Why should I tell the police? He'll be out in a year anyways.."
S.O. - Interesting. It sounds as if you are employed in some kind of counseling field?
Interesting - we've come a long way in our society - we don't approve of polagamy considering it was common in Christ's days for men to have many wives.
I think the issue is that they can't prove it's going on. Why go to court until actual proof is ready - why take a chance in losing the case.
It's so easy being right-wing. You pick a subject and rant and attack with no respect of our rights in a democracy to have a different political stripe.
Part of the problem with girls reporting rape - the rakeover they get in court.
I know of a situation where the victim was so victimized in court she had a nervous breakdown. She wasn't a virgin so was attacked like she was at fault, a whore. She was a kind, gentle, intelligent good citizen and happened to have a long relationship where sex was involved. It was her only relationship where sex was involved.
It's so easy being right-wing. You pick a subject and rant and attack with no respect of our rights in a democracy to have a different political stripe.
Ah, and it's only the right-wingers that do that, right?
anonymous, sorry I make such a lousy conservative.....better start practicing my moral superiority more ;) And the family thing bugs the hell outta me. I am a married lady, freshly (2 years) and I want kids. I already love my future kids. I have a great relationship and married a guy who will make an excellent father. I want to have children that are healthy, kind, and show love and respect for others and the earth. Given the choice (and don't know if I will have one at this point) I want to stay home and raise my children. I happen to be a "progressive". So, whats this about conservatives being about family and progressives being about g'ummint? Many of my progressive friends feel the same way. Maybe the difference is that I don't mind my taxes subsidizing someone's education or hospital stay if that means they will have a better chance at life. I also don't mind that women these days are encouraged to enjoy their bodies and sex. Does that mean I'm a SL*T? We are taught about our anatomy, biology and educated about our sexual health so that we can make decisions about our bodies (birth control-not just abortions) that women 40 or more years ago couldn't make.
On top of that, gay people can make excellent parents-so what does this have to do with moral decay? They can also make lousy parents, just like I know LOTS of lousy straight parents. Divorced parents. going on 4th wife parents. Abusive or absent parents. All straight (and some conservative too!). So, chances are, there will be crappy gay ones too.
As for the degeneration of society due to "tolerating" "social deviants", it couldn't be further from the truth. Escort services have been around for longer than you or I, S O, they were just underground. And if a student can pay her own tuition by dancing, not "leaching" off the g'ummint, then what is the harm in that? As for the men that create such markets...the best I could hope to do is raise boys (if i have them) to be as wonderful and respectful as their father.
Each new generation is faced with resistance from the previous one. I remember my parents talking about how "their" music in the 50's and 60's was considered "devils music" and the downfall of society was being called back then due to these "heathens". Being in a University setting I talk to a lot of youth, I know a lot of teenagers, and you know what? They are a hardworking, dedicated bunch. I have no doubt that future generations are going to do us justice and perhaps even undo some of the horrific crimes we have committed against the earth.
Unfortunately sex sells. Blame the capitalists-not the g'ummint. When I read about the moral degradation of society it reminds me of scenes of moral decay from "bladerunner" or something. we got a long way to go there!
Sorry for the rant. The Bill Whatcott "family" people who claim to have moral authority in this world don't get an ounce of respect from me!
Rosie, I love your rants. They're very refreshing.
one more thing. I've decided I really like your blog Joanne. You are a fair debater. I, of course, don't always agree with you, but its nice to debate an issue with someone who has a different point of view who doesn't turn into a total A%$hole. This goes for both progressives and conservatives. Thanks!
Thanks, Rosie. You're always welcome here. I enjoy your frank comments.
You strike a chord that conservatives need to hear.
Rosie, obviously we come from two different worlds.
In the university settings I see not hardworking and decent men but opportunism and immorality. I listen as seemingly upright guys brag about how many girls the got drunk and screwed the previous weekend.
Escort services may have existed for a long time, but they are more tolerated now, as your statement about exotic dancers proves. If you truly believe that such things are wrong and immoral you would feel as repulsed as I do.
I'm still not sure if your comment about women turning to exotic dancing and escort services to pay off their tuition instead of 'leaching' off the government is serious or sarcastic.
If its serious, then you should rethink your comment. If you are serious about stopping men from objectifying women as sexual objects then encouraging women to satisfy men's fantasies is the last thing to do.
But hell, what do I know? I'm just a fresh university grad who lived with these people.
But hell, what do I know? I'm just a fresh university grad who lived with these people.
Wow. I would have thought you were much older; your comments seem to have such wisdom. I mean that as a compliment. ;)
If you are serious about stopping men from objectifying women as sexual objects then encouraging women to satisfy men's fantasies is the last thing to do.
That's a really good point - especially coming from a recent grad. Thanks for your input.
Rosie says she will educate her future sons to respect women. I also hope she educates her future daughters to respect themselves.
hmmm....how to go about this......
SO, I am a university student, and have been for 11 years so I've seen it all.....right now I happent o be seeing it through the eyes of a much more mature person (30-year old) than when I was in undergrad. My point was that apart for the general first year debauchery that does occur (and always has always will-first time away from home for a lot of these people), I am finding the younger students to be very responsible and good people(-no worse than 10 years ago). I partied a lot during my undergrad. I saw girls who made very stupid decisions. I saw guys that made even stupider decisions. The best you can do is educate them and provide resources for them. I didn't make stupid decisions (going home with males I didn't know well or getting so drunk i couldn't make sound judgements). Just not something I did. I understand that you have worked with a lot of victimized women and probably have seen a lot of things I haven't. Its not to say I don't know any rape or incest victims, I just haven't been exposed to it on a large scale.
As for exotic dancing, I have a few friends that do it and love it. They are contributing members of society, pay taxes, have kids, own houses, are university educated, some are even professionals. This doesn't mean that there aren't slummy brothels out there, but I can only draw upon my experiences.They certainly don't feel objectified or victimized. I personally wouldn't get up there and shake it, but thats just me.
For so long women were oppressed and repressed, and feeling or expressing sexuality was considered dirty and wrong. So then came the sexual revolution and all of the sudden it was a sexual free-for-all. Then came AIDS and HPV, and herpes and syphillis and all of the sudden promiscuity is just not a good idea anymore. But in the meantime, women have become so sexualised that we are actually back full-circle to where we are once again prisoners of our gender.
This is one feminist view I've encountered that I don't necessarily agree with. Like I said, we are much mroe educated about our sexual health than we used to be. At the same time, we are exposed to hypersexualized messages in the media starting in childhood. Where do we go from here? We can raise our children to have a healthy view of themselves and their sexuality (boys and girls). We aren't going to change the media. The more you restrict sex the more desirable it is.
Exotic dancing is something that women choose to do. Some out of desperation. Maybe if tuition were lower and student loans were higher, students wouldn't need that extra money to buy food and rent. THey are already visiting the foodbank in droves. How can we make exotic dancing less desirable wihtout restrictions on it?
All the points i made (sarcastic or otherwise) were to point out that society isn't in undergoing mass moral decay. Sex is in your face more, because it sells. Its a fact, sorry one, maybe, but fact nonetheless. If we outlawed strip clubs, they'd still happen, except there wouldn't be any rules or regulations that protected the women dancing. I plan on teaching all my children self-respect-and respect for others.
I also wanted to point out that being a progressive doesn't mean we want the right to go around humping everything taht moves. Just because one person has experienced one thing negatively doesn't mean all people have. I've had negative experiences with religion, yet I do not think ill of people who are religious.
Using the slippery slope excuse to vilify SSM is a lazy argument. Homosexuality is not wrong. It is not a lifestyle choice, and is not a religion that victimizes people (unlike polygamy). The laws regarding SSM were unfair and failed to legitimize a committed relationship on two consenting adults who wanted to marry. Mainstream religion pretends to have a monopoly on the concept of marriage, which it does not. Was it a slippery slope when we allowed interracial marriages?
Anyway, i rant on and on....
If we outlawed strip clubs, they'd still happen, except there wouldn't be any rules or regulations that protected the women dancing.
Wouldn't that logic apply to decriminalizing polygamy as well?
I plan on teaching all my children self-respect-and respect for others.
That's good, Rosie. I think you'll make a great Mom. :)
well, with polygamy, there are rules protecting the women. however, because of what they are indoctrinated with, they might not feel like victims. The example being the young girls who actively pursue the polygamist lifestyle.
Its a hard case, but I don't know why anyone would oppose a raise in the age of consent. Its not like it affects teenaged lovers, only prevents older people from taking advantage of them. (remember that case where the 12 year old girl killed her family to be with the 23-year old boy?-I felt she deserves to be punished, but how much of that is being taken advantage of?).
but I don't know why anyone would oppose a raise in the age of consent. Its not like it affects teenaged lovers, only prevents older people from taking advantage of them
Rosie, I agree 100%. Have you heard any convincing arguments at all for the Senate to be holding up this legislation?
". We can't install video cameras in their bedrooms.
Which is exactly why it's so difficult to prove exploitation, which is why in all seriousness, we really do need the law."
Joanne, that doesn't make sense. If you can't prove it, then the law is worthless in court! Instead what we need is to ensure that all children are educated as to their sexual rights and functions, so that if/when they are exploited by someone, they don't have the added problem of ignorance or shame to hold them back from seeking help.
==
SO "In all my years, having talked with rape victims the one thing I hear over and over again is a lack of faith in the justice system. "Why should I tell the police? He'll be out in a year anyways..""
You're right there. The criminal justice system is a joke. I hear conservatives choked with healthcare waiting lists, and court wait times, and I couldn't agree more that they are both too long to serve the people in need: the sick and victimized.
==
SO "Women work as sex objects because they are too poor, too sick (addiction) or just desperate to enter Canada. And so-called 'progressives' support allowing them. (Judy Sgro..)
'Progressives' want to have an 'anything goes' society when it comes to sex. But predators out there are willing to take advantage of women and little girls. And 'progressives' have opened up door after door to allow them to."
And that's where you're seeing things with some missing information. We can't legislate away sexual urges in people. We can't make a homosexual man want women, any more than we could legislate that SO likes only his[?] own gender. What we can do is protect people too young to defend themselves and run away or fight back.
Women work in the sex trade for all sorts of reasons, and the least of which is the reduced level of stigma. Maybe if society didn't believe in providing women (and single mothers) with starvation welfare or minuscule student loans, then there wouldn't be as many seeking additional financial support from the men with too much money in the strip bars and on the street.
==
Anon "Social conservatives generally place more importance on the family than the guvamint. Progressives really are for regression. As the family unit disintegrates, so goes the society."
Anon, you don't seem to understand how the modern "family" came to be. It's a fairy tale, like the Disney kind you were raised on, and you've lost sight of the human factors that make life different from the movies.
Look around you: Life is not all fun and games, where you can switch places with your twin after your parents get divorced. The kid is more likely to end up a coke head like Lindsay Lohan.
The family model has and is evolving. It can't be stopped, or you'll look as nutty as we think parents from the 18th Century look to us now.
There are different types of families because there are different needs placed on individuals in different societal situations. You should be thanking your lucky stars there are as many homosexuals as there are, since they obviously aren't all going to be producing children, and thus leave reproductive room for you to fill up the planet instead. In times where resources are growing short, and humans too numerous, I'd have thought you'd see why families are evolving to have fewer children (and you can't have fewer children, than 0).
Joanne, that doesn't make sense. If you can't prove it, then the law is worthless in court!
That is exactly what I'm saying - The exploitation law doesn't work.
Hence the need to raise the age of consent. Education is good too, but this is an extra tool.
Do you have a problem with that?
In times where resources are growing short, and humans too numerous, I'd have thought you'd see why families are evolving to have fewer children (and you can't have fewer children, than 0).
That's what the environmentalists would have you believe, but in Canada we actually need more people to have kids. We are not replacing ourselves, and it will be a huge problem in another 10-20 years as the Boomers are sucking the health care system dry.
Joanne, Canada does not live in a bubble, and we have a GLOBAL economy need I point out. Our resources can be plundered by people on the other side of the world in less than a year. You have to look at the population crisis from a global perspective, not a national one. Globally we have far too many people for everyone to live a wealthy and comfortable life.
Globally we have far too many people for everyone to live a wealthy and comfortable life.
So you're saying what? Canada shouldn't have any babies? I don't get your point.
Post a Comment