Age of consent for sex

Syth

Hi there, Does anyone know the age of consent for sex?

The reason I'm asking is that I've seen several different ages, from 16, 17 and 18. Also due to that phone picture message I've seen articals in newspapers about restricting the material under 18s can access on their picture phones. I always thought the age was 16, so I was suprised that people wanted to not let 16 and 17 yr olds watch sex even if they can do it.

So does anyone know the real age?

Typedef

www.ageofconsent.com


So no, that means you can't marry your 14 year old cousin.

ixoy

17 - has been for years (both gay and straight). Don't get confused with what you hear on British TV - it's 16 for them. You can have oral sex at 15 though if it's hetrosexual....

Syth

OK thanks. So now why are porno films 18s and why do some newspaper articles want to stop under 18s (ie stopping 17 year olds (who are legal, if all that is true), from seeing pornographic pictures)? If you can do it at 17 why can't you see it till your 18?

Victor

Originally posted by Syth
why do some newspaper articles want to stop under 18s (ie stopping 17 year olds (who are legal, if all that is true),

(a) they are being sensational, so as to sell more papers (b) as a society we have awarped sense of what people should be able to do at what age.

passive

does anyone actually get in trouble with the law for this ever? (ie: 15 or 16 year olds)
because i've never been informed of the correct age through parents or school, i had to look it up on the internet when someone tried to tell me i was "legal" when i turned 16.

the whole thing seems pretty stupid. if people below the age do it anyway and no move is made to stop them then why bother maintaining the age at that point (especially if you don't bother publicising it)

hallelujajordan

the whole thing seems pretty stupid. if people below the age do it anyway and no move is made to stop them then why bother maintaining the age at that point (especially if you don't bother publicising it)

. . I think the point is to protect those who are under-age from being taken advantage of by those that are over-age. . . . I've never heard of under-age couples being prosecuted but I certainly have heard of people over 17 being prosecuted for statutory rape for having sex with someone under 17 (consensual or not) !

Smurphy

(b) as a society we have awarped sense of what people should be able to do at what age.

So so true.
In the late 70's in Ireland, it was legal for you to get married at 17 but illegal for you to buy a condom until you were 18....
It's all about the massive influence religion has on the law in this country.

Akrasia

if a 16 year old guy has sex with a 16 year old girl thin in Ireland it is Statuatory rape and the guy is liable to be severely punished should the judicial will prevail (say for example he shagged the judges daughter)

PHB

However there has never been a case where an underage guy has been convicted of statutory rape, according to my law friends

Woden

however they will lay the smackdown though if the guy is over age even if the girl consents

Johnmb

Originally posted by Akrasia
if a 16 year old guy has sex with a 16 year old girl thin in Ireland it is Statuatory rape and the guy is liable to be severely punished should the judicial will prevail (say for example he shagged the judges daughter)

Actually, if they were to press charges, both would have to be charged. The idea of a man being raped by a woman is recognised in law, thus the girl would be just as liable to be charged with statuatory rape as the guy.

I must admit though that I thought the age of consent was 16. Was that not the point Virgin made all those years ago, you can have sex at 16, but cannot get family planning products (i.e. condoms) until you were 18, and the government of the day at one point suggested compromising and allowing condoms to be bought from the age of 17. It has been a long time, but I do remember something stupid like that happening back then.

Matt Simis

I know this is a bit OT, but that site www.ageofconsent.com, lists homosexual sex as "illegal" in quite a few states in the US. Is that true... could you actually be convicted of a crime for practising gay sex?



Matt

hallelujajordan

As far as I know it is also illegal in Ireland . . . .

Matt Simis

Originally posted by hallelujajordan
As far as I know it is also illegal in Ireland . . . .

Well, instead of guessing, check the site!? Its not illegal in Ireland: http://www.ageofconsent.com/ireland.htm



Matt

ixoy

Originally posted by Matt Simis
I know this is a bit OT, but that site www.ageofconsent.com, lists homosexual sex as "illegal" in quite a few states in the US. Is that true... could you actually be convicted of a crime for practising gay sex?

Yup. Texas is one, I think, where acts such as sodomy are prohibted. Dirty homosexuals - BURN THEM ALL IN RIGHTEOUS CHRISTIAN GLORY!

Ireland - illegal? Check out the site. Mary Robinson decrminialised it in 1993 but even before that nobody had been prosecuted for it for a decade or so beforehand.

ishmael whale

Originally posted by Johnmb
I must admit though that I thought the age of consent was 16. Was that not the point Virgin made all those years ago, you can have sex at 16, but cannot get family planning products (i.e. condoms) until you were 18, and the government of the day at one point suggested compromising and allowing condoms to be bought from the age of 17. It has been a long time, but I do remember something stupid like that happening back then.

For what its worth, in 1979 an Act was passed which limited sale of contraceptives to married couples on prescription for ‘bone fide family planning purposes’ i.e. not to shag your sister-in-law. Only certain outlets – basically pharmacies and family planning clinics – could sell them. This replaced a previous Act, dating I think to the 1930s, which had been declared unconstitutional as it prevented sale of contraceptives to anyone, which the Courts deemed as intruding on marital privacy. No age limit was specified, and in those days you could be married at, I think, 16 with parental consent.

In 1985 there was a simple change – 18 year olds were allowed to buy condoms and spermicides from permitted outlets without a perscription. This created a slight inconsistency, as married people under 18 were still required to have a prescription. The Virgin Megastore protest was about widening the outlets that could sell condoms. At this stage I don’t think there’s any restriction on contraceptives left, other than the normal licencing regime for any health related product.

As to the age of consent, I quick search of the debates of our esteemed national parliament reveals this answer given by the Minister for Education on 24 April 2002
“I can now confirm, on the advice of the Attorney General, that for heterosexual sexual intercourse, 17 years is the age of consent for girls and 15 years for boys. For homosexual sexual intercourse, it is 17 years for boys and girls.”

LFCFan

Condoms should be free from Family Planning Clinics and a lot cheaper in pharmacies and sold to whoever wants them. I'd rather have kids who are having sex having safe sex instead of more and more young girls getting pregnant. Of course it's all because of the influence of the Church who still tell Africans that Condoms help the spread of aids just because they want to overpopulate the world with more and more Catholics. Muppets!

ishmael whale

http://www.treoir.ie/help/TeenStats'01.pdf

We actually don’t seem to be having ‘more and more young girls getting pregnant’, and I think at this stage anyone can buy condoms (or, at least, when sold through vending machines it impossible to police any age restriction). We seem to have had something of the order of 3,000 births to teenagers each year since 1984. The only change is that twenty years ago over 1,000 of those births would be marital births, whereas now only 200 would be.

Maybe you mean ‘more and more young girls getting pregnant outside marriage.’ Fine, over this same period contraception has become progressively more available in parallel with the increase in non-marital teenage births. So the only conclusion to be drawn from our experience is that the best way of discouraging young non-marital pregnancy is to promote a climate of fear and ignorance coupled with denial of any artificial means of avoiding conception.

On balance, its probably best for the state to stay out of question of private morality altogether and neither deny nor promote contraception.

flogen

that age of consent site is amazing, it shows alot of inconsistencies in sex laws:
for example:

in alot of Australia, hetrosexual sex, and female gay sex is 16, while male gay sex is often older (as much as 21!!!)

The youngest seems to be 12, which pops up in afew countries, however I would have expected a modern state like Australia to be more liberal when it came to gay sex, and you can just tell some horny bugger made up the law..... 'yeah, lesbians are cool, but men kissin and cuddling..... thats just sick!!'

one thing about our laws, as regards to rape and incest, the law (on this site) seems to say that if a MAN commits rape/incest etc, he can be punished by law, would it be possible for a female to commit rape/incest and get off scot free as there is nothing in the law to stop her? I know rape by females is almost non-existant as compared to rape commited by men, but its still possible

Flogen

Victor

Originally posted by Matt Simis
I know this is a bit OT, but that site www.ageofconsent.com, lists homosexual sex as "illegal" in quite a few states in the US. Is that true... could you actually be convicted of a crime for practising gay sex?

It may be illegal, but the "problem" is the police are unlikely to catch anyone, unless they are being blatant.

Originally posted by flogen
The youngest seems to be 12, which pops up in afew countries, however I would have expected a modern state like Australia to be more liberal when it came to gay sex, and you can just tell some horny bugger made up the law..... 'yeah, lesbians are cool, but men kissin and cuddling..... thats just sick!!'

It all goes back to Queen Victoria not believing that Lesbians existed and refusing to sign that aprt of the law.

ishmael whale

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/06/26/scotus.sodomy/

The site may be a little out of date. Last November the Supreme Court struck down a Texas state law banning private consensual sex between adults of the same sex, which probably means other states' law are invalid.

ixoy

Originally posted by LFCFan
Condoms should be free from Family Planning Clinics and a lot cheaper in pharmacies and sold to whoever wants them. I'd rather have kids who are having sex having safe sex instead of more and more young girls getting pregnant. Of course it's all because of the influence of the Church who still tell Africans that Condoms help the spread of aids just because they want to overpopulate the world with more and more Catholics. Muppets!

If you want a bunch, just pop into gay health centres or niteclubs....

vibe666

another interesting fact is that in the uk if a man has a sex change to become a woman and someone rapes them that person cannot be convicted of rape (assuming it's vaginal of course) because the person in question is still technically a man and so by definition has no business having a vagina (according to the law anyway).

it also seems a bit unusual to have the age of consent different for boys than girls. a bit sexist really, although given the recent spate of underage girls getting themselves into trouble with older guys its probably not such a bad idea.

ishmael whale

In truth, does anyone care if a fourteen year old boy does the business with a forty year old woman?

Victor

Originally posted by ishmael whale
In truth, does anyone care if a fourteen year old boy does the business with a forty year old woman?

Yes, it does matter, it's an abuse of maturity.

And what happens when the 14 year old becomes a father?

Turner

Originally posted by flogen
would it be possible for a female to commit rape/incest and get off scot free as there is nothing in the law to stop her? Flogen

A woman in Ireland can definitely be charged with rape, (oral rape).

As for anal rape Im not sure if there is anything in the Section 4 rape amendment act about her manipulating an object into a males anus. No doubt somebody will link us.

Chief.

Victor

Originally posted by flogen
would it be possible for a female to commit rape/incest and get off scot free as there is nothing in the law to stop her?

But there are things in the law to stop women committing various sexual offences. Incest (even "consensual" incest) is illegal and any charge would be separate to a rape charge. Certainly women have been charged with aiding rape, but I suspect they can also be charged with rape (and other charges) themselves.

Éomer of Rohan

Incest is illegal in the UK too but at last count there are about 70 incestuous couples living across Britain and they are no longer prosecuted - just no one has changed the law.

Similarly, an age of consent which is 17 in the North and 16 in England is ridiculous since statutory rape is such a serious charge and if people were genuinely concerned about the youth getting into such situations, then society would not attempt to be so disengaged from youth culture.

By the by though, it is interesting I think, to note that in Idaho, Alabama, Florida, Kansas among plenty other states, that homosexuality, both gay and lesbian is completely outlawed.

LFCFan

Originally posted by ishmael whale
We actually don’t seem to be having ‘more and more young girls getting pregnant’

There was a thing on the radio this morning saying that 50 teenage girls were giving birth everyday in Ireland. I think that's a serious issue that needs to be tackled. A lot of this is down to drink but at the back of it all, lack of Sex Education is the greatest factor. The Irish are renowned for their uselessness when it comes to educating their children in matters of Sex. It's all down to the Catholic church and the attitude that has come down from generation to generation.

flogen

yeah, thats true, recent surveys showed that kids believed myths about avoiding pregnancy, such as 'if its your first time, you cant get pregnent' or 'if you do it standing up/in water you cant get pregnant'

Schools and parents shy away from sex ed as much as possible, and the stigma the church created around sex in the past has been reflected on this generation of children.
Its not easy for parents to talk about something such as sex with their kids, nor is it easy for the kids to sit and listen (as Im sure many may remember), but there is an unthinable risk present if you allow your timid nature to stop you from educating your children about something that could damage or destroy their lives or childhoods in many ways.

Flogen

uberwolf

Originally posted by vibe666
because the person in question is still technically a man and so by definition has no business having a vagina (according to the law anyway).

possibly completely wrong but had there not been something about the NHS paying for sex change operations under (fairly) strict proviso's and requirements. If I am remembering correctly then that would be an apparent contradiction with the above

monument

Originally posted by ishmael whale
http://www.treoir.ie/help/TeenStats'01.pdf

We actually don’t seem to be having ‘more and more young girls getting pregnant’, and I think at this stage anyone can buy condoms (or, at least, when sold through vending machines it impossible to police any age restriction). We seem to have had something of the order of 3,000 births to teenagers each year since 1984. The only change is that twenty years ago over 1,000 of those births would be marital births, whereas now only 200 would be.

Maybe you mean ‘more and more young girls getting pregnant outside marriage.’ Fine, over this same period contraception has become progressively more available in parallel with the increase in non-marital teenage births. So the only conclusion to be drawn from our experience is that the best way of discouraging young non-marital pregnancy is to promote a climate of fear and ignorance coupled with denial of any artificial means of avoiding conception.

On balance, its probably best for the state to stay out of question of private morality altogether and neither deny nor promote contraception.

Just because the amount of ‘young girls getting pregnant’ is not correctly recorded, does not mean the number is not rising – this is presuming that abortions carried out on ‘young girls’ in other countries is not included in the stats – correct me if this is not the case.

Originally posted by ishmael whale
On balance, its probably best for the state to stay out of question of private morality altogether and neither deny nor promote contraception.

That’s probably the most shocking thing I’ll read this year.

flogen

yeah, i think that comment about governments advocating contraceptives is far too general.

The government are not expected to say 'everyone MUST use contraceptives, or else', however, they should say that to avoid unwanted pregnancy and/or STDs it is vital that you use condoms etc. The fact is that casual sex with numerous people can be a health risk, and it is the governments duty to advise its peoples on protecting themselves from said risk. They have no need to get into the Catholic debate about condoms etc, as they are not answerable to the Church anymore, and it is (rightfully) more important to regard public health and well being above religious belief. If a religious belief is dangerous or possibly unhelpful to the people then no government should enforce it.

Flogen

ishmael whale

If, as LFCfan says, there was a thing on the radio saying that there are 50 births to teenagers every day here (by 365 days would be about 18,000 a year) the radio is just plain wrong. I've given a source my figure of 3,000. If someone wants to argue with this produce some verification. The CSO would publish stats on age of mother at birth - they may not be on the internet, but why the f**k should I be the only one trying to introduce some facts to the discussion.

I haven't seen stats on Irish women travelling for abortions for a while, but my picture was the figure was fairly static in recent years. Remember also, as I have already said above, we have gone from having contraception available only to married couples to reasonable availability to anyone who wants them. My understanding is that early pregancy, using the imperfect indicator of births, has been pretty much unaffected by this. But if Monument is telling us that greater availability of contraception has coincided with a plague of unwanted pregnancy he might do us a favour and produce some evidence.

I remember seeing some stats on the relative reliability of various forms of family planning. (Vasectomy is the best by a wide margin- but also, of course, irreversable.) Condoms are about as reliable as the Billings method. Yes, I was shocked too. Sort of puts it in perspective, doesn't it. An amount, but not all, of the problem seems to relate to people not connecting the words 'do not use with oil based lubricant' and 'Vaseline petroleum jelly'. Our faith in those little bits of rubber is as dodgy as the sale of indulgences and our speed to say that Government should be promoting them is as much an act of faith as a trip to Lourdes.

I remember reading a WHO study comparing the development of Irish family planning services with Turkey. In Turkey the Government decided that people needed to be told to stop having all those babies. Result, lots of effort and no return as people didn't exactly welcome the state telling them how to live their lives. In Ireland the state regarded it as too hot a potato to promote. Result, people made up their own minds once the methods became available and family sizes fell rapidly.

What was wrong with Ireland in the past was trying to force a limited Catholic Gaelic ethos on us all. To force an alternative ethos would be an equal mistake. I find suggestions that the state should depart from neutrality on matters of private morality not so much frightening as depressing to think we went through all that and learnt so little.

LFCFan

the state don't have to be involved to change things. It starts at home and in the schools. There isn't enough sex education so kids are left to experiment without realising the consequences. Sex is the most natural thing in the world FFS. None of us would be here without it and the human race wouldn't exist but some people (and the church) would have us believe that we're all going to hell for having it if it's not to reproduce. It's attitudes like this that are fcuked up and need to change.

Da_cOmRaDe_MiKe

as mentioned above condoms are only available legally to 18+... and your legally allowed to have sex from 17+? does this mean that in some subliminal ways the government are trying to promote 17 - 18 year old girls to get pregnant?


____________________________

thats my two cents.

LFCFan

Originally posted by Da_cOmRaDe_MiKe
as mentioned above condoms are only available legally to 18+... and your legally allowed to have sex from 17+? does this mean that in some subliminal ways the government are trying to promote 17 - 18 year old girls to get pregnant?

It's just another example of our rediculous laws.

flogen

there really shouldnt be an age on buying condoms, i think that if two U 17 year olds decide to break the law and have sex, they should be able to at least do so without health risks involved, however, has anyone here ever been refused condoms at any time? or even asked for ID? I think that most places wouldnt stop a kid buying them, even though the law says they should

Flogen

passive

however, has anyone here ever been refused condoms at any time? or even asked for ID?

this is the que for every sexually active teen present to stand up and say "yeah, i never got asked for id!, then i bleedin rode her out of it! it was deadly" to impress us all.

(turning 17 last week gives me the right to look down on underage people)

but no, i don't imagine shops/pharmacies would refuse to sell condoms to anyone. its not something i've ever heard anyone complaining about anyway (and, if it was a common occurance, we definately WOULD hear people complaining)

Victor

Originally posted by LFCFan
There was a thing on the radio this morning saying that 50 teenage girls were giving birth everyday in Ireland.

I think it was 50 per week (2,500 per year), but yes too many.

ishmael whale

If 50 a week is 'too many', how many would you regard as acceptable?

ixoy

Well cleary none is the best way to go, isn't it? A teenage girl does not have the means to properly look after a child, from any perspective, be it financial, physical, or emotional. Generally, she'd also lack a stable support role, such as a father.

What figure is acceptable? Not sure. 2,500 per annum - what's the percentage of teenage girls giving birth each year then? Seems it should be no more than .1% ideally.

ishmael whale

While we might dream of some possibility of zero births, I take it we all accept that teenagers are a fairly inquisitive bunch so that this will never be achieved.

According to the IFPA there are about 940 abortions involving Irish women under 20. As we know, there are about 2500 - 3000 births to teenage mothers every year. Make a generous allowance for miscarriages and to cover under-reporting of abortions and call it 5,000 pregnancies a year. According to www.cso.ie there are about 153,000 15 – 19 women in Ireland. This is a rate of 33 pregnancies per thousand 15 – 19 year olds per year.

This compares to a Scottish rate, excluding miscarriages, of 63.2 pregnancies per thousand 16 -19 year olds. In American the figure is 86 pregnancies per thousand 15 – 19 year olds, including miscarriages.

This suggests that, by international standards, we don’t really have a problem.

American stats are at:
http://www.agi-usa.org/pubs/teen_stats.html

Scottish stats are at:
http://www.isdscotland.org/isd/files/mat_tp_table1b.xls

Irish abortion stats are at:
http://www.ifpa.ie/abortion/iabst.html

Havelock

Getting back to the legal age question and the inherint messing up there of by the beauarcy. Apparently the State won't go to trial unless the underage him/her self makes the complaint and presses charges. Ego, if you are an older person and you have sex with some one under 17 and its consentual, not even the parents can have you prosicuited as they state has to rely on the "victim" to testify as to who they had sex with.

Now that I think about that, its not as funny as I thought...

ixoy

Originally posted by ishmael whale
While we might dream of some possibility of zero births, I take it we all accept that teenagers are a fairly inquisitive bunch so that this will never be achieved.

According to the IFPA there are about 940 abortions involving Irish women under 20. As we know, there are about 2500 - 3000 births to teenage mothers every year. Make a generous allowance for miscarriages and to cover under-reporting of abortions and call it 5,000 pregnancies a year. According to www.cso.ie there are about 153,000 15 – 19 women in Ireland. This is a rate of 33 pregnancies per thousand 15 – 19 year olds per year.

This compares to a Scottish rate, excluding miscarriages, of 63.2 pregnancies per thousand 16 -19 year olds. In American the figure is 86 pregnancies per thousand 15 – 19 year olds, including miscarriages.

This suggests that, by international standards, we don’t really have a problem.

Interesting statistics, although I'm sure I read somewhere we had a high rate of teenage births. If I recall correctly, England has the highest in Europe.

Given that the rate is high, can we wonder why teenagers aren't using protection more? Is it ignorance, difficulty in obtaining them, or sheer "never happen to me!" bravo attitude? Some part of me says the latter, particularly them gotting caught up in the heat of the moment. Shame and all, the possible terrible shock afterwards, the ethics of which are being debated elsewhere currently.

vibe666

Originally posted by uberwolf
possibly completely wrong but had there not been something about the NHS paying for sex change operations under (fairly) strict proviso's and requirements. If I am remembering correctly then that would be an apparent contradiction with the above

quite possibly, but i was pointing out the gaps inthe law regarding sexuakl orientation.