Senator urged to resign after 'disgusting' relationship with teenage girl

[Xargoth6634]

What's the age of consent in wherever this happened in Canada? If it's 17, then nothing to see here, move along. If it's 18 and they can prove he fucked her, then that's statutory rape.

EDIT: misread the poll too, my vote should be no, he did nothing wrong.

[Celista]

I've been in one of these types of power imbalance relationships, as the 'young and naive' one. It was highly beneficial for me; indeed, I had more power in the relationship granted to me by my sex appeal, which I was able to use as leverage (although the relationship wan't just about sex). If you want to call this an abuse of power, come up with some evidence. Demonstrate that this man is coercing this woman to have sex with him. Because if he isn't it's not an abuse of power. And grooming? Please. She was 17+. She made the decision to interact with him sexually.

I'm not saying this is the situation here, but you do realize the opposite does happens as well, right?
Confident young people making use of their sexuality to take advantage of desperate older people in order to gain power/stuff.

Or, at times, it truly is a neutral situation as Quetzl laid out, wherein both parties are knowingly benefiting.

People sometimes view these situations that way because sometimes that is literally what the situation is.

It gets exhausting having to explain obvious ethical violations on these forums...

In any case, let's start with the legal perspective. We have agreed, as a society, in most Western nations, that preying upon younger (underage) individuals when in a position of power is illegal. We have also agreed as a society, in most Western nations, that sexually preying upon employees at work while in a position of power is illegal. These laws are fairly consistent in most developed nations. Why do these laws exist, do you ask? Because individuals feel pressured to give in sexually to advances due to adverse consequences if they choose to say no. Like with sexual assault, the question of free will comes into play. The article clearly states that there was evidence of sexual grooming on the part of the senator. You seem to gloss over that. There is nothing stated in the article that the young woman in question came onto the senator at all, that she offered herself sexually in order to obtain some sort of recommendation.

Of course, if you are a Neanderthal who thinks that romantic transactions between men and women across the board simply amounts to some sort of transaction of services for sex (a date, expensive gifts, etc) then I suppose I can see how you would be utterly perplexed as to how the rest of us view normal human interaction.

Do young men and women hit upon older men and women in positions of power? Sure, absolutely. Does that make older people simply helpless in the face of their sexual advances? Hell to the fucking no. The older individual tends to be more than aware of the legal, employment-related and ethical ramifications of their behavior. Young people, making these advances, may or may not. Teenagers are also prone to more risk-taking behavior due to the stage of cognitive development their brains are in, and so while they may *think* that their behavior does not have adverse consequences for either individual, that does not necessarily make it so. The defense that a young person "preyed upon me, I was helpless" is simply nonsense.

[Arewn]

It gets exhausting having to explain obvious ethical violations on these forums...

In any case, let's start with the legal perspective. We have agreed, as a society, in most Western nations, that preying upon younger (underage) individuals when in a position of power is illegal. We have also agreed as a society, in most Western nations, that sexually preying upon employees at work while in a position of power is illegal. These laws are fairly consistent in most developed nations. Why do these laws exist, do you ask? Because individuals feel pressured to give in sexually to advances due to adverse consequences if they choose to say no. Like with sexual assault, the question of free will comes into play. The article clearly states that there was evidence of sexual grooming on the part of the senator. You seem to gloss over that. There is nothing stated in the article that the young woman in question came onto the senator at all, that she offered herself sexually in order to obtain some sort of recommendation.

Of course, if you are a Neanderthal who thinks that romantic transactions between men and women across the board simply amounts to some sort of transaction of services for sex (a date, expensive gifts, etc) then I suppose I can see how you would be utterly perplexed as to how the rest of us view normal human interaction.

Do young men and women hit upon older men and women in positions of power? Sure, absolutely. Does that make older people simply helpless in the face of their sexual advances? Hell to the fucking no. The older individual tends to be more than aware of the legal, employment-related and ethical ramifications of their behavior. Young people, making these advances, may or may not. Teenagers are also prone to more risk-taking behavior due to the stage of cognitive development their brains are in, and so while they may *think* that their behavior does not have adverse consequences for either individual, that does not necessarily make it so. The defense that a young person "preyed upon me, I was helpless" is simply nonsense.

I understand all that perfectly well. You were sweepingly generalizing it as a one-way-only situation, so I brought up the fact that the opposite happens as well.
Thank you for being needlessly demeaning though, it really helps your point.

Your last paragraph still seems to fail to recognize that the power dynamic can be complex, and that neither side is necessarily "helpless" (not just the older side). It's not just a matter of "flirting with people in power", there are literally people who use their sexuality to prey upon and exploit people in power.
We have perfectly sensible laws to protect our youth because they are truly more vulnerable. But reaching adulthood doesn't magically mean you're immune to everything.
You also don't have to be helpless in order to successfully be exploited. You just have to have some weakness/vulnerability that is taken advantage of in a way that isn't immediately noticed.

[Celista]

I understand all that perfectly well. You were sweepingly generalizing it as a one-way-only situation, so I brought up the fact that the opposite happens as well.
Thank you for being needlessly demeaning though, it really helps your point.

Your last paragraph still seems to fail to recognize that the power dynamic can be complex, and that neither side is necessarily "helpless" (not just the older side). It's not just a matter of "flirting with people in power", there are literally people who use their sexuality to prey upon and exploit people in power.
We have perfectly sensible laws to protect our youth because they are truly more vulnerable. But reaching adulthood doesn't magically mean you're immune to everything.
You also don't have to be helpless in order to successfully be exploited. You just have to have some weakness/vulnerability that is taken advantage of in a way that isn't immediately noticed.

The question and mentality behind it was demeaning to an entire group of victims who have been exploited for personal gain, so I guess don't throw stones if you live in a glass house...

Unless you have some evidence of the senator being exploited then this conversation is moot. Based on the information given, he was a fully functioning adult with cognitive capabilities who of his own accord slept with an underage woman, with evidence of grooming behavior by offering her parents and family things like "business opportunities". Your consistent handwaving of this and insistence that this grown man MUST SURELY BE A VICTIM is honestly rather revolting.

Yes, power dynamics can be complex. But there are no power dynamics between an underage teenage girl and a man with significant political clout. She brings nothing to the table and despite what the porn industry might like to tell you, 17-year-old women are not eagerly removing their panties to get a sweet taste of that hot 50-year-old ass.

You don't become magically immune to everything as you get older, but assuming you're a functioning adult over the age of 25 you have reached full cognitive development, and should have enough knowledge regarding the ramifications of sexual grooming/sexual harassment/sleeping with a minor that you avoid doing so.

[medievalman1]

snip

If I'm not mistaken, by Canadian law, she wasn't a "minor"/underaged for the activities in question.

[Celista]

If I'm not mistaken, by Canadian law, she wasn't a "minor"/underaged for the activities in question.

Looking over Canada's age of consent laws briefly, there are special provisions in the law regarding age of consent when an individual significantly older or in a position of power over the individual. Same as in the US.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/o...e/clp/faq.html

[medievalman1]

Looking over Canada's age of consent laws briefly, there are special provisions in the law regarding age of consent when an individual significantly older or in a position of power over the individual. Same as in the US.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/o...e/clp/faq.html

There we go then. Assuming that these provisions do, in fact, legally condemn these actions, then we have a noteworthy issue instead of just some outrage-inducing social mores that's T'ace loves to melodramatically poll about.

[Halicia]

A secret, sexual relationship? Yeah, yeah it is.

Can't have been that secret if his wife doesn't care.

But more to the point, you failed to explain why his recommendation was wrong simply for the fact that she engages in sex.

Or is this some puritanical 50s where women shouldn't be having sex unless married and home with the kids ?

[Yuyn]

But more to the point, you failed to explain why his recommendation was wrong simply for the fact that she engages in sex.

It's blatantly obvious why a secret, intimate relationship is a problem with recommendations. It taints the recommendation, because the people who are on the receiving end don't even have the context of knowing there's an intimate relationship involved. At least if the relationship were public, those receiving the letter would be able to make their own judgement about its validity -- but when it's secret, they can't.

The entire thing is messed up for a lot more reasons than just that, but it's messed up for purely pragmatic reasons when it comes to letters of recommendation.

[apepi]

Looking over Canada's age of consent laws briefly, there are special provisions in the law regarding age of consent when an individual significantly older or in a position of power over the individual. Same as in the US.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/o...e/clp/faq.html

Depends on how he met her and if he used it for his advantage. So yes it should be looked into, but to out right condemn him is wrong.

[Arewn]

The question and mentality behind it was demeaning to an entire group of victims who have been exploited for personal gain, so I guess don't throw stones if you live in a glass house...

Unless you have some evidence of the senator being exploited then this conversation is moot. Based on the information given, he was a fully functioning adult with cognitive capabilities who of his own accord slept with an underage woman, with evidence of grooming behavior by offering her parents and family things like "business opportunities". Your consistent handwaving of this and insistence that this grown man MUST SURELY BE A VICTIM is honestly rather revolting.

Yes, power dynamics can be complex. But there are no power dynamics between an underage teenage girl and a man with significant political clout. She brings nothing to the table and despite what the porn industry might like to tell you, 17-year-old women are not eagerly removing their panties to get a sweet taste of that hot 50-year-old ass.

You don't become magically immune to everything as you get older, but assuming you're a functioning adult over the age of 25 you have reached full cognitive development, and should have enough knowledge regarding the ramifications of sexual grooming/sexual harassment/sleeping with a minor that you avoid doing so.

My opening statement was that my point didn't apply to this case with the senator, and I've already gone over why I brought it up despite not applying it to this case, so I wont bother responding to any of your points related to that (which may be hard, given that they're interwoven into your argument). They're irrelevant to me.
And I wasn't framing legitimate victims as secretly being predators or something. Recognizing reality isn't demeaning to legitimate victims who are separate from that reality. Much as you may wish it, hand-waving "my mentality" as being demeaning or revolting isn't actually an argument. My pointing out your demeaning attitude was a call for civility in the discussion, something I guess you're incapable of, so never mind. You're too busy framing people you disagree with as disgusting defenders of evil.

Despite you so adamantly denying it, there are in fact teenagers (and young adults) who knowingly use their sexuality to gain things from people with power. You don't have to be helpless in order to be taken advantage of. And reaching full cognitive development does not, necessarily, bring with it what you've said. Even if it did, it still doesn't mean they can't be exploited, make stupid decisions, or have moral stances different from those of their society. Not to mention the fact that it can also be a mutually beneficial relationship where neither side is "exploited", as pointed out before.
And guess what! there is a power dynamic between teenagers and adults with significant power. If the teen is desirable and offers sex, and the adult wants sex with them, that's leverage. That's power in the teen's hands. That's something they can put on, and take off, the table. And they're not necessarily (though they could be), helpless. I'm not sure if you know this about other adults, but some of them can be pretty desperate for sex.
Have you ever heard the term piranha women?

Plus, as Quetzl correctly pointed out before, the young individual may in fact hold more power/leverage, by force of law and societal pressure, over the person "with power". Teenagers aren't just helpless and incapable as a rule or something.
Your porn industry analogy is utterly unrelated to what's been discussed, and really just shows your ignorance of the situation (the situation of young people using their sexuality as discussed) if you think it is in any way relevant. It's not that teens are dripping for old men, it's that some people are willing to leverage their body for gains. And teenagers, though young, are sexually capable human beings who are capable of such things as well.
Sorry the world isn't this simple place where those with power are always the tyrants who exploit the weak, while the weak are helpless and incapable of exploitation or malice.

I'll say it again in the hopes that it doesn't get ignored. I'm not saying the senator is the victim. I'm not applying these points to the situation in the OP. I only brought up the idea of "reverse predation" (loosely terming it that way for convenience) because it was tangentially related to the discussion and you seemed ignorant to the reality of it.

[Bigbazz]

In my country this is legal, people should mind their own business. That said, it would be a big fluff news story with similar tone here too, despite being perfectly legal for a 52 year old to have sex with a 17 year old, even if frowned upon.

[Underverse]

It gets exhausting having to explain obvious ethical violations on these forums...

In any case, let's start with the legal perspective. We have agreed, as a society, in most Western nations, that preying upon younger (underage) individuals when in a position of power is illegal. We have also agreed as a society, in most Western nations, that sexually preying upon employees at work while in a position of power is illegal. These laws are fairly consistent in most developed nations. Why do these laws exist, do you ask? Because individuals feel pressured to give in sexually to advances due to adverse consequences if they choose to say no. Like with sexual assault, the question of free will comes into play. The article clearly states that there was evidence of sexual grooming on the part of the senator. You seem to gloss over that. There is nothing stated in the article that the young woman in question came onto the senator at all, that she offered herself sexually in order to obtain some sort of recommendation.

Sure. I don't believe this woman was underage at the time of intercourse. I'm not sure how consent laws are written in Canada, but in Massachusetts the age of consent is 17. That aside, legality and morality are not one and the same. I'm approaching this event from a perspective of morality, in part because I'm not well versed in Canadian law (although I don't think this senator did anything illegal) but also because I think law is generally useless when discussing morality, unless the discussion is specifically focused on methods of enforcing moral behavior, which is what law is, and what this thread isn't.

But let's talk a little about law here. We can have laws against rejection retribution, and they would be as effective for what you describe as laws entirely outlawing sexual interactions between power-distributed workplace peers. Not only would they be as effective, but they would also be more precise because they are targeting the actual immoral behavior, and not the sex part, which is certainly not immoral. I think that's something worth considering. Avenues for rejecting workplace sexual interactions would still be open, but the possibilities would be open too.

To backpedal a bit though, I don't even think it's illegal for people with differences in power within a workplace to sleep with each other. There are other laws in place that do much of what I described - particularly sexual harassment laws.

As a final note here, it doesn't matter whether the woman approached the man or the man approached the woman. I've been approached by many men who had much more power than I did. My accepting of some of their advances is not equivalent to coercion or victimization.

Of course, if you are a Neanderthal who thinks that romantic transactions between men and women across the board simply amounts to some sort of transaction of services for sex (a date, expensive gifts, etc) then I suppose I can see how you would be utterly perplexed as to how the rest of us view normal human interaction.

Ultimately, that's what relationships are. It's just more obvious in some circumstances than in others. Whether or not it's a cogent, intentional exchange is irrelevant.

Do young men and women hit upon older men and women in positions of power? Sure, absolutely. Does that make older people simply helpless in the face of their sexual advances? Hell to the fucking no. The older individual tends to be more than aware of the legal, employment-related and ethical ramifications of their behavior. Young people, making these advances, may or may not. Teenagers are also prone to more risk-taking behavior due to the stage of cognitive development their brains are in, and so while they may *think* that their behavior does not have adverse consequences for either individual, that does not necessarily make it so. The defense that a young person "preyed upon me, I was helpless" is simply nonsense.

I never said older people were helpless. This was never part of my argument. But understand that someone can take advantage of another person even if they're not helpless. The current state of law as well as cultural opinions gives younger people more power in these kinds of relationships than older people have at baseline. Right now, there are careers that I could ruin at a whim. That is power. It's too much power, in my opinion, but that's a discussion for another time.

Secondly, that teenagers are more prone to risky behaviors is an argument in favor of relationships between older and younger individuals, as the older individual will have the experience needed to avert serious consequences in the majority of cases. I think you're introducing significant bias here, and you seem to be suggesting that older people are all pieces of shit who don't care at all about their younger partners. Two teenagers fucking around is much more risky than a teenager and an adult. That's just math.

- - - Updated - - -

Yes, power dynamics can be complex. But there are no power dynamics between an underage teenage girl and a man with significant political clout. She brings nothing to the table and despite what the porn industry might like to tell you, 17-year-old women are not eagerly removing their panties to get a sweet taste of that hot 50-year-old ass.

Really? The existence of this article annihilates your argument here. No power dynamics? Please. Sexual attraction is a means of exerting power. That is the primary mechanism by which women equalize with men, who are generally stronger, faster, and more athletic than women.

[Tijuana]

Is this a Canadian thing? The word "senator" is throwing me.

Yeah, it looks like they stole all our terminology. He is even in the Congressional Black Caucus, or was. Stop trying so hard to be like us, Canadia.

[Underverse]

It's blatantly obvious why a secret, intimate relationship is a problem with recommendations. It taints the recommendation, because the people who are on the receiving end don't even have the context of knowing there's an intimate relationship involved. At least if the relationship were public, those receiving the letter would be able to make their own judgement about its validity -- but when it's secret, they can't.

The entire thing is messed up for a lot more reasons than just that, but it's messed up for purely pragmatic reasons when it comes to letters of recommendation.

Fortunately a 'social market' mechanism is already in place to check these kinds of unfair assertions. Those writing recommendations are partly responsible for the behaviors of those they recommend for the same reasons that their recommendations hold weight in the first place - recommenders are basically staking part of their career on promoting the individual in question. Recommending people on the basis of sexual interactions instead of talent is a sure way to degrade your career. If a recommended individual is not able to do their job correctly, that will very quickly become apparent and future recommendations will be viewed with suspicion.

That being said, I think some legislation that requires recommendations to be written according to the talents of the recomendee might be warranted, if it doesn't already exist. If it doesn't already exist, though, I would say that that is ample evidence for my above argument - a system with heavy checks in place to prevent errant recommendations.

[Alvito]

Oh, Canada. Took too long for that to be made clear in the article.

The second line in references Canada and it becomes much more clear as the story unfolds. Little hints like talking about the Prime Minister.

[Celista]

Depends on how he met her and if he used it for his advantage. So yes it should be looked into, but to out right condemn him is wrong.

There is no question that his conduct was illegal and how he met her and whether he used it for his advantage is not relevant.

- - - Updated - - -

Despite you so adamantly denying it, there are in fact teenagers (and young adults) who knowingly use their sexuality to gain things from people with power. You don't have to be helpless in order to be taken advantage of. And reaching full cognitive development does not, necessarily, bring with it what you've said. Even if it did, it still doesn't mean they can't be exploited, make stupid decisions, or have moral stances different from those of their society. Not to mention the fact that it can also be a mutually beneficial relationship where neither side is "exploited", as pointed out before.

I'm sorry but most teenagers do not leverage their body for financial/professional gain. It seems clear even by the scant description given in the article that the girl in question is a victim of grooming.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure. I don't believe this woman was underage at the time of intercourse. I'm not sure how consent laws are written in Canada, but in Massachusetts the age of consent is 17. That aside, legality and morality are not one and the same. I'm approaching this event from a perspective of morality, in part because I'm not well versed in Canadian law (although I don't think this senator did anything illegal) but also because I think law is generally useless when discussing morality, unless the discussion is specifically focused on methods of enforcing moral behavior, which is what law is, and what this thread isn't.

But let's talk a little about law here. We can have laws against rejection retribution, and they would be as effective for what you describe as laws entirely outlawing sexual interactions between power-distributed workplace peers. Not only would they be as effective, but they would also be more precise because they are targeting the actual immoral behavior, and not the sex part, which is certainly not immoral. I think that's something worth considering. Avenues for rejecting workplace sexual interactions would still be open, but the possibilities would be open too.

To backpedal a bit though, I don't even think it's illegal for people with differences in power within a workplace to sleep with each other. There are other laws in place that do much of what I described - particularly sexual harassment laws.

As a final note here, it doesn't matter whether the woman approached the man or the man approached the woman. I've been approached by many men who had much more power than I did. My accepting of some of their advances is not equivalent to coercion or victimization.



Ultimately, that's what relationships are. It's just more obvious in some circumstances than in others. Whether or not it's a cogent, intentional exchange is irrelevant.



I never said older people were helpless. This was never part of my argument. But understand that someone can take advantage of another person even if they're not helpless. The current state of law as well as cultural opinions gives younger people more power in these kinds of relationships than older people have at baseline. Right now, there are careers that I could ruin at a whim. That is power. It's too much power, in my opinion, but that's a discussion for another time.

Secondly, that teenagers are more prone to risky behaviors is an argument in favor of relationships between older and younger individuals, as the older individual will have the experience needed to avert serious consequences in the majority of cases. I think you're introducing significant bias here, and you seem to be suggesting that older people are all pieces of shit who don't care at all about their younger partners. Two teenagers fucking around is much more risky than a teenager and an adult. That's just math.

- - - Updated - - -



Really? The existence of this article annihilates your argument here. No power dynamics? Please. Sexual attraction is a means of exerting power. That is the primary mechanism by which women equalize with men, who are generally stronger, faster, and more athletic than women.

The age of consent in MA is actually 16. But it is actually 18-21 depending on if the partner in question is older/a person holding a power position over the individual, also--this is great because MA has slightly unusual laws regarding consent--inducing a virgin to lose their virginity raises the age of consent. Feel free to look it up.

Ultimately, that's what relationships are. It's just more obvious in some circumstances than in others. Whether or not it's a cogent, intentional exchange is irrelevant.

I already knew you felt this way based on your posts, but most healthy interpersonal relationships between individuals are not an exchange of services. People who use their body to get what they want tend to be victims of sexual trauma from an early age, with a warped view on boundaries.

[Adolecent]

Questions;

1: Is "the teenager" of Age of Consent?
2: Is it proven? praesumptio innocentiae

Is there someone who can awnser these questions?

[Celista]

Is there someone who can awnser these questions?

You could read through the last two pages for the answer.

[Adolecent]

You could read through the last two pages for the answer.

Isn't there a TLDR version?