Should we reform the age of consent law?.

7sr2z3fely84g5

At the moment age of consent is 17,however if a couple have sex to which a girl is 16,the male can be prosecuted but the girl cannot,however the male can face of being registered as an sex offender if hes more than two years older than the girl as we seen recently in two high profile court challenge cases.

Canada age consent is 16,but allows 14-15 year old to have a sexual relationship with someone less than five years older.

I think regardless teenagers are going to break the law to which males end up on the register due to their own foolishness.

I think the irish gov does not give enough awareness to teenagers about the legal aspects unlike the uk.

Should we reform or keep it at the present?.

diddlybit

I think it needs to be reformed and 17 is a ridiculously high age of consent, especially when compared with the rest of Europe.

For the most part, countries with higher ages of consent have laws that are open to interpretation at the discretion of the authorities. Therefore having sex with someone under the age of seventeen won't automatically result in a prosecution. Countries with lower ages of consent, have staggered laws in which individuals can have sex with someone close to their age, as OP pointed out. But generally there is no flexibility in the laws in these circumstances.

Dudess

Definitely think it should be lowered to 15 - and a drastic improvement in sex education simultaneously.

diddlybit

Dudess wrote: »

Definitely think it should be lowered to 15 - and a drastic improvement in sex education simultaneously.

+1 on this. My sex education was god-awful. Surprised any of us can function now.

Dudess

If people are uncomfortable with the idea of 15-year-olds having sex, well it doesn't alter the fact that it's happening quite a bit, and the idea of them having unprotected sex and using e.g. the withdrawal method and relying on misinformation is infinitely worse...

strobe

I'd be in favour of adopting the German system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#Germany

strobe

strobe wrote: »

I'd be in favour of adopting the German system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ages_of_consent_in_Europe#Germany

I would prefer a sliding scale too with the usual "fewer than x years is not an offence" provision too, but I think that this is too much of a gap:

a conviction on an individual over the age of 21 requires a complaint from the younger individual; being over 21 and engaging in sexual relations with a minor of that age does not constitute an offense in and of itself.

I think a few years might be better and from 15 rather than 14.

Also definitely agreed on the sex ed - what sex ed!! :eek:

kerryman12

By all mean reform the law and make it more practical, seems a bit mad to me that a angry father can have his daughters BF placed on a sex offenders register because he is angry.

Canada age consent is 16,but allows 14-15 year old to have a sexual relationship with someone less than five years older.

Taking the Canadian example you could have a 16 yr old and a lets say a 20&3/4 yr old (effectively 21 yr old) in a physical relationship. Now in a lot of cases there wont be a issue with that but those 5yrs at 16 yrs old is a huge maturity gap IMO.

Definitely think it should be lowered to 15

Getting hung up on a number 15Vs16Vs17 is of course a bit of a red herring as it is down too the individuals involved but, its seems to me that 15 is quite young for the state to say yes you are now old enough to have sex but you cant drink or drive etc. Now of course people will still be having sex or drink at 15 but that doesnt mean we should be ok with it.

and a drastic improvement in sex education simultaneously

totally agree with this.

Based on my limited understanding of this law the one good thing I will say about it is that it seems to be weighted towards the protection of the girl in the situation. What ever reform is looked at this aspect of the law should be retained imo.

K-9

kerryman12 wrote: »

By all mean reform the law and make it more practical, seems a bit mad to me that a angry father can have his daughters BF placed on a sex offenders register because he is angry.



Taking the Canadian example you could have a 16 yr old and a lets say a 20&3/4 yr old (effectively 21 yr old) in a physical relationship. Now in a lot of cases there wont be a issue with that but those 5yrs at 16 yrs old is a huge maturity gap IMO.



Getting hung up on a number 15Vs16Vs17 is of course a bit of a red herring as it is down too the individuals involved but, its seems to me that 15 is quite young for the state to say yes you are now old enough to have sex but you cant drink or drive etc. Now of course people will still be having sex or drink at 15 but that doesnt mean we should be ok with it.



totally agree with this.

Based on my limited understanding of this law the one good thing I will say about it is that it seems to be weighted towards the protection of the girl in the situation. What ever reform is looked at this aspect of the law should be retained imo.

Indeed, there is the mad "Romeo and Juliet" type situation that allows for teenage boys to be prosecuted for having under age sex while a girl cannot in a vice versa situation:

Court urged to change 'Romeo and Juliet' laws - RTÉ News

When this law was introduced fears about these situations were dismissed as scare mongering and it wouldn't be enforced.

As for the age of consent, it's a tough one. I think 15 is very young. I'd keep the current age but go with the age difference type laws mentioned on the thread.

liah

I think it should be tiered.

e.g. age of consent 14 but at that age they can only sleep with people up to 18, 17 or 18 age of 'general' consent.

Allows them to have fun with people at their own maturity level and allows for prosecution of predators without prosecuting the kids themselves.

No gender differences in how they're treated by the law, either.

prinz

diddlybit wrote: »

I think it needs to be reformed and 17 is a ridiculously high age of consent, especially when compared with the rest of Europe..

Why is it 'ridiculously' high?

Dudess wrote: »

If people are uncomfortable with the idea of 15-year-olds having sex, well it doesn't alter the fact that it's happening quite a bit, and the idea of them having unprotected sex and using e.g. the withdrawal method and relying on misinformation is infinitely worse...

It's happening but not all that common despite frequent claims to the contrary. Most Irish people do not have sexual intercourse before reaching the age of consent which rubbishes all the nonsense about our "ridiculously" high age constraints impacting on a large number of people.. the average age for first vaginal intercourse for males and females is 17 these days according to the last (IIRC) major study on sexual health and relationships in Ireland. While this has been falling relatively slowly there is no urgent need that I can see to dramatically drop the age of consent at present.

As for sex education it is lacking, and not just for the teens.

liah wrote: »

I think it should be tiered.
e.g. age of consent 14 but at that age they can only sleep with people up to 18, 17 or 18 age of 'general' consent.

While that seems reasonable enough it would just lead to more exceptions and good causes IMO. The 16 year old sleeping with the person the week after their 18th birthday etc. Even though they could have been legally having sex no problems for the previous two years, it suddenly becomes illegal again until the younger party hits a certain age? A bit unworkable tbh.

liah wrote: »

No gender differences in how they're treated by the law, either.

While I can see the unjust nature of the different treatment of the genders I can also see the basic reasoning behind it. That said it is one of a number of major issues with regard to gender and the law on sex related crimes in this country.

7sr2z3fely84g5

kerryman12 wrote: »

Taking the Canadian example you could have a 16 yr old and a lets say a 20&3/4 yr old (effectively 21 yr old) in a physical relationship. Now in a lot of cases there wont be a issue with that but those 5yrs at 16 yrs old is a huge maturity gap IMO.

Well,the uk is 16 and hasnt changed society much,but apparently have higher teen pregnancy rates than ire,a couple age 16-19 could go up the north do the business there,but the 19 male could be arrested for sex tourism/unlawful carnal knowledge if he came back to the republic.

diddlybit

The reason it is "ridiculously" high is that when teenagers are having sex before this, they have restricted access to contraception. Many other countries will give out contraception to those under the age of consent, howvere in Ireland a fifteen year old who wishes to have sex is restricted by the lack of options to protect herself either from STD's or pregnancy. The age of consent is ridicuslously high and interpreted as a benchmark to protect young people, however the systems in place are also actviely putting young people in danger by not allowing them free access to teh means to protect themselves, whether this is contraception or information about sex.

I know that the laws in regards to the morning after pill, but I had many experiences as a teenager going to doctors with friends to get it. It was phenomally difficult for any teenager to find 40 pounds plus the price of prescription. There were many who just didn't go. I also had friends who were refused condoms in pharmacies due to their age.

Boskowski

prinz wrote: »

While I can see the unjust nature of the different treatment of the genders I can also see the basic reasoning behind it. That said it is one of a number of major issues with regard to gender and the law on sex related crimes in this country.

I can't see the reasoning behind it at all especially not when usually girls are a lot more mature in their teenage years than boys.
I'm not talking about older guys havin relationships with a 15 year old girl. What I mean is - remembering my own teenage years most boys were still total muppets age 20 whereas most girls where quite mature at age 16. So gender discrimination 'in favour' of the girls makes no sense to me at all.

Denerick

A two tier system basically; anyone over 18-21 year olds to have sex with over 16 year olds, 14-16 year olds to have sex with +14s, and so on.

Its stupid legislating for something that everyone holds in universal contempt anyway.

prinz

diddlybit wrote: »

The reason it is "ridiculously" high is that when teenagers are having sex before this, they have restricted access to contraception. Many other countries will give out contraception to those under the age of consent, howvere in Ireland a fifteen year old who wishes to have sex is restricted by the lack of options to protect herself either from STD's or pregnancy. The age of consent is ridicuslously high and interpreted as a benchmark to protect young people, however the systems in place are also actviely putting young people in danger by not allowing them free access to teh means to protect themselves, whether this is contraception or information about sex..

There is a couple of issues here. As I have already stated the average age of first intercourse for both males and females in this country is over 17, something like 17 and 17.6 years of age respectively. That some teenagers have sex before this is really up to themselves IMO, we don't go around basing our laws on safeguarding the minority but protecting the majority. So the whole argument of 'sure they're all at it anyway so why not lower it?' is groundless.

The second point about access to contraception... a second point noted in the same ISSHR study found that one the prime reasons for people (a)delaying first sexual contact and (b) practising safe sex was parental support, education and guidance. If people want access to contraception raise the matter with their parents or guardians. THAT's the group the State should be targetting. Secondly there is no set in stone minimum age for contraception and sexual health prescriptions. The age of consent has no bearing on this. Yes, providers are entitled to refuse based on the age of consent, but I don't see any reason why somebody should be forced into effectively facilitating what is essentially a crime. On the other hand other providers are free to use their own judgement and provide contraceptive advice and support to someone under the age of consent.
So you haven't really provided any sound basis for describing the age of consent as ridiculously high whatsoever, other than you want it lowered purely for the sake of lowering it.

diddlybit wrote: »

I know that the laws in regards to the morning after pill, but I had many experiences as a teenager going to doctors with friends to get it. It was phenomally difficult for any teenager to find 40 pounds plus the price of prescription..

Perhaps your friends should have been more careful? Not trying to be smart but you the obvious solution would be not to have needed it in the first place rather than making it easier to get. Did their parents know they were looking to get the MAP? If not, why not? Do you think the MAP should be handed out willy nilly to young teenagers without parental consent?

The general age of consent for medical treatment here is 16, as the MAP is a medical treatment is follows that the patient must be a least 16 to have it provided. Under that age parental consent should be obtained before any medical treatment is given. I'd be curious to know, apart from the MAP or contraception, what else do you feel doctors should be allowed to provide to unaccompanied children without parental consent?

Boskowski wrote: »

I can't see the reasoning behind it at all especially not when usually girls are a lot more mature in their teenage years than boys... So gender discrimination 'in favour' of the girls makes no sense to me at all.

To do with the possible biological outcomes, but like I said some other extremely serious examples.

diddlybit

prinz wrote: »

That some teenagers have sex before this is really up to themselves IMO, we don't go around basing our laws on safeguarding the minority but protecting the majority. So the whole argument of 'sure they're all at it anyway so why not lower it?' is groundless.

But the idea of setting it at seventeen is that at seventeen an individual is able to consent at that age. There is a lot more to it than just setting a level in order to protect young people, it is also a bar that represents the age at which the State thinks is appropriate to consent to sex. Previous to this, the State does not believe that a younger person is able to fully consent to sex. The is also a moral element to what a country sets as it''s age of consent, which is the reason that it varies so greatly across Europe.

I understand where you are coming from, but in regards to the sexual rights of young people, I find seventeen too high. Until 2006, this law also failed in the protection of a sixteen year old young man who had had sex with a fourteen year old and was charged with the crime. Now the law allows for "honest belief" yet, this vagueness negates much of the "protection" that the age of consent provides. The age of consent laws need to be completely re-drawn.

prinz wrote: »

If people want access to contraception raise the matter with their parents or guardians. THAT's the group the State should be targetting.

In a ideal world yes, they would go to their parents. In the world, that's not necessarily going to be the case. Many people, regardless of age, would feel awkward talking to their parents about sex. In regards to the State targeting this group, this would require a complete shift in the way Irish society views sex and sexuality, including sex education in schools. This will take years. In considartion that the gardai have only just drawn up protecals on how to treat victims of child sex abuse recently, any social and cultural changes on how information about sex is diseminated to young people could take years.

prinz wrote: »

Yes, providers are entitled to refuse based on the age of consent, but I don't see any reason why somebody should be forced into effectively facilitating what is essentially a crime.

So two consenting sixteen year olds are committing a criminal act? Is this what you meant here? Sorry just need to clarfiy.

prinz wrote: »

Perhaps your friends should have been more careful? Not trying to be smart but you the obvious solution would be not to have needed it in the first place rather than making it easier to get. Did their parents know they were looking to get the MAP? If not, why not? Do you think the MAP should be handed out willy nilly to young teenagers without parental consent?

Yes perhaps they should have been more careful, but I think are multiple points of blame here. A lack of proper sex eduaction in school, access to contraceptives and of course a neglect of their own responsibility. Contraceptiion is not 100% fool proof, and on occassion people require it because their own methods have failed. I think that fostering responsibility would be more productive, rather than having people relying on the MEP. Young people are also not the only people that go to their doctors for it.

prinz wrote: »

I'd be curious to know, apart from the MAP or contraception, what else do you feel doctors should be allowed to provide to unaccompanied children without parental consent.

A fourteen or fifteen year old hardly constitutes a "child". I really do think that deeming everyone a "child" under the age of eighteen is inappropraite despite what the law says. Parental consent is one thing, but this only works if the parents are acting in the best interest of their children. This will not always be in the case, especailly in matters of sexuality. I think granting teenagers some degree of sexual rights will help them to act responsibly, treat their sexuality in a mature way, rather than sensing that every sexual act is either prohibited.

Personally, I believe that the law as it stands, provides a lesser degree of protection than before as it is now unacceptably vague. (Though any appeals to this loophole have been affectively quashed.) We must differanciate between young people that require protection and those that are exploring their own sexuality in a consenusal way. Both are important legal matters and both require radical overhauls are public services. Staggering the age of consent, providing greater access to information, and also allowing for greater accessabilty to services in which vulnerable young people that may be sexually exploited can safely remove themselves from said situation are all necessary.

prinz

diddlybit wrote: »

But the idea of setting it at seventeen is that at seventeen an individual is able to consent at that age. There is a lot more to it than just setting a level in order to protect young people, it is also a bar that represents the age at which the State thinks is appropriate to consent to sex. Previous to this, the State does not believe that a younger person is able to fully consent to sex. The is also a moral element to what a country sets as it''s age of consent, which is the reason that it varies so greatly across Europe..

It also accruately reflects the age at which most young people think appropriate for themselves. If most young people thought it approproate to consent younger then the average age of first intercourse would be lower. Of course I would argue that if the State said it was appropriate to consent at 14, more pressure would come on people to lower their own personal levels of the appropriate age for themselves.

diddlybit wrote: »

I understand where you are coming from, but in regards to the sexual rights of young people, I find seventeen too high...

Yet you haven't demonstrated any real reasoning behind that other than young people should be having sex earlier than they already are, an odd argument especially when you combine with your other argument, lack of education and support.

diddlybit wrote: »

In a ideal world yes, they would go to their parents. In the world, that's not necessarily going to be the case....

Yet you want to lower the age of consent anyway? Surely you are putting the cart before the horse here. Lowering the age of consent isn't going to improve that. Also there's nothing stopping the parents go to their kids on this issue.

diddlybit wrote: »

Many people, regardless of age, would feel awkward talking to their parents about sex. In regards to the State targeting this group, this would require a complete shift in the way Irish society views sex and sexuality, including sex education in schools. This will take years. In considartion that the gardai have only just drawn up protecals on how to treat victims of child sex abuse recently, any social and cultural changes on how information about sex is diseminated to young people could take years.....

All good points, but surely after this has been done, that would be the time to consider lowering the age of consent?

diddlybit wrote: »

So two consenting sixteen year olds are committing a criminal act? Is this what you meant here? Sorry just need to clarfiy......

A possible breach of the age of consent laws. If a 15 year old goes to a doctor and says she needs the pill to have sex with her 20 year old bf, or a 15 year old lad looking for condoms to use with a 25 year old woman, or any variation of the above then yes I think it would be remiss of a health professional to knowingly facilitate that, or be legally obliged to facilitate it.

diddlybit wrote: »

I think that fostering responsibility would be more productive, rather than having people relying on the MEP.

Absolutely.

diddlybit wrote: »

Young people are also not the only people that go to their doctors for it..

True, but irrelevant to the discussion.

diddlybit wrote: »

A fourteen or fifteen year old hardly constitutes a "child". I really do think that deeming everyone a "child" under the age of eighteen is inappropraite despite what the law says...

The law says a lot of different things depending what it is in relation to. There is no fixed age across the board. I think judging every single person individually on a case by case basis is absolutely unworkable so a line has to be drawn somewhere. Some people under it will have the capacities of those over it and vice versa.

diddlybit wrote: »

Parental consent is one thing, but this only works if the parents are acting in the best interest of their children. This will not always be in the case, especailly in matters of sexuality....

Which brings us back to the earlier point about educating adults and parents and stressing parental responsibility in this area.

diddlybit wrote: »

I think granting teenagers some degree of sexual rights will help them to act responsibly, treat their sexuality in a mature way, rather than sensing that every sexual act is either prohibited....

Most already do act responsibly. I don't see how lowering the age of consent is going to improve that. As I said the best influence in that area has been shown to be education and guidance from a parent/guardian.

diddlybit wrote: »

We must differanciate between young people that require protection and those that are exploring their own sexuality in a consenusal way..

As before it's almost impossible to do this on a case by case basis. It would be like deciding who gets a pint in the local as they approach the bar.

diddlybit wrote: »

Staggering the age of consent, providing greater access to information, and also allowing for greater accessabilty to services in which vulnerable young people that may be sexually exploited can safely remove themselves from said situation are all necessary.

The latter is obviously necessary but still don't see why the age of consent needs to be amended.

LighterGuy

I think nothing would change by changing the legal age. Kids at 13 will still have sex even if it was lowered to 15.

diddlybit

prinz wrote: »

It also accruately reflects the age at which most young people think appropriate for themselves. If most young people thought it approproate to consent younger then the average age of first intercourse would be lower. Of course I would argue that if the State said it was appropriate to consent at 14, more pressure would come on people to lower their own personal levels of the appropriate age for themselves.

But why is it such an arbitrary benchmark that if reflected in State attitudes to sex, does it differ so much across Europe? I think it's an interesting point, what does various ages of consent say about the sexual moral ideologies of Ireland in contrast to somewhere like Spain?

Yet you haven't demonstrated any real reasoning behind that other than young people should be having sex earlier than they already are, an odd argument especially when you combine with your other argument, lack of education and support.

I may not have, but I still havn't found any viable arguments as to why it is seventeen either. Whay not eighteen or sixteen? I never suggested that anyone should be having sex. This is misconstruing my point.

Yet you want to lower the age of consent anyway? Surely you are putting the cart before the horse here. Lowering the age of consent isn't going to improve that. Also there's nothing stopping the parents go to their kids on this issue.

True. I believe the whole system needs a complete overhaul in order to foster sexual responsibility in teenagers and adults alike.

All good points, but surely after this has been done, that would be the time to consider lowering the age of consent?

A possible breach of the age of consent laws. If a 15 year old goes to a doctor and says she needs the pill to have sex with her 20 year old bf, or a 15 year old lad looking for condoms to use with a 25 year old woman, or any variation of the above then yes I think it would be remiss of a health professional to knowingly facilitate that, or be legally obliged to facilitate it.

Why choose these ages and spefically gender them this way? Just curious.

The law says a lot of different things depending what it is in relation to. There is no fixed age across the board. I think judging every single person individually on a case by case basis is absolutely unworkable so a line has to be drawn somewhere. Some people under it will have the capacities of those over it and vice versa.

Most cases are judged on a case to case basis. If any reports of underage sex are reported to the authorities they would have to be judged in such a manner.

We appear to be in agreement on the fact of sexual education which is in adequate to say the least in this country. My main issue is that the age of consent is dictated by a State that also believes that it is appropriate to give partial information to teenagers about keeping themsleves safe form STDs and pregnancy. This problem could be solved by an open conversation between parents and teenagers but, many would be reluctant to do so due to embarressment. The other issue is that this presumes that the parent would be providing information that they would believe to be in the best interests of their child, but might necessarily not be.

7sr2z3fely84g5

What about young wans having kids below age consent,are their partners arrested?

prinz

diddlybit wrote: »

But why is it such an arbitrary benchmark that if reflected in State attitudes to sex, does it differ so much across Europe? I think it's an interesting point, what does various ages of consent say about the sexual moral ideologies of Ireland in contrast to somewhere like Spain?

There are any number of reasons. Perhaps the average age of first intercourse in Spain was a lot lower than here?

diddlybit wrote: »

I may not have, but I still havn't found any viable arguments as to why it is seventeen either.

17 is the average age that both males and females report their first sexual intercourse. Over the decades this has fallen for both sexes, but as the last ISSHR it is still 17 for both. In the future if this was to fall then it would be prudent to review the law. Until then it's just changing it for the sake of changing it as opposed to any real social or legal reason.

diddlybit wrote: »

Whay not eighteen or sixteen? I never suggested that anyone should be having sex. This is misconstruing my point.

I don't think it is, because so far you haven't offered a point per se, only claiming it should be lowered here, just because, and by referring to other jurisdictions.

diddlybit wrote: »

Why choose these ages and spefically gender them this way? Just curious.

I reversed sexes in both examples and pick random ages of possible couples which may be in breach of the law.

diddlybit wrote: »

Most cases are judged on a case to case basis. If any reports of underage sex are reported to the authorities they would have to be judged in such a manner.

So in other words anyone having sex would be a complete and utter lottery. Have sex with a 15 year old first and after the fact someone else decides whether she had the power to consent or not? Can you not see how unworkable that is? It's like saying serve people in the pub under 18, but afterwards we'll decide if you should have done that or not...

diddlybit wrote: »

My main issue is that the age of consent is dictated by a State that also believes that it is appropriate to give partial information to teenagers about keeping themsleves safe form STDs and pregnancy..

There is no censorship of information on sexual health. If people seek it it's there to be had. You can't throw all the blame onto the government for this tbh.On the one hand you complain about state 'interference' and simultaneously you are complaining about the state not doing enough. The information is there for people.

diddlybit wrote: »

This problem could be solved by an open conversation between parents and teenagers but, many would be reluctant to do so due to embarressment.

Solution to that is to just bite the bullet.

diddlybit wrote: »

The other issue is that this presumes that the parent would be providing information that they would believe to be in the best interests of their child, but might necessarily not be.

That may be a danger, but we live in a society that resects the institutions of parenthood and the family and thank your lucky stars we do.

drkpower

prinz wrote: »

The general age of consent for medical treatment here is 16, as the MAP is a medical treatment is follows that the patient must be a least 16 to have it provided. Under that age parental consent should be obtained before any medical treatment is given. I'd be curious to know, apart from the MAP or contraception, what else do you feel doctors should be allowed to provide to unaccompanied children without parental consent?

The age of consent for medical treatment is far more complex than you have alluded to here. Without getting into detail, Irish law is not clear at all on this point and the ethical guidelines of the Irish Medical Council recognise that doctors can ethically provide treatment to those under 16 in what are called 'exceptional circumstances'. Doctors up and down the country routinely provide contraception, including the MAP to children under 16, all the time.

The reality is that (especially if the Children's Rights referendum is passsed) Ireland is very shortly going to move to the UK position vis-a-vis children's consent, whereby an individual assessment is made as to the child's capacity to consent in each case. And rightly so.

Of course, in an ideal world, the same could apply to consenting to sex, but of course that would be entirely impractical (as you have recognised) without some kind of regular sexual capacity testing for teens....... sounds like a fun job.......I'll get my coat.

prinz

drkpower wrote: »

The age of consent for medical treatment is far more complex than you have alluded to here. Without getting into detail, Irish law is not clear at all on this point and the ethical guidelines of the Irish Medical Council recognise that doctors can ethically provide treatment to those under 16 in what are called 'exceptional circumstances'. Doctors up and down the country routinely provide contraception, including the MAP to children under 16, all the time.

I wasn't trying to paint it as a black and white issue merely pointing out that the doctor could possibly find themselves legally exposed for doing it as many G.P.'s themselves feel it seems. Just showing why it may have been difficult for the other posters friends to get it from some doctors.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2010/1206/1224284846854.html

syklops

LighterGuy wrote: »

I think nothing would change by changing the legal age. Kids at 13 will still have sex even if it was lowered to 15.

What would change is the young male wont go on a sex offenders register for sex with a minor, even if he is younger than the 'minor'.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Does anyone know how this case worked out?

p1akuw47h5r3it

I believe it should be 16. And Sex Ed needs to be improved.

7sr2z3fely84g5

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Does anyone know how this case worked out?

no idea,similar case before courts- http://www.donegaldaily.com/2011/04/15/case-of-underage-sex-in-donegal-gaeltacht-sparks-huge-legal-case/

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Madness. Its absolutely ludicrous that gender discrimination like that is acceptable.

prinz

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Madness. Its absolutely ludicrous that gender discrimination like that is acceptable.

You'd only have a point if you also argue that men and women should have an absolutely equal say in getting an abortion for example. Do you?

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

prinz wrote: »

You'd only have a point if you also argue that men and women should have an absolutely equal say in getting an abortion for example. Do you?

I don't. Womans choice. But I think this line of argument is a non sequitur.

prinz

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

I don't. Womans choice. But I think this line of argument is a non sequitur.

Actually it 'sequits' quite well given how the same biological reasoning is used for both approaches, one party has the biological ability to get pregnant, one doesn't.
From the Donegal Daily article..

In the High Court in March 2010, Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne ruled, while the law did amount to gender discrimination, that discrimination was not invidious, capricious or disproportionate.
As the risk of pregnancy as a result of underage sex was borne by girls only, not boys, society was entitled to deter such activity and to place the burden of criminal sanction on those “who bear the least adverse consequences” of it, she said.....
It provided immunity from prosecution applied to the one area of sexual activity that can result in pregnancy and the consequence of such carried no risk for boys or men. The risk was only borne by girls, she said.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

Thats true. I also think its quite irrelevant, as that applies in every instance of sexual intercourse between a man and a woman.

AhSureTisGrand

I wonder if the laws are still just in cases of buggery, where one has to be doing it severely wrong to have a risk of pregnancy

Tayla

I don't think the age of consent needs to be changed. It should be left as it is even though most people don't wait until they reach it,

A guy that is a similar age shouldn't be prosecuted for consentual sex and that of course should be changed.

The main reason I have for not thinking the age of consent should be changed is because of some older guys, they can be sleazy enough to younger girls as it is and I would only imagine that they would be 100 times more sleazy if they knew they could have sex with that 14/15 year old without fear of prosecution.

prinz

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Thats true. I also think its quite irrelevant, as that applies in every instance of sexual intercourse between a man and a woman.

So it's ok to take biological differences into account to discriminate against males in one instance, just not in another?

Tayla wrote: »

It should be left as it is even though most people don't wait until they reach it..

A common misconception and one of the reasons a lot of people give in support of lowering the age of consent. The reported age of first sexual intercourse is 17 according to the Rape Crisis Centre IIRC.

Tayla wrote: »

The main reason I have for not thinking the age of consent should be changed is because of some older guys, they can be sleazy enough to younger girls as it is and I would only imagine that they would be 100 times more sleazy if they knew they could have sex with that 14/15 year old without fear of prosecution.

Very true and a valid concern.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

prinz wrote: »

So it's ok to take biological differences into account to discriminate against males in one instance, just not in another?

I'd prefer if abortions were consulted between the man and the woman, but realistically I feel its going to come down to the womans choice. Theres a major difference between that and wishing to lock up people based on their gender.

prinz

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

I'd prefer if abortions were consulted between the man and the woman, but realistically I feel its going to come down to the womans choice.

By law it comes down to the woman's choice. By law it is discriminatory.

Duffy the Vampire Slayer wrote: »

Theres a major difference between that and wishing to lock up people based on their gender.

Or not locking people up based on their gender.

team fop

what is the law on a 19 year old girl having sex with a 16 year old boy??? i know of a case where they had a year long relationship, she fell pregnant,had a child by him and then he got voilent with her..the relationship ended as a result of this. he has threatned to bring her to court for rape if she prosecutes him for assault

7sr2z3fely84g5

team fop wrote: »

what is the law on a 19 year old girl having sex with a 16 year old boy??? i know of a case where they had a year long relationship, she fell pregnant,had a child by him and then he got voilent with her..the relationship ended as a result of this. he has threatned to bring her to court for rape if she prosecutes him for assault

in a hypothetical situation*cant give legal advice* the girl may have broken the law since he was under 17,but for bizarre reason in the law if she was 16 and "consented" only the boy would get charged.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/justice/criminal_law/criminal_offences/law_on_sex_offences_in_ireland.html

The accused may argue that he or she honestly believed that the child was aged 17 years or over.The court must then consider whether or not that belief was reasonable. It is not a defence to show that the child consented to the sexual act.

in timescale if it happened years ago im not even sure would the guards/dpp would bother unless they where really pressed into it.

pajunior

Reading through this thread and it is quite interesting.

Just a note on the average age for peoples first intercourse being 17.

If the average is 17 then at a wild guess you could say half of people will be under and half over. However it is a lot more likey that more people will be 3/4/5 years over as opposed to under and after 5 years a gap they will all be over the age.
I am no expert at statistics and averages but this means that a nice bit more then half will have had sex before 17.


Edit: I should also say that if when the worked out the average they used the median instead of the mean value then it is a 50/50 split but I think the point is still the same, many many young people have sex before 17

Zombrex

prinz wrote: »

By law it comes down to the woman's choice. By law it is discriminatory.

Is it?

An abortion is a medical action carried out on the persons body. It is not discriminatory to say that the action cannot be forced upon the woman by another party, because the woman cannot carry out a similar action on the man either.

A woman having an abortion is not the same as a man making a woman have an abortion. There is no discrimination, the individual rights are the same whether you are a man or a woman, those being that you have the right to carry out a procedure on your own body and refuse action on your body if you do not wish it. That principle applies to both men and women equally. A man cannot force a woman to have procedure they don't want, but then neither can a woman force a man to have a procedure they don't want.

Would someone say that a vasectomy is discrimination because it is the man's choice to get one, the woman has no say? I doubt it, why would the woman have a say in the first place, it is an action on the mans body.

sparkling sea

The whole age of consent debate is a nonsense because in reality its not implemented with any degree of fairness and neither can it be.

Firstly this is consent we are talking about and not rape.

Teenage lust or what ever you wish to call it will eventually in most cases intercourse be it at 14, 15, 16 or so on - its not a crime its a fact of life.
This is poles apart from rape and should be seen as such.

And by the by if a girl of 17 has sex with a boy of 16 she will not have committed an offence however the boy will have committed an offence if he is 17 and the girl is 16 - come on this is crazy - madness.

How may girls under the age of 17 have had babies in Ireland - all these girls would fall under the protection of the HSE ( who by law are duty bond to act on these girls behalf) but how many hospital social workers report these incidents to the gardai - very few to none and rightly so, how would this help? Well it wouldn't because it never does, all it would mean is that the girl would lose the support of her partner, the partner would have trouble learning to become a father and the baby would miss out on having a father.

Please don't spout the rubbish argument that teenage parents don't make good parents, like all people some teenage parents are useless but most teenage parents are very good and responsible parents.

What would happen to the fathers of these babies,well they would end up in jail and have a criminal record for the rest of their lives and both they and their children would be left to deal with the devastation the wake of this really stupid law.

Lots of people are sexually active before the age of 17 and by the way consent involves consent to oral as well as vaginal intercourse, the difference being people who have vaginal sex may get caught out by their action but people who have oral sex won't. Both actions are illegal.

It is a nonsense to criminalize people for growing up, and there is a world of difference between rape, pedophilia and young love.

It might be an idea to have a decent sex education policy in this country or ours, it might also be a good idea to encourage people to wait until they are ready to have sex but no one person is the same and while 25 might be the right age for some people - 15 might be the right age for others.

7sr2z3fely84g5

sparkling sea wrote: »

if a girl of 17 has sex with a boy of 16 she will not have committed an offence however the boy will have committed an offence if he is 17 and the girl is 16 - come on this is crazy - madness.

Girl would have committed the offence,i showed the law in post num 40,we just dont hear cases of girls being in court because maybe the boy is happy to get a ride and be seen as cool to his mates,or no parent would think their little darling daughter would do such thing and was forced into it.

philologos

Dudess wrote: »

Definitely think it should be lowered to 15 - and a drastic improvement in sex education simultaneously.

Why do you think lowering the age of consent will improve anything? Just curious?

StrawberryJazz

I think it's madness to consent kids to have sex before they're allowed to leave school. Most people are 16-17 after their Jr. Cert and hopefully by then would have received some sex ed...not to mention on average a 16 year old girls body can deal with a pregnancy a lot better than a 13 year old.

Its just insane that this country it is mandatory that you are examined on religion but not sex ed...

sparkling sea

Arturo Some Bolt wrote: »

Girl would have committed the offence,i showed the law in post num 40,we just dont hear cases of girls being in court because maybe the boy is happy to get a ride and be seen as cool to his mates,or no parent would think their little darling daughter would do such thing and was forced into it.

Think you need to look at it in a bit more detail. the 2006 Act still offers more protection to young girls then it does to young boys. Section 5 provides that a girl under 17 will not be guilty of an offence merely because she engaged in an act of sexual intercourse. The 1935 CLAA allowed that if a 16 year old boy has sex with a girl of the same age, at her instigation, he commits an offence but she does not and this would appear to be still the case.

sparkling sea

StrawberryJazz wrote: »

I think it's madness to consent kids to have sex before they're allowed to leave school. Most people are 16-17 after their Jr. Cert and hopefully by then would have received some sex ed...not to mention on average a 16 year old girls body can deal with a pregnancy a lot better than a 13 year old.

Its just insane that this country it is mandatory that you are examined on religion but not sex ed...

This is more to do with the age of both parties and two wrongs don't make a right.

It is true that a 13 year old girl shouldn't be having sex but then neither should a 13 year old boy but informed consent is a whole different matter

7sr2z3fely84g5

sparkling sea wrote: »

Think you need to look at it in a bit more detail. the 2006 Act still offers more protection to young girls then it does to young boys. Section 5 provides that a girl under 17 will not be guilty of an offence merely because she engaged in an act of sexual intercourse. The 1935 CLAA allowed that if a 16 year old boy has sex with a girl of the same age, at her instigation, he commits an offence but she does not and this would appear to be still the case.

Thanks for clearing that up,many apologies,looking at it,that is a stupid law.

sparkling sea

Arturo Some Bolt wrote: »

Thanks for clearing that up,many apologies,looking at it,that is a stupid law.

In fairness, I think the media do the general public an injustice when they discuss this law - the public are given very slanted information.

David Norris was recently very unfairly judged because of his opinions on this issue, all he tried to point out is that its unfair to imprison teenage boys for acting like teenage boys (as long as both parties had given informed consent).

Duffy the Vampire Slayer

http://www.rte.ie/news/2004/0122/pornography.html

Friends of mine from Limerick and Wexford were telling me about that recently, was the case ever wrapped up out of interest?