Post a comment

Paula

Charles,don't question a campaign designed to protect children...it protects children...promotes manhood...and gives men a platform to speak against Sex with Kids as Wrong.

2010-06-28 02:52:09

Karen

Splitting hairs about trivial matters has always been a very good technique at avoiding the issue at hand; well done. While we trivialize language and make grey an issue that is clearly black and white a child is being sexually exploited. Maybe we should put our little pins back on; remind us that we're here to save children not our pride.

2010-05-28 02:46:05

Amanda Flamand

IF your child was or has been missing while a ward of the courts PLEASE sign the petition at: www.ipetitions.com/petition/wardsofcfs I will bring these names and this matter to NATIONAL attention!!! Canada Fights Human Trafficking is also doing a report on how many of our sexually exploited children are in deed wards of "The Department" Meegwetch!

2010-05-19 22:51:54

Marie

Charles is right, anyone who abuses a child is sick. But I don't agree that anyone is punished that harshly for crimes against children. I think many people are getting a 'free pass'. Particularly as it relates to this issue. When people are caught exploiting kids through the sex trade, they don't get treated the way anyone else who sexually abuses children do. Can't we talk about that. Isn't that what this campaign is for?

2010-05-17 13:21:46

Charles

Darcy, debating the definition of a kid is far from pointless, given that when women have sex with kids, they get a free pass, and when men do so, they are excoriated in ways that murderers are not. You, who "like seeing men take a stand against exploitation", and other like-minded on this board, clearly don't want to debate any definition of anything when the status quo is "all men are evil, all women are sacrosanct, so the standard definition of a male abuser and a female victim shouldn't be debated". If no one should be having sex with kids (by any definition, yours or mine or the Canadian legal system's), then why do you only care about men having sex with them? Given that men get punished for it and women do not, shouldn't you at least be calling out all adults? After all, you say that debating the definition of "kid" is pointless, yet are clearly opposed to any debate about the definition of "abuser". Why is that, Darcy?

2010-05-15 03:14:04

Darcy

Debating the definition of a kid is pointless. No one should be having sex with them. Bold campaign. I like seeing men taking a stand against the exploitation.

2010-05-11 14:14:48

Charles

Jeanne, from what I've seen from the site, they define "kids" as anyone 18 or under, whereas the age of consent is 16 in Canada. I believe that is why they word it as they have. If the website defined "kids" as strictly being under the age of consent, I would agree wholeheartedly with your point.

2010-05-03 14:56:12

Jeanne

The idea is great. However, I am greatly distressed by the phrase "sex with kids" because this delivers a distrubing MIXED MESSAGE by naming adult-child pedophilic sexualized abuse and torture "sex with kids" (20% of pedophilic adult-child crime scene 'pornography'captured in Canada involves torture). Adults never have "sex" with kids, never! It is always rape or assault. As a mixed message, saying "stop sex with kids" reinforces what such perpetrators already distort as "sex". As well,. this mixed message of "sex with kids" sexualizes attitudes that can reinforce 'blame-the-child' attitudes, such as "the child initiated it". Sadly, in my opinion, a sexualized mixed message occurs when we say "sex with kids" - although I appreciate this was or is not the intent.

2010-05-03 07:35:24

Charles

Kevin, The facts are that in today's society, we are expected to speak in a gender and racial neutral tone whenever possible. Sure, the majority of offenders were male. Just as the immense majority (>99% until WWII, 97-98% in modern times) of those who died in war service are male, yet feminists fought (successfully, and righteously) for gender-neutral language to be used. What's so different here? I have absolutely no problem acknowledging that the majority of offenders are male. I *do* have a problem that statements like "men who use kids for sex are sick" not only give a free pass to female offenders, but also make it hard for young men who are sexually exploited by women to be acknowledged as victims. It takes more effort to use less accurate sexist language, so why are we doing it? I'd say the fact that you are comparing my request for gender-neutral language with "laying it all back on women" gives a good hint. And this brings me back to my earlier post -- if you want more men to fight the campaign, why not try using language that isn't sexist, misandrist and blame-mongering?

2010-04-30 18:12:29

Kevin

We need to look at the facts here: the majority of offenders are male. For years, anti-violence initiatives have been predominantly run by women, women talking to women about it, women talking to men about it. As men we need to acknowledge and understand our role in all of this, not get our backs up because we are finally being called upon to take a stand, and become part of the solution. In this way it is a gender issue, and as men we need to begin to examine and challenge our individual beliefs and the construction of masculinity and how it plays in our everyday lives. Men's silence on this issue is equivalent to supporting this abhorrent behaviour. Yes, there are women who offend. But if you look at the research about female offenders you will see that it is typically a very different type of offence (equally as harmful and destructive, but a different type of offence than what this specific campaign is about -- the exploitation of children through the sex trade). As a man, I'm willing to own my gender's responsibility in all of this, and start to become involved in making change, just like the dignified men who are part of the advertisement campaign, not make lame excuses trying to get out of being accountable for my gender, and laying it all back on women to fight for the cause on their own. There's nothing sexist about calling out my gender to start taking action too, especially because we can't deny it that when it comes to this particular type of violence, it's overwhelming men offending. The reality is we won't see an end to this type of violence until both women and men start taking action. It's as simple as that.

2010-04-30 14:10:52