Age of Consent?

NothingMan

Stupid sexy kids.

enda1

Age of consent should obviously include the close in age exceptions.

Are we now gonna start chucking 5 year olds in gaol for playing doctor?
Seeing as the youngest option is 14 (with closer...) then I'll vote for that.

Pherekydes

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

I don't think you can compare honour killings in Turkey to any other EU country, the scale is totally different. I only bring this up because I believe this kind of ultra conservative ideology is related to their age of consent being 18.

I mentioned the fact that honour killings happen in other countries to show that it's not linked to the age of consent. In my opinion, it's linked to the fact that they are, in the main, Muslim, and it's related to their religion rather the age of consent. Indeed, one of the victims you linked to was married at 16 to her cousin in Turkey.

starbelgrade

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Several replies in and is no-one else shocked at just how young the age of consent is in Spain? That's horrific really.

Not really. Many kids are sexually active at that age.. I see no reason in criminalising them for that.

ilovesleep

starbelgrade wrote: »

Not really. Many kids are sexually active at that age.. I see no reason in criminalising them for that.

13 in spain and kids are sexually actively. My god they are very brave. I was terrified of a penis at 21.

Novella

Lowering the age of consent to 16? I don't have a problem with it. So many 16 year olds are sexually active regardless, so why not?

prinz

Novella wrote: »

So many 16 year olds are sexually active regardless, so why not?

It may be right to lower it or it may not be, either way the reasoning above is most definitley the wrong basis on which to do it.

FreudianSlippers

I love 16 year old bitches, so it's win win for me.

Novella

prinz wrote: »

It may be right to lower it or it may not be, either way the reasoning above is most definitley the wrong basis on which to do it.

I don't think the age of consent really means anything to teenagers. If they're gonna have sex, they're gonna do it. I don't think lowering it one year is gonna make a huge difference to anything anyway.

prinz

Novella wrote: »

I don't think the age of consent really means anything to teenagers. If they're gonna have sex, they're gonna do it. I don't think lowering it one year is gonna make a huge difference to anything anyway.

Some of them. Some of them are also going to drink, drive, smoke, etc. Changing laws based on the actions of some or even most people is not always for the best, my point being.

Dublin_Gunner

Are there any stats on how many teenagers have been convicted of stat. rape?

I did a quick search but can't find anything.

Would changing the law really change anything? Probably not. 2 young teenagers that wish to have sex, are going to no matter what the law states the age of consent is.

If laws can't stop them drinking, or doing drugs, I seriously doubt it will make much of a difference to stopping them having sex.

However, where I would like to see the law change is in the area of an older person having sex with a young teenager.

i.e I don't see 2 15 year olds having sex in the same way as say a 25 year old and 15 year old having sex.

So in that view, I would like to see the young age exceptions being invoked.

For example I would have no problem with the law stating 14-17 year olds can have sex (or a 15 yo with 18 etc etc) but stat rape could still be invoked where the age difference is large enough to deem it to be paedophilia.

Obviously that's just a rough example of how I'd like to see it operate. But I'm not sure of the legality of it. (i.e how can one not prosecute a 15 year old for doing the same thing a 20 year old would be convicted of).

Needs a lot mroe thinking to get it right. Well, the law will never be 'correct' in everyone's eyes. I suppose its a step in the right direction of modernising some laws.

Novella

prinz wrote: »

Some of them. Some of them are also going to drink, drive, smoke, etc. Changing laws based on the actions of some or even most people is not always for the best, my point being.

I don't think they're completely comparable. Drinking/smoking/drugs etc., are not in the same category as having sex. Driving? Lower that to 16 from 17 too, if it makes you feel better. Again, not something I think is a huge deal. I think lowering the age of consent based on what most people are doing is a good idea. I wouldn't say the same for the alcohol law, because imo they're not the same, but hey, different strokes for different folks.

Why do you think the age of consent being 16 would be a bad thing?

prinz

Novella wrote: »

I don't think they're completely comparable. Drinking/smoking/drugs etc., are not in the same category as having sex.

What categories would those be? I don't see why the age of consent should be legislated for any different to many other things tbh, what's best for society, not what many people do.

Novella wrote: »

Why do you think the age of consent being 16 would be a bad thing?

In one ear out the other. I never said it would be a bad thing.

itsallaboutheL

Novella wrote: »

I don't think they're completely comparable. Drinking/smoking/drugs etc., are not in the same category as having sex. Driving? Lower that to 16 from 17 too, if it makes you feel better. Again, not something I think is a huge deal. I think lowering the age of consent based on what most people are doing is a good idea. I wouldn't say the same for the alcohol law, because imo they're not the same, but hey, different strokes for different folks.

Why do you think the age of consent being 16 would be a bad thing?

Hey, i have no problem with a 16 year old sticking his mickey in whatever he wants, but there's noway i'm letting him near a car.

16 year olds are idiots.

Cheap Thrills!

17 is too old. It needs to be put back to 16.

Not that it will make a blind bit of difference. Teenagers will still do it whenever they want but 16 is slightly more realistic than 17.

FreudianSlippers

itsallaboutheL wrote: »

16 year olds are idiots.

Sexy, sexy idiots.

Novella

prinz wrote: »

What categories would those be? I don't see why the age of consent should be legaslated for any different to many other things tbh, what's best for society, not what many people do.

Well, alcohol and drugs are damaging and dangerous substances and therefore, in my opinion, not suitable for young teenagers. However, as far as I'm concerned, sex is just sex. It's not bad for you.

I think it would be better for society if so many teenagers weren't committing crimes, simply by having sex. It's just kind of silly. Plus the whole seventeen year old guy having sex with sixteen year old girl, both consenting, yet the guy can be charged with statutory rape... I think that's ridiculous.

In one ear out the other. I never said it would be a bad thing.

I just don't really get why you're arguing with me, that's all. I know what you're saying and it makes sense. I just replied fleetingly to this thread. I didn't really mean it in the, "Ah fuck it, might as well change all of our laws to suit whatever rules are being broken" way.

twinQuins

Yes, yes, prinz, people will always murder regardless of the laws so why don't we just make murder legal - we've all heard that tired line of argumenting before.

The point is, teenagers screwing each other is (in the vast majority of cases) not going to harm anyone. I have always been a firm believer that once an action doesn't harm anyone (and if it harms the actor and they accept that harm may come) it should be legal.
You say laws should be made based on what's best for society - well, how does keeping the age of consent at 18 serve society better than lowering it to 16?

Sesshoumaru

Pherekydes wrote: »

I mentioned the fact that honour killings happen in other countries to show that it's not linked to the age of consent. In my opinion, it's linked to the fact that they are, in the main, Muslim, and it's related to their religion rather the age of consent. Indeed, one of the victims you linked to was married at 16 to her cousin in Turkey.

http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm

Going through that list of countries, the countries with "must be married" and high ages of consent seem to me at first glance to be mostly Islamic countries. You yourself have linked honour killings to the fact they are in the main Muslim. I'm also simply adding that the age of consent is also high because they are Muslim countries. I don't want our reasoning based on the same ideology (although in the case of Ireland I'm referring more to extreme Catholics) that leads to a high age of consent and honour killings of young girls in Islamic countries.

That's why I am saying I was a bit shocked at the significant minority voting for 18 years of age. Would we get some votes for 18 plus "must be married" if it was available?

prinz

Novella wrote: »

However, as far as I'm concerned, sex is just sex. It's not bad for you..

If only that was the case in reality. We have many fully grown and mature adults suffering health issues/financial issues/etc because sex is not 'just sex'

Morkarleth wrote: »

You say laws should be made based on what's best for society - well, how does keeping the age of consent at 18 serve society better than lowering it to 16?

Perhaps I'd argue that if I had said that it would be better to have it at 18. I didn't. Nor is it 18. Perhaps you should pay more attention rather than "tired" old attempts at undemrining what people say.

twinQuins

Well then perhaps you could outline exactly what your point is, rather than giving us a runabout.

prinz

Morkarleth wrote: »

Well then perhaps you could outline exactly what your point is, rather than giving us a runabout.

It's pretty basic really. Making and changing laws based on what some people do is not a good way to run a society. Applying that logic to the age of consent is no different from anything else. Sex is not just sex either. Lastly it may well be a societal benefit to lower the age of consent and some valid reasons have been noted on this thread, along with some groundless reasons.

Dublin_Gunner

prinz wrote: »

If only that was the case in reality. We have many fully grown and mature adults suffering health issues/financial issues/etc because sex is not 'just sex'

That is probably much less than 1% of sexually active adults in fairness.

If we start legislating for every minute possibility of harm to anyone, we'd end up making breathing outside illegal.

twinQuins

prinz wrote: »

It's pretty basic really. Making and changing laws based on what some people do is not a good way to run a society.

In the broadest possible sense, yes. In specific cases like this you can't apply such generalisations, however.
And this is hardly a case of what "some" people do, either. I'd feel confident in saying the majority of teenagers engage in sexual activities.

Since this is a thread on a specific subject I don't think it was unreasonable to assume you were making the point about that subject, specifically.

So, how is society better served, in this instance, by not changing a law that would benefit those it concerns (by not criminalising something they're going to do and in most cases* causes no harm)?


*Hard cases make for bad laws, as the saying goes. I don't believe laws should be made based on a minority of possible outcomes, only to legislate for the broadest type of actions.

prinz

Morkarleth wrote: »

In the broadest possible sense, yes. In specific cases like this you can't apply such generalisations, however.
And this is hardly a case of what "some" people do, either. I'd feel confident in saying the majority of teenagers engage in sexual activities..

The age of consent in this country relates to 'carnal contact' i.e. intercourse. Non-carnal sexual activities are allowed below the age of consent down to 15 IIRC. According the the Crisis Pregnancy agency and the IFPA the average age of first sexual intercourse in this country is in fact 17... which happens to coincide with the age of consent for sexual intercourse.

28064212

Any concept of an 'absolute' age of consent as a valid mechanism on its own is absolutely retarded. There's no magic age you can pick that makes someone of [Age+1] having sex with someone of [Age+20] illegal, but someone of [Age+1] having sex with someone of [Age-1] legal, even though the former is much more likely to have serious implications.

Personally, I think the absolute age of consent should be 18. Anyone over that is fair game, they're adults in the eyes of society. Under that, should be a sliding scale that narrows as you go younger, e.g. a 17-year old might have a range of 3 years older (20), but only 2 years younger (15).

The criminalisation of two teenagers of equal age who experiment is absurd, not to mention the ridiculousness of the gender imbalance that means a 15 year-old boy that has sex with a 16 year-old girl is breaking the law, but not the other way round

Pherekydes

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

Going through that list of countries, the countries with "must be married" and high ages of consent seem to me at first glance to be mostly Islamic countries. You yourself have linked honour killings to the fact they are in the main Muslim. I'm also simply adding that the age of consent is also high because they are Muslim countries.

Under Sharia Law, the age of consent is deemed to be post puberty. Marriage is deemed to be legal after 9 years of age.

So, in many Muslim countries, the age of consent would be what we consider low, not high.

The other comment you made about people who selected 18 also selecting "must be married" is a non-sequitur. People are voting on what they consider to be a reasonable age to begin sexual contact, not on adapting that country's entire social fabric.

Overheal

No Law is going to change what young kids do. I think we've learned that.

All it's doing is putting kids behind bars for no good reason.

At the same time I don't think you could morally ignore predation, either. Nobody wants to see a man in his 30s preying on 16 year old girls at a time when they don't need to be groomed. There are big psychological differences imo from the act of sex with a peer, hence the similar-in-age protection.

TeddyTedson

Is it not half your age plus 7? :pac:

Up de Barrs

Dublin_Gunner wrote: »

Are there any stats on how many teenagers have been convicted of stat. rape?

I did a quick search but can't find anything.

Would changing the law really change anything? Probably not. 2 young teenagers that wish to have sex, are going to no matter what the law states the age of consent is.

If laws can't stop them drinking, or doing drugs, I seriously doubt it will make much of a difference to stopping them having sex.

However, where I would like to see the law change is in the area of an older person having sex with a young teenager.

i.e I don't see 2 15 year olds having sex in the same way as say a 25 year old and 15 year old having sex.

So in that view, I would like to see the young age exceptions being invoked.

For example I would have no problem with the law stating 14-17 year olds can have sex (or a 15 yo with 18 etc etc) but stat rape could still be invoked where the age difference is large enough to deem it to be paedophilia.

Obviously that's just a rough example of how I'd like to see it operate. But I'm not sure of the legality of it. (i.e how can one not prosecute a 15 year old for doing the same thing a 20 year old would be convicted of).

Needs a lot mroe thinking to get it right. Well, the law will never be 'correct' in everyone's eyes. I suppose its a step in the right direction of modernising some laws.

Here's an example DG which was discussed on another thread.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0326/court.html

I agree with your points regarding the law failing to stop teenagers doing what they want to do. Sex education is still deficient in terms of educating them as to how to make better decisions for themselves as it is based on church teaching which immediately is going to result in them not listening to anything else that is said.