Things I used to forget before I had a place to write them down...etc.

From Et cetera

Times are a-changing, yes indeed.

The baby-boomers are becoming senior citizens and their children are becoming conservative, middle-aged and overprotective of their children. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for protecting children to some degree but you have to be more mindful of what you're protecting them from. There are very few serious threats to be worrying about, really. Now, when I say serious, I mean common. Obviously, things like...oh, I don't know, toddler murder-suicides instigated by other toddlers, well yes that is a serious threat, but it is also totally unheard of. As a result, I wouldn't be in favour of some lobby group coming door to door selling me chocolate-covered baby toes as a fundraiser for "Mothers Against Toddlers Killing Toddlers." In the same respect, I don't believe that there are enough cases of internet pedophilia to warrant every computer in the world to have an "age-detector" on it (as proposed by Dr. SomeguywhosenameIdontremember). And I also don't think that there should be any restrictions by parents put on their children about surfing internet chatrooms. Their concerns about pedophilia are so great that you'd have to believe that every third person in a chatroom is a criminal. Some people would argue that that's true.

Let me explain my view on pedophilia. If every third person in a chatroom is a pedophile, then pedophilia is not a crime (I can just hear the parents of the world hissing demonically at me already), it's perfectly natural. Allow me to elaborate before you add my website to the list of "blocked content" on your NetNanny. I was listening to a talk radio program concerning the idea to raise the age of sexual consent in Canada. For those of you who are unaware, you will probably be surprised to learn that the age of consent in Canada is 14. This makes it illegal for anyone under the age of 14 to have sex with anybody else, younger or older. The character on the talk radio program was proposing that it be raised to 16, not because he felt that that was the appropriate age (I'll reveal that later) but because he felt since Canada had been stuck so long at 14 (since 1890 believe it or not) that he would have better luck getting the legislation pushed upwards gradually. You know, taking steps in the right direction.

The callers on this talk radio program offered all kinds of support for the idea, and in fact, most of them said that the age of consent should be bumped up to 18. "It just seems to make sense that if you have to be 18 to vote, you should have to be 18 to have sex!"

What??

I'm sorry, what's the relationship between voting and having sex? The voting age was decided to be the age at which people are socially aware and competent enough to make a sound decision with regards to their elected officials. Obviously, not all 18 year-olds have this, but let's assume that the bulk of them do possess that quality. Now what does that have anything to do with sex? You don't need social awareness to understand sex. You need to get through puberty and you're set! Now I know that's probably not the point that the caller was trying to make, and nor is it the point that I'm trying to make. In fact, who knows why I typed that up at all? Not me.

So anyway, some more people phoned in on the program to support this guy who wanted to change the age of consent, and a couple of people said, "I think you should try for 18-- well, realistically I think it should be 21, but--" at which point the guest on the program said, "I agree," in a muffled sort of voice. Jesus! Who are you people? Have you no memory of being 18? 20? Weren't you aware of any of the consequences of sexual activity back then as we are today? Are you all forgetting that young people do have a competent mental capacity? I'm not even 21 yet! What justification could you possibly have for putting me in jail for having sex? It's ridiculous.

I should probably not villify this guy too much, despite my disagreement. You see, his defence was that "I'm not trying to prevent 14 year-olds from experimenting with sex with other 14 year-olds. This is about protecting our children. Because that's what they are. 14 year-olds are children." His point was basically that anyone who is older than 14 by a reasonable amount who is also having sex with a 14 year-old simply must be exploiting the child. This sounds like generalizing to me. Honestly, who is to say that these 22 year-olds who are with 14 year-olds don't have a genuine affection for one another. I think a lot of these so-called pedophiles with 14 year-old girlfriends actually have a legitimate attraction to them--not purely sexual. Another very angry caller (who was actually only 28) said, and I quote, "Anyone, ANYONE, who looks at a 14 year-old and finds that desirable is unhealthily sick!!" No, no, I'm sorry, this is simply not true. For starters, surely other 14 year-olds don't fall into that category. My question is, how can a 14 year-old find another 14 year-old attractive and then, six years later, suddenly change their mind? How can you grow out of what you find appealing? I don't think you can and a lot of people will admit to that, though usually jokingly so as to not attract any awkward looks. An attractive 14 year-old is an attractive 14 year-old no matter what the age of the observer.

I may be coming off sounding extremely liberal here, but what can I say? I have a pretty unique set of ethics. I suppose the main reason that the current age of consent didn't get any support on the talk radio program is because the target audience tends to be quite a bit older, and, well, probably more conservative. Most liberally minded people listen to music instead, I think. What do I think the age of consent should be, you ask? Well, I don't want to change it, it seems to be working fine. The way I see it, if you bump it up to 16, you'll have that many more 14 and 15 year-olds whose parents waste court time on bogus rape cases after they break up with their 19 year-old boyfriends. There just doesn't seem to be a clear advantage to bumping it up a couple of years and there's no reason to eliminate it all together (haha, there's an extreme idea. Nothing quite so interesting as a 55 year-old man consummating his marriage to a 3 year-old).

Because 14 seems so young, I must admit that my position is a pretty challenging one to defend and I don't feel like I'm going to change anyone's mind who reads this simply because I don't really have a solid argument. I do wonder how the pie chart is divided on this issue amongst others my age, though. I can't help but get the feeling that I'll be having a small dessert on this one. Nevertheless, the internet is probably the place to find support, even if its users aren't willing to admit it. Anyone who has ever been in a chatroom called "13-17 only" will know that the majority of the traffic in their is sexually-oriented. Lots of people older than 17 go in there and admit it, too, thanks to the anonymity of the world wide web. Like I said, if every third person is a pedophile, then the impulse must be natural. Psh, unhealthily sick, my ass.