SevenSeasJim Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 ...but this is certainly a question that I am often asked. perhaps this is a clue as to why you had to move back to the flatlands?!? either that or Tonin and zero keep you busy answering PMs...[color:#CCCCCC]nubile!Oh Davey Boy you almost slipped that by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 Nawwww. I'm usually asked by an old man I know. He is always dressed in a trenchcoat, and seems to twitch a lot, like his whole body is vibrating. I've also never actually seen his right hand... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Boy 2.0 Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 and paisley- you have the heart of a poet which would no doubt lead to trouble around [color:#CCCCCC]nubile 17 yr olds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Boy 2.0 Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 Nawwww. I'm usually asked by an old man I know. He is always dressed in a trenchcoat, and seems to twitch a lot, like his whole body is vibrating. I've also never actually seen his right hand...velvet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zero Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 I had a funny moment doing a mental health presentation in a Catholic school before Christmas and we walk into this beat red shag carpeted chapel and they'res like 25 nubile grade 12 catholic school girls staring up at me and whispering to one another. It was on that occasion that I first asked the question: If god does not want men to have impure thoughts about Catholic school girls WHY did he dress them in a hookers uniform? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 [color:purple]Ode to Davey Boy...Bring On The Nubilesby The Stranglersalbum: No More Heroes (1977), Apollo Revisited (2003) I want to love you like your Dad And be your superman I'll show you things you've never had And hold your little hand Bring on the nubiles Bring on the nubiles I kiss your zones erogenous There's plenty to explore I've got to lick your little puss And nail it to the floor Bring on the nubiles Bring on the nubiles I go crazy for you Crazy for you Crazy for you Crazy for you Lemme lemme fuck ya fuck ya Lemme lemme fuck ya fuck ya Lemme lemme lick your lucky smiles Bring on the nubiles Bring on the nubiles I go crazy for you Crazy for you Crazy for you Crazy for you Lemme lemme fuck ya fuck ya Lemme lemme fuck ya fuck ya Lemme lemme lick your lucky smiles Bring on the nubiles Bring on the nubiles Just bring them on There's lots of games that we can play Just turn my tap, I'll drip And when the fever reaches you I'm high beneath my zip Bring on the nubiles Bring on the nubiles I go crazy for you Crazy for you Crazy for you Crazy for you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark tonin Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 This is a very interesting thread for a number of reasons. I wish I had more time these days to jump in. Over the years, I've had numerous discussions with students, teacher colleagues, and friends about issues related to this topic.On the student-teacher front, in our Grade 12 law class we use an interesting case about a teacher-student relationship as a way of looking at legal, ethical, and moral behaviour. A brief article about her can be found here: Heather Ingram article Is what she did illegal? Should it be? Immoral? Unethical? What should have happened to her?It makes for some great class discussion, that's for sure, and gets people to question what they believe and why they believe it.Peace, Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Boy 2.0 Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 "Dusty Dickeson"?!?::eyebrows up:: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paisley Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 when I was in high school a teacher and a student at my school hooked upshe was kind of "falling through all the wrong cracks" and he stepped up and helped her out... they ended up interested in each otherschool board caught wind and told him to sever ties or face charges... he told them to shove it, quit and they eventually got married... still happily married last I heard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 Mark, did you seem my question to you on the last page? I am actually curious of the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bradm Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 "Dusty Dickeson"?!?::eyebrows up::As long as it's just your eyebrows.Aloha,Brad Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark tonin Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 If you are under 14 years old' date=' and you have sex with somebody more than two years older than you are, the other person can be charged with Sexual Assault. [/quote']What makes you say this? I have only ever "heard" this, but have never seen any legal authority for it. I don't claim to be an expert, as I do not defend sexual assault actions, but this is certainly a question that I am often asked. Sections 150 and 151 of the Criminal Code cover this. Technically I think you'd be charged with Sexual Intereference and not Sexual Assault. Here is the wording from the Criminal Code: Sexual Offences Consent no defence 150.1 (1) Where an accused is charged with an offence under section 151 or 152 or subsection 153(1), 160(3) or 173(2) or is charged with an offence under section 271, 272 or 273 in respect of a complainant under the age of fourteen years, it is not a defence that the complainant consented to the activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge. Exception (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), where an accused is charged with an offence under section 151 or 152, subsection 173(2) or section 271 in respect of a complainant who is twelve years of age or more but under the age of fourteen years, it is not a defence that the complainant consented to the activity that forms the subject-matter of the charge unless the accused (a) is twelve years of age or more but under the age of sixteen years; ( is less than two years older than the complainant; and © is not in a position of trust or authority towards the complainant, is not a person with whom the complainant is in a relationship of dependency and is not in a relationship with the complainant that is exploitative of the complainant. Exemption for accused aged twelve or thirteen (3) No person aged twelve or thirteen years shall be tried for an offence under section 151 or 152 or subsection 173(2) unless the person is in a position of trust or authority towards the complainant, is a person with whom the complainant is in a relationship of dependency or is in a relationship with the complainant that is exploitative of the complainant. Mistake of age (4) It is not a defence to a charge under section 151 or 152, subsection 160(3) or 173(2), or section 271, 272 or 273 that the accused believed that the complainant was fourteen years of age or more at the time the offence is alleged to have been committed unless the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the complainant. Idem (5) It is not a defence to a charge under section 153, 159, 170, 171 or 172 or subsection 212(2) or (4) that the accused believed that the complainant was eighteen years of age or more at the time the offence is alleged to have been committed unless the accused took all reasonable steps to ascertain the age of the complainant. R.S., 1985, c. 19 (3rd Supp.), s. 1; 2005, c. 32, s. 2. Sexual interference 151. Every person who, for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, any part of the body of a person under the age of fourteen years (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of forty-five days; or ( is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of fourteen days. ---------- Peace, Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark tonin Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 Mark, did you seem my question to you on the last page? I am actually curious of the answer.Yes I did SM, but almost missed it as this thread moved forward in a hurry. See my reply above.Peace, Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paisley Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 It was on that occasion that I first asked the question: If god does not want men to have impure thoughts about Catholic school girls WHY did he dress them in a hookers uniform?mine went more like "no sex before marraige?" my first day walking into classes at catholic high school... plans of becoming a priest were pretty much doomed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booche Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 plans of becoming a priest were pretty much doomedHoly.fucking.shit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paisley Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 (edited) that'll be three Hail Mary's and two Our Lord's Prayers for you(actually forgot that ATM business... better get the calculator) Edited January 9, 2007 by Guest no priest paisly - go big or go home, as they say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 Mark: Excuse my ignorance, but I still see no provision limiting the age of others that 14-year-olds are permitted to have sex with.Could you please point out the actual sub-section, or wording you refer to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark tonin Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 Hmmm, maybe I'm misinterpreting your question SM? Or maybe this is a different question than your first one? Or maybe you're just having some fun with me? In any event, here goes: If the younger person is under 14 years old, then section 150.1 (1) (Consent No Defence) and Section 151. (Sexual Intereference) apply, which is the law I posted above. If the younger person is 14 to 17 years old, then section 153. (1) (Sexual Exploitation) and section 153. (2) (Definition of "young person") apply, which read as follows: Sexual exploitation 153. (1) Every person commits an offence who is in a position of trust or authority towards a young person, who is a person with whom the young person is in a relationship of dependency or who is in a relationship with a young person that is exploitative of the young person, and who (a) for a sexual purpose, touches, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, any part of the body of the young person; or ( for a sexual purpose, invites, counsels or incites a young person to touch, directly or indirectly, with a part of the body or with an object, the body of any person, including the body of the person who so invites, counsels or incites and the body of the young person. Punishment (1.1) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of forty-five days; or ( is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of fourteen days. Definition of “young person†(2) In this section, "young person" means a person fourteen years of age or more but under the age of eighteen years. ---------- Peace, Mark Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AcidNintendoOrgan Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 hey what about the women that go after the young blood? Shouldn't they be included in on this too?Here's a list. I wanna go back to high school! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StoneMtn Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 Okay, so you are not saying that a 14 year old must only have sex with someone 16 or under, correct? You are strictly referring to a situation in which the older person is in a position of trust, right?If so, I agree with you. If, however, you are saying that a 14 year old can only have sex with someone up to 16 years old, I think you're incorrect, and I am quite certain that is what you said earlier, as I quoted on the last page...If you are under 14 years old, and you have sex with somebody more than two years older than you are, the other person can be charged with Sexual Assault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badams Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 I will always be grateful I went to a Catholic Highschool... Good times Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Booche Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 (edited) My boy JT recently dumped Cameron Diaz and is now hitting uber-hottie Scarlett Johansson. He traded in for a younger model. Edited January 9, 2007 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badams Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 My boy JT recently dumped Cameron Diaz and is not hitting uber-hottie Scarlett Johansson. He traded in for a younger model. That is one major upgrade Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davey Boy 2.0 Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 My boy JT recently dumped Cameron Diaz and is not hitting uber-hottie Scarlett Johansson. He traded in for a younger model.i think he means "now" and not not cameron diaz is a leathery talentless pondslag Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badams Posted January 9, 2007 Report Share Posted January 9, 2007 cameron diaz is a leathery talentless pondslagPerfect!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now