Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Is 17 too high for the Age of consent
Options
Comments
-
Nothing grey about it. Any literate teenager with more than half a brain could follow it.
We have graded penelties for all sorts of offences (drink driving for example) so why not for sex with or between teenagers ?0 -
I hope she doesn't mind me qouting her here, but Shenshen is German, so she knows a hell of a lot more about how things work over there than I do, and this is how things work in Germany-
The reason, why you cannot compare two different countries, is because there are far more factors to take into account and different laws that will apply, and like I said - even the way sex education is taught over there is completely different to here. It's a fantasy to think you could take German social structure and their society's attitude to sex and apply it to Ireland. It just can not be done.
I do, of course, but as Shenshen points out, when we talk about the issues involved in sexuality among young people, the age of consent laws are about as relevant as Kim Jong Un's opinion on stripey underwear. Tell me, what difference would lowering the age of consent to say 12, actually do to prevent say for example since you want to concentrate on teenage pregnancy. What difference will the age of consent make there? None.
The issues are more than just about the age of consent, but those are issues for another thread. This one is about the age of consent and why it's necessary, and I've already outlined earlier why it's necessary.
It's not about criminalising children, pain in my face from saying that. It's about preventing adults from engaging in sexual activity with people under the age of consent.
I thought "Won't somebody think of the children!" was MY line!
It IS kinda handy though when it has the benefit of deterring adults from engaging in sexual relations with minors under the age of consent.
If you want protection then certainly come down the heavy on somebody mature enough to know better. Throw the book at somebody who knowingly has sex with an underage person.
But criminalising kids for doing what their bodies are screaming at them to do isn't doing anything to protect them from each other.
At that age their bodies are programmed to start thinking about sex 24/7. They are going to want to do it no matter what the law says.
Not ALL kids are going to want to do it, and no their bodies are not programmed to do anything. There's a lot more to it than just the biological aspects of sexuality, and some teenagers can actually exercise self control and inform themselves and seek out the facts and discuss sex in a mature fashion well beyond their years. Shouldn't you give teenagers some credit that they're not all sexually obsessed as you think they are?[/QUOTE]
It was quite clear from my post that i was referring to teenagers engaged in consenual sexual activity together.
I also made it clear that I am happy for the book to be thrown at adults who have sex with underage person.
In previous posts, which I am sure you read, I advocated for a tiered approach. As did others who you responded to by standing up for the current laws.
You admit yourself above that the age of consent laws are irrelevant to children. So prohibiting two 15 year olds from having sex with each other won't stop them.
However, what it does is poses a real risk of criminalising the children concerned. You say its not about criminalising children but that's exactly what the currently law does - it renders any 15 year olds who have sex criminals.
Yes, there may be prosecutorial discretion, but that only lessens the risk of a 15 year old being prosecuted for having sex with their girlfriend. That risk is still there, and I'm sure there have been cases where this has happened.
Certainly I can recall hearing of cases where one party was slightly above and the other slightly below the age of consent and prosecutions were brought (I'm not googling statutory rape in work).
And even if the prosecution is not brought, the current laws still provide a means whereby an angry parent can have a 15, 16, or 17 year old haled into a Garda station for questioning and a file on them sent to the DPP - a needlessly traumatic experience for a young person to go through.
Maintaining a situation where a 15 year old can be prosecuted for having sex
isn't necessary to deter 30, 20 or even 19 year olds from having sex with a 15 year old. That deterent effect can be achieved with a tiered approach and certainly isn't dependent on criminalising the very people its intended to protect.
I think also your protestations that this is not about criminalising children is at variance with your earlier statementThat would be teenagers that were charged with statutory rape at the behest of the teenagers parents.
If young people are informed and choose to disregard the law, then they should be prepared for the possible consequences of their decisions and their actions.
While you perhaps may not see it as the main point of age of consent laws, certainly you are happy enough for it to remain as a consequence of those laws.0 -
Nothing grey about it. Any literate teenager with more than half a brain could follow it.
We have graded penelties for all sorts of offences (drink driving for example) so why not for sex with or between teenagers.
Because the age of consent law isn't about penalising teenagers for having sex. Any literate teenager with half a brain could follow that too.0 -
The reason Shenshen why I encourage young people to talk to their parents about sex, and why I encourage parents to talk to their children about sex, is because it encourages the relationship between them, as in- Children feel more confident talking to their parents because they know they CAN talk to them, and parents then are aware too of what their children are thinking regarding sexual matters.
The people that know the child best then are their parents, and so when it comes to a child asking questions that the parent can't answer, THAT'S where the support network should come into place, so that both parent and child can inform themselves and discuss the issues such as for example LGBT issues, etc.
The parent will know when the child is mature enough to discuss different aspects of sexuality as opposed to a blanket "read off a script" so to speak talk about sexuality given to 30 odd children in a class where the children are at all different stages developmentally speaking as regards their intellectual ability to process information and their individual maturity levels.
That's why too when you mentioned the likes of magazines where you could anonymously write to doctors and psychologists, I'd be wary of them, because while they are experts in their field, they would be aware too of the fact that they don't personally know how the child is going to interpret that information (two different children even are going to read a printed article and derive two totally different points of view from it and how it relates to them), and therein lies the possibility for the child to be misinformed, whereas the parent or guardian acts almost as a buffer to how much their child can mentally process when children and young people are being bombarded from every angle with skewered images of sexuality.
The parent in that case, as the child's parent, has a duty towards their child to inform themselves first, so that they can better inform their children, and when the parent doesn't have all the answers, at least they know there is a support network in place so they know where to get them!
Parents are not best placed to teach children about sex. That should be a job for the educational system.
Take for example extremely conservative parents who believe in abstinence only contraception. They won't teach their children about condoms, contraception, STIs etc.
It's all well and good aying they should, but they wont.
Similarly with many parents of gay children. Even assuming they are fine with their child being gay, and their child is comfortable coming to them at an early age and announcing their sexual orientation, they won't have much idea about the subject.
It should be covered by the educational curriculum and not left to the discretion of parents.0 -
Because the age of consent law isn't about penalising teenagers for having sex. Any literate teenager with half a brain could follow that too.
Once againThat would be teenagers that were charged with statutory rape at the behest of the teenagers parents.
If young people are informed and choose to disregard the law, then they should be prepared for the possible consequences of their decisions and their actions.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
I think also your protestations that this is not about criminalising children is at variance with your earlier statement
It's not about criminalising children either. We can't even agree on whether it's children, teenagers or young adults we're talking about here let alone whether the law criminalises, penalises, prosecutes them, or not.While you perhaps may not see it as the main point of age of consent laws, certainly you are happy enough for it to remain as a consequence of those laws.
Yes, because teaching our children that their decisions and their actions have both positive and negative consequences is a bad thing now?
I don't think so. The more informed people are as regards ALL the possible consequences of an action before they make a decision, the better the outcome for themselves.0 -
I see, and do Germany, France, Denmark and Italy all have the exact same social structure, educational system, social attitude to sexuality as we do here in Ireland?
.
So its about "social attitude" now, is it? Funny, I thought it was about the teenagers.Because the age of consent law isn't about penalising teenagers for having sex. Any literate teenager with half a brain could follow that too. .
But it does.0 -
-
16 is the age for medical consent. In a lot of European countries its 16 for the age of consent for sex, but to be honest there is a miss trust between the older generation and the younger generation. A lot of the older generation frown upon teenagers from seeing it myself. Its very clear a lot of them see them as irresponsible, even though that's not true for most, and the same could be said to them. So I don't think the age is going to change. I do think they should have more of a voice in society.
It will be hard enough for the State to push the church out of Education system, so the likelyhood of the age for consent being reduced will hardly come into discussion just yet0 -
Advertisement
-
Parents are not best placed to teach children about sex. That should be a job for the educational system.
Take for example extremely conservative parents who believe in abstinence only contraception. They won't teach their children about condoms, contraception, STIs etc.
It's all well and good aying they should, but they wont.
Similarly with many parents of gay children. Even assuming they are fine with their child being gay, and their child is comfortable coming to them at an early age and announcing their sexual orientation, they won't have much idea about the subject.
It should be covered by the educational curriculum and not left to the discretion of parents.
I'm sure you're also aware then that those same conservative parents have the choice as to whether their child shall participate in sex ed in school? They can just as easily inform the school that their child will not be participating in any stay safe program or sex ed class, and there's not a thing the school can do or say about it.
It's all very well saying they should be taught in school, but if the parents don't want them to be taught in school, what would your solution be then?
Also, school sex ed will only scratch the surface of sexuality and all it's different aspects- they'll deliver a program, and that's it, end of involvement, as far as they're concerned their job is done.
What then is your solution?
See it's all very well saying young people should be allowed do this that and the other, but without due regard for the consequences as they become sexually active without being informed, well, that's an even worse strategy than a law that at least gives them some pause for thought to consider their actions.
It's not ideal of course obviously, but then there really is no such thing as a foolproof solution.0 -
I'm sure you're also aware then that those same conservative parents have the choice as to whether their child shall participate in sex ed in school? They can just as easily inform the school that their child will not be participating in any stay safe program or sex ed class, and there's not a thing the school can do or say about it.
It's all very well saying they should be taught in school, but if the parents don't want them to be taught in school, what would your solution be then?
Also, school sex ed will only scratch the surface of sexuality and all it's different aspects- they'll deliver a program, and that's it, end of involvement, as far as they're concerned their job is done.
What then is your solution?
See it's all very well saying young people should be allowed do this that and the other, but without due regard for the consequences as they become sexually active without being informed, well, that's an even worse strategy than a law that at least gives them some pause for thought to consider their actions.
It's not ideal of course obviously, but then there really is no such thing as a foolproof solution.
Pointing to Germany again, there is as far as I know no option to take your child out of school just because you want your child to remain ignorant.
Seems sensible to me, to be honest. Why should the state allow parents to put their children in harms way needlessly?
If they listen to their parents and never have sex, good for them. If they decide to disobey, at least they won't come away pregnant or infected.0 -
I'm sure you're also aware then that those same conservative parents have the choice as to whether their child shall participate in sex ed in school? They can just as easily inform the school that their child will not be participating in any stay safe program or sex ed class, and there's not a thing the school can do or say about it.
It's all very well saying they should be taught in school, but if the parents don't want them to be taught in school, what would your solution be then?
Also, school sex ed will only scratch the surface of sexuality and all it's different aspects- they'll deliver a program, and that's it, end of involvement, as far as they're concerned their job is done.
What then is your solution?
See it's all very well saying young people should be allowed do this that and the other, but without due regard for the consequences as they become sexually active without being informed, well, that's an even worse strategy than a law that at least gives them some pause for thought to consider their actions.
It's not ideal of course obviously, but then there really is no such thing as a foolproof solution.
I don't think there will be many parents stopping their son or daughter learning about sex education. They are going to learn about it anyway and you can't stop them. They'll learn about it from their friends anyway and they won't want their son or daughter being left out of a class either0 -
It's not about criminalising children either. We can't even agree on whether it's children, teenagers or young adults we're talking about here let alone whether the law criminalises, penalises, prosecutes them, or not.
Yes, because teaching our children that their decisions and their actions have both positive and negative consequences is a bad thing now?
I don't think so. The more informed people are as regards ALL the possible consequences of an action before they make a decision, the better the outcome for themselves.
As a matter of law, a child is anybody under 18.
I really can't get my head around some of your statements.
You are at pains to say its not about criminalising children (of for example 15) who have sex together yet then seem to be saying its a good thing (or at least not a bad) thing that it does criminalise such children because it teaches them about the consequences of their actions.
Either it criminalises children or it doesn't. Whether or not that is the main intent is irrelevant if the effect is that children under the age of 17 are being criminalised for engaging in consensual sex together.0 -
Pointing to Germany again, there is as far as I know no option to take your child out of school just because you want your child to remain ignorant.
Seems sensible to me, to be honest. Why should the state allow parents to put their children in harms way needlessly?
If they listen to their parents and never have sex, good for them. If they decide to disobey, at least they won't come away pregnant or infected.
See while I personally would agree with the above, you'll then have people saying that the state should not be allowed to interfere in the way parents choose to instill values in their children.0 -
I don't think there will be many parents stopping their son or daughter learning about sex education. They are going to learn about it anyway and you can't stop them. They'll learn about it from their friends anyway and they won't want their son or daughter being left out of a class either
It already happens quite a bit. Obviously it's a small minority, but there are at least 2 kids in each year group in my school that are withdrawn from sex ed. Friends who teach in primary school say it's normal for a few to be withdrawn in their classes too.
I've even had a parent request their girl is withdrawn from the human reproduction chapter in JC science.0 -
As a matter of law, a child is anybody under 18.
You're doing it again! As a matter of law, a person under the age of 18 is referred to as a minor.I really can't get my head around some of your statements.
Not least because of the fact that you're trying to twist and misrepresent everything I'm saying, such as below-You are at pains to say its not about criminalising children (of for example 15) who have sex together yet then seem to be saying its a good thing (or at least not a bad) thing that it does criminalise such children because it teaches them about the consequences of their actions.
Either it criminalises children or it doesn't. Whether or not that is the main intent is irrelevant if the effect is that children under the age of 17 are being criminalised for engaging in consensual sex together.
Isn't it wonderful how you can pick and choose to acknowledge what suits your argument, and completely disregard that which doesn't.
Since you flat out refuse to budge from your limited scope scenario then, yes in such a limited scope scenario it does criminalise minors who engage in sexual activity with other minors. If those minors choose to engage in sexual activity regardless of the fact that they are aware they can be criminalised for it, then that is a decision they have taken and they should be prepared for the consequences of that decision.
Let's ignore prosecutorial discretion too because that doesn't suit your academic argument either.0 -
It's all very well saying they should be taught in school, but if the parents don't want them to be taught in school, what would your solution be then?
Don't give them an option.Also, school sex ed will only scratch the surface of sexuality and all it's different aspects- they'll deliver a program, and that's it, end of involvement, as far as they're concerned their job is done.
What then is your solution?
See it's all very well saying young people should be allowed do this that and the other, but without due regard for the consequences as they become sexually active without being informed, well, that's an even worse strategy than a law that at least gives them some pause for thought to consider their actions.
It's not ideal of course obviously, but then there really is no such thing as a foolproof solution.
It's simple really - you adopt a comprehensive sex education program which gives them all the necessary knowledge. Hopefully parents will flesh that out as they see fit with some of the emotional and intimacy aspects that a school course can't provide but if they don't the kid will still know the factual aspects and consequence.
And you already said above that the age of consent law is irrelevant to teenagers who want to have sex. It is.
And the very small deterrence effect it has isn't worth the potential criminalisation of those that don't follow it.0 -
See while I personally would agree with the above, you'll then have people saying that the state should not be allowed to interfere in the way parents choose to instill values in their children.
I would argue that this isn't about values, it's about facts.
It's the responsibility of the state to provide children with the facts. It's up to the parents to promote whichever values they want, so if they want their children to wait until marriage that's entirely up to them.0 -
You're doing it again! As a matter of law, a person under the age of 18 is referred to as a minor.
Not least because of the fact that you're trying to twist and misrepresent everything I'm saying, such as below-
Isn't it wonderful how you can pick and choose to acknowledge what suits your argument, and completely disregard that which doesn't.
Since you flat out refuse to budge from your limited scope scenario then, yes in such a limited scope scenario it does criminalise minors who engage in sexual activity with other minors. If those minors choose to engage in sexual activity regardless of the fact that they are aware they can be criminalised for it, then that is a decision they have taken and they should be prepared for the consequences of that decision.
Let's ignore prosecutorial discretion too because that doesn't suit your academic argument either.
A minor or child are one and the same thing. You aren't an adult until 18 in the eyes of a law. You are a child/minor.
A semantic argument about effectibelu synonomous terms doesn't add anything here.
For any other purposes you'd agree a 15 year old was a child.
How have i twisted what you said. Explain my misunderstanding.
You on the other hand are trying to portray me as picking and choosing points to suit my argument.
My argument is about the "limited scope." I'm advocating for a change in the law for, and only for, those falling into that limited scope. I have already said I agree with criminalisation outside of that scope.
And again, I didn't ignore prosecutorial discretion. I already addressed why I felt that didn't alleviate the issues I have with the law.
It is you who completely ignored those points. I guess it didn't suit your argument.
It seems as if you try to add weight to your views by pointing at artificial inconsistencies and non-existent gaps im arguments. It doesn't work.0 -
Advertisement
-
I don't think there will be many parents stopping their son or daughter learning about sex education. They are going to learn about it anyway and you can't stop them. They'll learn about it from their friends anyway and they won't want their son or daughter being left out of a class either
That's part of the problem though- while I agree, most people won't stop their child learning sex ed in school, but they won't actively encourage discussion around the issue either. Most parents have no problem sitting down with little johnny or Jane and helping them with their math homework, or if they're being bullied in school the parents will want their child to tell them, but if little johnny or jane wants to have a discussion about sex-
"Go ask your mother", "Go ask your father", "Go ask somebody else besides the person that are the whole reason you exist in the first place".
The child might learn all the facts about how to put a condom on a banana in school, but they still know fcukall about sex, and because they can't discuss the issue with the people they should be able to discuss anything with, that's where they get the skewered perception that sex is some mysterious enigma that to a child's mind if it's so "bad" that it can't be talked about, it must be fcuking brilliant and they have to try it.
If you tell a child "don't try this at home", what's the first thing they do?0 -
You're doing it again! As a matter of law, a person under the age of 18 is referred to as a minor.
The two are synonyms of one another.
Since you flat out refuse to budge from your limited scope scenario then, yes in such a limited scope scenario it does criminalise minors who engage in sexual activity with other minors. If those minors choose to engage in sexual activity regardless of the fact that they are aware they can be criminalised for it, then that is a decision they have taken and they should be prepared for the consequences of that decision.
That's quite a draconian view.
Although fwiw girls cannot be prosecuted, while boys can. Someone should really bring that up in Europe as a obvious breach of sexual equality laws.0 -
I would argue that this isn't about values, it's about facts.
It's the responsibility of the state to provide children with the facts. It's up to the parents to promote whichever values they want, so if they want their children to wait until marriage that's entirely up to them.
That might work in an idealised scenario Shenshen, but is there ever such a thing when it comes to discussing sexuality? Or even discussing whether the State should be allowed determine personal responsibility, or whether the State should be allowed interfere in how parents choose to raise their children?
Most people would also prefer if the State stayed well out of their personal lives and that of their children. Could you imagine at some point if the State were to try and make sex education of all children mandatory regardless of their parents views?
There'd be absolute uproar. And that's not even taking into account the fact that there's a difference between what children will pick up in school, and what they'll pick up at home. If you force parents to have their children educated in sexual matters in a school program, when those children go home, the same parents will forcefully brainwash that education right back out again.
Such a scenario wouldn't be in the best interests of a child that's forced to play piggy in the middle between the State and their parents. Which do you think will have more influence over them?0 -
RandomName2 wrote: »Although fwiw girls cannot be prosecuted, while boys can. Someone should really bring that up in Europe as a obvious breach of sexual equality laws.
That's not strictly true either. It depends on the circumstances, which is why limited scope scenarios aren't really helpful in discussing the broader issues involved-If a girl is 17 and the boy is 16, will she get prosecuted?
In this case, the girl may be prosecuted by the Gardai as she is 17. Whether the guards decide to prosecute a criminal offence or not always depends on a number of factors however, such as the circumstances of the case and the evidence at hand.
Source: http://www.b4udecide.ie/the_facts/age_of_consent.html
This is why discussions like this need to be had, so that people who are misinformed can at least be pointed in the right direction to inform themselves of the facts, both adults and teenagers alike.0 -
That might work in an idealised scenario Shenshen, but is there ever such a thing when it comes to discussing sexuality? Or even discussing whether the State should be allowed determine personal responsibility, or whether the State should be allowed interfere in how parents choose to raise their children?
Most people would also prefer if the State stayed well out of their personal lives and that of their children. Could you imagine at some point if the State were to try and make sex education of all children mandatory regardless of their parents views?
There'd be absolute uproar. And that's not even taking into account the fact that there's a difference between what children will pick up in school, and what they'll pick up at home. If you force parents to have their children educated in sexual matters in a school program, when those children go home, the same parents will forcefully brainwash that education right back out again.
Such a scenario wouldn't be in the best interests of a child that's forced to play piggy in the middle between the State and their parents. Which do you think will have more influence over them?
Depends what age we're talking about, I think. Pre-teens would be more likely to at least pretend to listen to their parents, teenagers not so much.
I'm not sure why there would be uproar, though. Surely the vast majority would feel relief if anything? At least they won't have to have the awkward conversation with their kids.
They're happy enough for the state to teach children about road safety, hygiene and politics, after all. This is about the rights of the children to get all the information available, not about the rights of the parents to keep them stupid.0 -
That might work in an idealised scenario Shenshen, but is there ever such a thing when it comes to discussing sexuality? Or even discussing whether the State should be allowed determine personal responsibility, or whether the State should be allowed interfere in how parents choose to raise their children?
Most people would also prefer if the State stayed well out of their personal lives and that of their children. Could you imagine at some point if the State were to try and make sex education of all children mandatory regardless of their parents views?
There'd be absolute uproar. ....
O well lets be run by the loudest mob then.0 -
Depends what age we're talking about, I think. Pre-teens would be more likely to at least pretend to listen to their parents, teenagers not so much.
I'm not sure why there would be uproar, though. Surely the vast majority would feel relief if anything? At least they won't have to have the awkward conversation with their kids.
They're happy enough for the state to teach children about road safety, hygiene and politics, after all. This is about the rights of the children to get all the information available, not about the rights of the parents to keep them stupid.
Do you see the connection there?
If parents don't want their children to grow up stupid, I wouldn't be depending on a State sponsored sex education to help them in that regard. If parents want their children to grow up well rounded and well informed individuals, then a sex education based purely on a state sponsored curriculum is quite frankly a piss poor idea.0 -
That might work in an idealised scenario Shenshen, but is there ever such a thing when it comes to discussing sexuality? Or even discussing whether the State should be allowed determine personal responsibility, or whether the State should be allowed interfere in how parents choose to raise their children?
Most people would also prefer if the State stayed well out of their personal lives and that of their children. Could you imagine at some point if the State were to try and make sex education of all children mandatory regardless of their parents views?
There'd be absolute uproar. And that's not even taking into account the fact that there's a difference between what children will pick up in school, and what they'll pick up at home. If you force parents to have their children educated in sexual matters in a school program, when those children go home, the same parents will forcefully brainwash that education right back out again.
Such a scenario wouldn't be in the best interests of a child that's forced to play piggy in the middle between the State and their parents. Which do you think will have more influence over them?
Would it be controversial? Yes.
Could it be done? Yes.
And I would think a child would be much better getting factual sex ed in school and some abstinence only conservative sex ed at home than just getting the abstinence only sex ed at home (or none at all).0 -
I get my Leaving Cert results tomorrow and I think we need far better education in this country. I am from the UK and education started in Year 5 (ages 9-10). Over here, we didn't get Sex Ed until 6th year, which is far too late. It was mocked and ridiculed because it was total and utter crap. It gave no useful information. It went mainly on about trimesters and when not to use the pill. What is the point in promoting that in a boys school? Safe sex is practically overlooked in my school, minus one bit about condoms and contraception, which was exclusive to women's issues. No mention of same sex relationships and safe sex for LBGTQ people. One mention of STIs but not how to prevent contracting them. Absolute joke.
We need better sex ed before the age of consent is changed tbh. Earlier, more in depth and more inclusive of other sexualities and genders.0 -
Advertisement
-
That's not strictly true either. It depends on the circumstances, which is why limited scope scenarios aren't really helpful in discussing the broader issues involved-
Source: http://www.b4udecide.ie/the_facts/age_of_consent.html
This is why discussions like this need to be had, so that people who are misinformed can at least be pointed in the right direction to inform themselves of the facts, both adults and teenagers alike.
Jesus Christ who comes up with the laws here that even official sites on the matter don't seem to fully understand?
Girls under 17 cannot be convicted for heterosexual vaginal sex.[27] Offenders are placed on the sex offenders register unless less than 24 months older than the victim.[27] Sex between spouses is not criminalised,[27] although spouses under 18 are rare since the Family Law Act, 1995.[28]
The exemption for girls under 17 was recommended by the LRC and the Director of Public Prosecutions who felt "it would be wrong to stigmatise mothers and pregnant girls of 15 or 16 years of age as if they were either the victims of violent rape or they had committed a crime".[35] While this was controversial, the Minister pointed out that the previous law had not criminalised any sex act by a girl under 17.[36]0
Advertisement