Is liking twinks pedophilia?

[kallipolis]

In Canada, the age of consent is 14 if you're straight, 18 if you're gay. Sure it's a double standard, but I think it should be raised above 14 though... that is just TOO young.

The following captioned article discusses in some depth the matter of the age of consent in Canada.


http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/clp/faq.html
I quote:

What is Canada's age of consent?

The age of consent for sexual activity is 16 years. It was raised from 14 years on May 1, 2008 by the Tackling Violent Crime Act.

However, the age of consent is 18 years where the sexual activity "exploits" the young person -- when it involves prostitution, pornography or occurs in a relationship of authority, trust or dependency (e.g., with a teacher, coach or babysitter). Sexual activity can also be considered exploitative based on the nature and circumstances of the relationship, e.g., the young person's age, the age difference between the young person and their partner, how the relationship developed (quickly, secretly, or over the Internet) and how the partner may have controlled or influenced the young person.

 

[Taralen]

Your first issue, no. As long as he's the age of consent in that area, and he's consenting, it's just a normal relationship.

Your second issue, if the site claims all the boys on it are over 18, then take it as that.

If it's like some kind of blog or site that doesn't have that legal fine print, then take it as that as well.

 

[peeonme]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe

In England, and Wales the age of consent is 16 years.

Lambdaboy's sexual liaison referenced in his post 18 was not illegal.

I looked at that age of consent map, what if a guy is color blind and can't distinguish between certain countries? Will that work as a defense?

 

[kallipolis]

^The arresting police officer might well reply that colour does not discriminate between the guilty, and the naive person.

“There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.”
― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe,

 

[unloadonme]

There are still plenty of cultures that allow and encourage marriage at 12, 13, 14
Some states in America still condone it, I believe

I believe that in Alabama it's compulsory to marry one's first cousin at such an age.

 

[MorrisseyX]

In Canada, the age of consent is 14 if you're straight, 18 if you're gay. Sure it's a double standard, but I think it should be raised above 14 though... that is just TOO young.

WOW 14 years old is way too young for consent! I thought there were cases in Canada where a person over 18 can still be charged for having sex with a minor. When I was talking about twinks I mean like the Johnny Rapid kind of look from Men.com I agree the age of consent should be raised in Canada 14 is too young to consent for sex. I am stunned.

 

[MorrisseyX]

The following captioned article discusses in some depth the matter of the age of consent in Canada.


http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/other-autre/clp/faq.html
I quote:

It sounds like the age of consent is really 18 in Canada which makes sense then. I think 14 or 16 is too young to consent for sex.

 

[rareboy]

^ Did you read the bulletin?

 

[LeicsDom]

The earliest case for male ejaculation is apparently 8 years of age. 11 to 13 is more the average. The age of onset of puberty has lowered over the last century in western countries.

For girls, the record is 5 years of age. Lina Medina from Peru.

Your internet search history needs to be cleared. just in case

 

[SaskGuy]

Your internet search history needs to be cleared. just in case

He needs to uninstall his browser.... no, he needs to wipe his HDD clean, drill holes through it, and fire it into the sun!

 

[Level27]

The object of the attraction must be a child for the term pedophile to truly apply. Pre-pubescence is the criterion.

The whole topic has become mixed and meaningless too often, as the law punished underage sexual exploitation, but that includes subjects who are clearly sexually active and post-pubescent.

So, you have to separate legality from psychology. It was common for 14 and 15 year olds to marry in the 19th century and before.

A pedophile is attracted to children. Someone who is attracted to the underaged but with secondary sex characteristics is a sex offender. Two different things, but not in the mind of much of the public.

lol Careful, NotHardUp1. I've expressed something similar to this before, and Quasar was pretty down my throat on it.



And no, it is not illegal to have sex with people under 18 in Canada. It's under 16; and, up until just some years ago, I believe it was 14.

On a slight tangent, the law teaches us to assume that "children" (which may legally encompass teens as old as 17.75 years of age) can never be at a point in their life to consent to sexual activity; since they cannot legally consent. We then have to wonder why teens, specifically male teens, already start taking to sexual activity at puberty. (Masturbating, looking at porn, etc.) Why is teen males sexually harassing their female teachers even an issue to consider? Why do they, out of our adult control, go to adult chatrooms to do shit the way we do and enjoy it when they can get away with it? Surely, it's evident that teens have some form of sexual awareness? So then, considering this, how accurate are these laws to punish "pedophiles", respectable and well-meaning as they are?

Sexual development isn't a switch where you can flicker from the "sexually undeveloped" off to the "sexually developed" on by the time you turn 18. AoC laws have conditioned us to think this way; despite the fact that some 17/16-year-olds are already there faster than 20-year-olds are.

I have no doubt that there are idiot brats under the age of 18 who illegally pose as adults on adult websites because they know they can get away with it. Hey, Brent Corrigan felt no shame in doing so, right? Hell, I don't even think Mike18 was even 18 when he first decided to show how he does it it with his friends. (Don't quote me on that one, since I don't know.) However, I personally think the better question is: why should it have to matter to MorrisseyX? Why the need to feel guilty?

No, I'm not a pedophile. No, I don't support adults raping anyone, let alone innocent children. No, I don't have an "agenda". No, I'm not trying to silently hand predators a carte blanc to do the evil that we're trying to protect our kids from. But, at the "end of the sunset", there are simply certain biological things that laws and human social intervention cannot erase or override. Just saying.

 

[peeonme]

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/teenage-brain1.htm
As such, the prefrontal cortex is a little immature in teenagers as compared to adults; it may not fully develop until your mid-20s

While teens may appear to be physically mature and their reproductive systems are at peak performance levels, their cognitive thought process is still in stages of development.

Many str8 adult men find teen girls attractive, this is not pedophilia, it's nature. I don't think a gay man should feel like some perv.
because a teen boy looks hot to him.
The key word being "looks", a bulge in the pants of a 17 year old can look as good as one in a 25 year old.

If it's only the teens then that's another matter. Society has basically drawn the line at 18, (some places younger) it had to be drawn someplace, it's difficult to say to ones' natural urges to wait 2 weeks until the 17 year old is legal before you notice him.
It's a matter of look but don't touch.

 

[Level27]

I realize that I'm taking a very taboo stance on this issue; it's really no wonder why some have mistaken me as a pedophile or a "pedophile enabler." I ask kindly that, if you cannot handle my responses, please stop reading at this point. I've included many empty lines between here and the message body for such individuals.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/life/inside-the-mind/human-brain/teenage-brain1.htm (I'm a bit hesitant about the full credibility of a popular science source, but no matter.)
As such, the prefrontal cortex is a little immature in teenagers as compared to adults; it may not fully develop until your mid-20s

While teens may appear to be physically mature and their reproductive systems are at peak performance levels, their cognitive thought process is still in stages of development.

And (as it's right to assume), the maturity of your average 19-year-old is noticeably different than your average 36-year-old. Why is it legal for these two to go intimate? See?

The fallacious strawman (and red herring?) argument that a teen is at a different stage of development than an adult is a bit weary and tiresome. The point of fact is that some teen boys, regardless of the rest of their brain, are in fact able to more fully understand sexual processes and make better decisions than their peers; and, for what lack of intelligence these hormonal brats are left to desire, adult men are capable of letting them (teens) go about without doing any psychological harm to them. What happens when a teen hits up a cute adult guy, and the adult lets the teen boy enjoy it without doing anything back? (I hope people don't have even a small nerve to say that it doesn't happen; they're looking at a poster who is quite the living example when he was a 14-year-old young man. *hand gestures back and forth to indicate the lovely self*) Why is the adult man still the criminal who "should have known better" and "do the right thing to refrain"? Does that even make sense? See?

Society has basically drawn the line at 18, (some places younger) it had to be drawn someplace, it's difficult to say to ones' natural urges to wait 2 weeks until the 17 year old is legal before you notice him.
It's a matter of look but don't touch.

I don't doubt that there is a logical rational reason as to the existence of such a line drawn. The question at hand is, why must we societal folks treat it as some be-all, end-all rigid guideline with no chance of even so much of an inch of flexibility? Other countries outside the USA practice this fluidity. "Estupro laws" in many latin-American countries, for example, ensure that, while their age of consent maybe 12-15, innocent teenagers aren't taken advantage of: even if the pubescent boy/girl has met the age of consent, any evidence of deceit, enticement or grooming when the teenager wouldn't otherwise consent still puts criminal penalty on the adult. I respond to that with higher respect than the rigid no-questions-asked 18-AoC of the USA; I think it's more integral and fair, not to mention moral.

 

[IceColdLover]

It's a gray area. Twinks are usually endomorphic-bodied and youthful, usually between 15-25 or so. Some older teens and young adults have a twink appearance, but if they're under 18 (depending on age consent laws), it's illegal to engage in sex with them if you're an adult. Here in Indiana, 16 and above is the age of consent, but it's still risky. I have had sex with a twink, twice, when I was 24 and he was 18. I don't have sex with people considerably younger, just that time only. Most of my sex partners have been around mid-20s to their 30s.

 

[lambdaboy]

Below 18 is a pedophile? LOL
17 could be your mother and giving birth , idiot !!!

With your usual remarks you call me an idiot fool. In The UK the age of consent is 16 I know you live in Australia which is not the bastion of freedom for gays but use google it works, you may be surprised!

 

[peeonme]

I realize that I'm taking a very taboo stance on this issue; it's really no wonder why some have mistaken me as a pedophile or a "pedophile enabler." I ask kindly that, if you cannot handle my responses, please stop reading at this point. I've included many empty lines between here and the message body for such individuals.







And (as it's right to assume), the maturity of your average 19-year-old is noticeably different than your average 36-year-old. Why is it legal for these two to go intimate? See?

The fallacious strawman (and red herring?) argument that a teen is at a different stage of development than an adult is a bit weary and tiresome. The point of fact is that some teen boys, regardless of the rest of their brain, are in fact able to more fully understand sexual processes and make better decisions than their peers; and, for what lack of intelligence these hormonal brats are left to desire, adult men are capable of letting them (teens) go about without doing any psychological harm to them. What happens when a teen hits up a cute adult guy, and the adult lets the teen boy enjoy it without doing anything back? (I hope people don't have even a small nerve to say that it doesn't happen; they're looking at a poster who is quite the living example when he was a 14-year-old young man. *hand gestures back and forth to indicate the lovely self*) Why is the adult man still the criminal who "should have known better" and "do the right thing to refrain"? Does that even make sense? See?


I don't doubt that there is a logical rational reason as to the existence of such a line drawn. The question at hand is, why must we societal folks treat it as some be-all, end-all rigid guideline with no chance of even so much of an inch of flexibility? Other countries outside the USA practice this fluidity. "Estupro laws" in many latin-American countries, for example, ensure that, while their age of consent maybe 12-15, innocent teenagers aren't taken advantage of: even if the pubescent boy/girl has met the age of consent, any evidence of deceit, enticement or grooming when the teenager wouldn't otherwise consent still puts criminal penalty on the adult. I respond to that with higher respect than the rigid no-questions-asked 18-AoC of the USA; I think it's more integral and fair, not to mention moral.

To me it would seem as though a society has to protect the innocent, the vulnerable from predators.
If a nation, group, tribe etc. didn't set some kind of age limits some would go with "if they have hair it's fair". I had hair at 11, It's all based upon societal norms. Personally I could never sex with a 16 year old, I don't care if it's legal, a 16 year old doesn't need an adult on their ass.

 

[rareboy]

As a teenage boy, I was certainly more than ready for sexual activity and like many teenage homos I had mad crushes on a few really handsome teachers and other adult males.

Would I have acted on desire if the opportunity arose? Absolutely.

But let's be clear here. Too many teenage boys who really haven't made up their own minds about their sexuality can be exploited by predatory creeps like the guy who appears to run TeengayLove. They are looking for vulnerable young boys to exploit and use.
And when we are talking about real paedophiles...those who are sexually attracted only to pre-pubescent children....we are dealing with the ultimate in predatory behaviour, because these people seem to be totally missing any empathy or interest in the emotional state of the child they are raping. In most cases, the attraction is about control.

Society does have to draw the line somewhere. I think that in Canada, our age of 16 in a consensual, non-exploitive, peer to peer relationship is quite reasonable, with an age of 18 for relationships between older and younger men.

I have tried to figure out what the fascination is with twinks. I don't find them sexually attractive or emotionally interesting. So it always baffles me that there are adults who do. But the human brain is a complex thing.

Anyhow OP...I think it is a good thing that you didn't go down that rabbit hole. You seem to already have more than enough issues and baggage to deal with.

 

[Telstra]

With your usual remarks you call me an idiot fool. In The UK the age of consent is 16 I know you live in Australia which is not the bastion of freedom for gays but use google it works, you may be surprised!

You seems to suggest that anyone who have sex with girls/boys under the age of 18 is a pedophile.
Is that correct? If not correct, i'll take back my comment.

 

[gsdx]

Society does have to draw the line somewhere. I think that in Canada, our age of 16 in a consensual, non-exploitive, peer to peer relationship is quite reasonable, with an age of 18 for relationships between older and younger men.

I wanted to say that but couldn't think of the best way to say it. Thank you.

 

[Level27]

To me it would seem as though a society has to protect the innocent, the vulnerable from predators.
If a nation, group, tribe etc. didn't set some kind of age limits some would go with "if they have hair it's fair". I had hair at 11, It's all based upon societal norms. Personally I could never sex with a 16 year old, I don't care if it's legal, a 16 year old doesn't need an adult on their ass.

PeeOnMe, you have a lot of good ideals, but I don't feel you're quite in sync with the very point I'm trying to get across. Again, I don't doubt society's well-meaning intentions to 'protect the innocent'. My post was meant to invite you to think outside the cubicle.

What is considered 'innocent' of a teen boy who has a level of mature sexual capacity and wants to fuck an adult man? What is considered 'predatory' of the hot adult man who lets the boy? Why should the older man have to "know better and refrain" when the man is not doing any damage?

My point: the law, as well as it's worked, is not all that accurate and honest in representing the people they are meant to protect. When I was 14, I hit up and did a cute adult man; he wanted it but couldn't say yes, so I kept inviting him to have me. What damage have I sustained, and what predatory behaviour had this innocent older man exude? Rareboy, here, admits himself too to be in the same boat. See? Already, that makes two.

As an adult man I wouldn't have sex with teens myself. That's how the 18-AoC has conditioned me, and I know that. If not for what this good upright laws have taught me, I could instead look not to age but to inter-connecting human understanding of the other's readiness (or lack of) to have sex as my sexual moral guidance. I think that will go the same for you and your 16-year-old 'limit'; one that you have created for yourself.

Again, I know there are moral coojswahs who are fully prepared to brand me a "pedophile" or a "pedophile-enabler"; or a "potential pedophile", if I may add to the list. Maybe they'll even try to get the police involve to track my IP, despite having not committed a crime. All the more power to them. I'm sorry that my considerably moral judgement is different than theirs to the point where they can't accept things that are different than their own. I really am. (Stereotypically typical American much?)