Sunday, May 04, 2008

But Sir, Who May I Screw?

The problem with the Tories new sexual consent law:

Kirsten said it's common for girls aged 15 and 16 to date men five or more years older - she did it at 16.

"It's still going to go on," says Kirsten, who asked that her last name not be used. "No one's going to tell on you unless it's a horrible relationship. But it might make you a little more cautious."

And of course all 15 year old boys want to nail their French teacher.


Kurt Phillips said...

Not related to this article but to your demolition of the claims by Lemire and those neo-cons who have fallen for his bs. You've done a great job exposing the half-truths and bold faced lies. I've commented on my blog that anyone who wants to get good information on this case should visit this site.

bigcitylib said...

Yeah thanks. You guys are a fairly regular visit for me as well.

Dirk Buchholz said...

Perhaps this Conservative preoccupation with sex has more to do with the personalities of those that make up the party.
Nobody,is as un-cool and up-tight as a young conservative.
...well you know where I am going with this ;)

Ti-Guy said...

Are you kidding? Conservatives are sex machines.

(and that's post makeover).

Anonymous said...

Seems the only Liberal getting screwed these days is Steffi.

And Iggy is holding the screwdriver.

biff said...

The most common trait among deviants is their belief that "everybody does it". Particularly among the young or emotionally immature.

It seeks to normalize that which is abnormal/wrong, for obvious psychological reasons.

Most 13, 14, and 15 year olds are NOT having sex with 20-30 year olds.

Some are, and they're obviously being exploited by grown men seeking to have sex with children.

Those who would openly advocate for a fifteen year old to have sex with a twenty (or fifty) year old and calling opponents "uptight" is frankly just plain creepy.

Then again, if that single emotionally fragile child thinks its OK, shucks, it just must be the right thing for our society.

Oh, and we might as well legalize murder, as people still do that too. In fact there was this fellow interviewed, Charles Manson, he said all his friends were doing it too, so you know, c'est la vie (or mort - as the case may be).

bigcitylib said...

Biff, tell that to your Catholic School Girls.

biff said...

I also find it fascinating that the same people who constantly argue that a nineteen, twenty or twenty one year old who decides to serve one's country, is a innocent child being duped into service,

are the ones saying thirteen fourteen and fifteen year old girls ending up in a trailer park with the thirty year old "uncle Jim" (and perhaps a few of his buddies)

are mature women who knew what they were getting into.

biff said...


interesting comment given that, as between the two of us, you are the one who appears to be arguing for the continuation of sex with children by adults.

Some would argue you are exhibiting a classic case of projection.

I would be one who so argues.

bigcitylib said...

Oh my, the whole BCL is a pedophile thing again! Can't you people think of anything new to throw at me?

biff said...

Wow, you walked right past that "Biff go get your Catholic school girl" accusation and moved right into the "poor me, you're accusing me of pedophilia shtick."

Tell me BCL what is it like to live in a world where you can cite an article on your blog post, which article advocates children having sex with adults,

accuse others who offer a counter point on that subject being into "catholic school girls",

and then cries "victim" when that person takes the finger your are pointing and suggests it should be pointing in the mirror?

Mike said...

"I also find it fascinating that the same people who constantly argue that a nineteen, twenty or twenty one year old who decides to serve one's country, is a innocent child being duped into service,"

No one is saying that. Nice strawman, but I expect no less from a lying so-con.

Just throwing "13 year old" in there all the time. It has always been illegal to have sexual relations with a 13-year-old. Since 1892 in Canada.

So, your are lying, again. Nothing in the Conservative law changed that. And nothing that people who think that law was unneeded has said would ever apply to a 13-year-old you dishonest smear merchant.

I think that most who find it an unneeded law would argue the obvious Conservative hypocrisy - a 15 year old isn't mature enough to consent to sex or otherwise control their body, but are plenty mature enough to face full adult jail time if they commit a crime. But not mature enough to vote for the laws that govern them.


I suppose I'm now going to be accused of being a pedophile because I point out this hypocrisy, right? Anything to shut down honest debate eh biff?

BTW biff, do you know what the clinical definition of a pedophile is?

Of course you don't. You just want to use it as an epithet against people.

biff said...


the NEW legislation (you know, the subject of this post) does lump in 13, 14 and 15 year olds.

I advocate in favor of that legislation, hence, the "throwing" in the 13 year olds with the fifteen year olds. There is not now, nor should there be, any distinction between a thirteen and a fifteen year old. I'm not sure how advocating that is dishonest.

I accused no one of pedophelia. Perhaps my calling 15 year olds (and 13 and 14 year olds) "children" is what got you so enraged on that point.

Is it now politically incorrect to call children, "children"?

As to your final point, you are right: I have no knowlege of the finer points as to what is or what is not technically pedophilia, nor do I have any need or desire to be so technically astute in this area.

Ti-Guy said...

Biff's all over this topic like a 40 year-old male chatroom commenter over a forum for teenage girls who goes by the name "Riotgrrl." And given his history of sock-puppeting, that wouldn't surprise me.

Only someone who doesn't have children could sound so stupid on this topic.

What kind of parent accuses total strangers of pedophilia? A sick one, to be sure.

Anyway, while you're making all of your incoherent comparisons, Biffy, don't forget to mention that "conservatives," while believing 14 to 16 year-olds are too young to decide what to do with their bodies, believe 12-14 year-olds are old enough to be tried as adults when those bodies commit crimes.

I support this change in legislation (now that it has the age differential exception), by the way, since I do believe internet predation has made it easier for young people's behaviour to escape the supervision of their parents (who, in the end, decide what limitations their children have over these matters). But the arguments coming from the depraved "conservatives" obsessed with youthful sexuality (and buttsex, apparently) continue to be nauseating.

I hope the sex-crime units in the police forces are keeping tabs on these creeps.