This article argues that sexual exploitation is the underlying harm that online luring offences should address, but that social anxieties about youth online sexuality have obscured this underlying harm. Through analyzing North American Internet safety materials and Canadian luring case law, the author finds that on the one hand risks of luring are generalized and on the other limited only to victims under the age of consent. The result is that very often older youth are made responsible for their own victimization, while younger ones are assumed to be victimized and hence denied avenues to sexual expression. By neglecting to analyze online interactions for the dynamics of exploitation, we do a disservice to older youths who are exploited while denying sexual autonomy to youth under the age of consent.
References
1.
BackhouseC. (2008) Carnal Crimes: Sexual assault law in Canada, 1900–1975, Toronto: Osgoode Society.
2.
CassellJ.CramerM. (2008) High Tech or High Risk: Moral panics about girls online, in McPhersonT. (Ed.) Digital Youth, Innovation, and the Unexpected, pp. 53–75. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
3.
CavanaghS. (2007) Sexing the Teacher: School sex scandals and queer pedagogies. Vancouver: UBC Press.
4.
CoccaC. (2004) Jailbait: The politics of statutory rape laws in the United States. New York: State University of New York Press.
5.
EckJ. (2003) Police Problems: The complexity of problem theory, research and evaluation, in KnittssonJ. (Ed.) Problem Oriented Policing: From innovation to mainstream, crime prevention studies, pp. 79–113. New York: Criminal Justice Press.
6.
FeinbergJ. (1984) Harm to Others: The moral limits of the criminal law. New York: Oxford University Press.
7.
FelsonM. (1995) Those Who Discourage Crime, in EckJohnWeisburdDavid (Eds) Crime and Place: Crime prevention studies, vol. 4, pp. 53–66. New York: Criminal Justice Press.
8.
FinkelhorD. (2011) The Internet, Youth Safety and the Problem of ‘Juvenoia’. Crimes Against Children Research Center. http://www.unh.edu/ccrc/
McKennaK.GreenA.GleasonM. (2002) Relationship Formation on the Internet: What's the big attraction?Journal of Social Issues, 58(1), 9–31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1540-4560.00246
14.
OdemM. (1995) Delinquent Daughters: Protecting and policing adolescent female sexuality in the United States, 1885–1920. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
15.
PersakN. (2007) Criminalising Harmful Conduct: The harm principle, its limits and continental counterparts. New York: Springer.
ShadeL. (2007) Contested Spaces: Protecting or inhibiting girls online? In WeberS.DixonS. (Eds) Growing Up Online: Young people and digital technologies, pp. 227–244. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
SutherlandK. (2003) From Jailbird to Jailbait: Age of consent laws and the construction of teenage sexualities, William and Mary Journal of Women and the Law, 9, 313–349.
20.
SuttonA.CherneyA.WhiteR. (2008) Crime Prevention: Principles, perspectives, and practices. Port Melbourne: Cambridge University Press.
WolakJ.FinkelhorD.MitchellK. (2008). Is Talking Online to Unknown People Always Risky? Distinguishing online interaction types in a national sample of youth internet users, Cyber Psychology & Behavior, 11(3), 340–343. http://dx.doi.org/10.1089/cpb.2007.0044
26.
WolakJ.FinkelhorD.MitchellK.YbarraM. (2008) Online ‘Predators’ and their Victims: Myths, realities, and implications for prevention and treatment, American Psychologist, 63(2), 111–128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.63.2.111
27.
ZamariaC.FletcherF. (2008) Canada Online! The Internet, Media and Emerging Technologies: Uses, attitudes, trends and international comparisons. Canadian Internet Project. http://www.canadianinternetproject.ca/en/publications.htm
