Is 17 too high for the Age of consent

Czarcasm

floggg wrote: »

Would it be controversial? Yes.

Could it be done? Yes.

No it couldn't be done. Have you any concept of reality at all or is everything just academic to you?

It's impossible enough to get some parents to send their children to school in the morning, let alone think the State has the resources to police the quality of sex ed and how it's being delivered and to whom it's being delivered in either primary or secondary schools.

Some teachers can barely teach children the basics of reading and writing, and you expect they'll be able to deliver an effective sex ed program to children who couldn't be less interested?

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).

Who's saying anything about abstinence only conservative nonsense? Why does everything have to be so black and white. It's anything but in the real world. Most of the time nowadays children still receive no sex ed at home, and they receive an even worse sex ed in school, see the above post, so before you can even begin to discuss facts and figures and all the rest of it, you have to talk about the pervasive attitude in Irish society that's led to things being the way they are- parents preferring to leave it to somebody else to talk to their children about sex and sexuality.

Czarcasm

RandomName2 wrote: »

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]

That's not what you said originally though? You said girls cannot be prosecuted, I just pointed out that they can, and that it depends on the circumstances.

floggg

Czarcasm wrote: »

No it couldn't be done. Have you any concept of reality at all or is everything just academic to you?

It's impossible enough to get some parents to send their children to school in the morning, let alone think the State has the resources to police the quality of sex ed and how it's being delivered and to whom it's being delivered in either primary or secondary schools.

Some teachers can barely teach children the basics of reading and writing, and you expect they'll be able to deliver an effective sex ed program to children who couldn't be less interested?





Who's saying anything about abstinence only conservative nonsense? Why does everything have to be so black and white. It's anything but in the real world. Most of the time nowadays children still receive no sex ed at home, and they receive an even worse sex ed in school, see the above post, so before you can even begin to discuss facts and figures and all the rest of it, you have to talk about the pervasive attitude in Irish society that's led to things being the way they are- parents preferring to leave it to somebody else to talk to their children about sex and sexuality.

Have you any grasp on reality?

I imagine there are few if any parents who aren't sending their kids to school because of specific issues with the curriculum.

The most likely do so because they don't value education. The sex ed curriculum won't have much impact on their attitude.

And while the Irish education system most certainly has flaws its hyperbolic and insulting to teachers to say they can barely teach kids to read and write.

Applying your logic you could say that there is no point in teaching geography, science or maths in Irish schools if the teachers can't be trusted to teach it or the system to supervise them in doing so.

We have learned anecdotally that schools on England and Germany have implanted more effective sex education - and in Germany it seems on a compulsory basis.

We are culturally quite close to England, so I can imagine at the very least we could manage a similar standard.

If we tried hard enough we could do a lot better.

You are appealing to extreme and disproportionate consequences (refusal to send children to school) and teaching deficiencies which bear no relation to reality.

Weirdly you seem to think comprehensive sex education is a good idea in principal but seem opposed to any steps to try and implement it.

If we take the approach that "Irish attitudes aren't ready for a proper discussion on sex so we should never try to have an honest discussion about sex" nothing will ever change.



And the abstinence sex ed was illustrative. If they get no sex ed at home then the school program will be uncontradicted and I can't really think of any other form of sex ed parents might teach unless they are going to come up with something bat**** like sleeping with a virgin cures aids.

RandomName2

Czarcasm wrote: »

That's not what you said originally though? You said girls cannot be prosecuted, I just pointed out that they can, and that it depends on the circumstances.

No it's the same. Boys can be prosecuted, but under the CRIMINAL LAW (SEXUAL OFFENCES) ACT 2006, Article 5, girls cannot.

In fairness to McDowell it was emergency legislation which had to be enacted because the previous law (that genuinely mistaking a person's age was no defence) was unconstitutional.

Pace2008

Czarcasm wrote: »

You're completely and spectacularly missing the point of the age of consent. It's not about prosecuting horny teenagers from having sex. It's about prosecuting horny adults from having sex with horny teenagers.

But, as the law stands, teenagers can be prosecuted for having consensual sex with someone who's the same age as them. If the legislation is there to protect teenagers from manipulative adults then why does it condemn teenagers as well?

To be clear, I have no problem with legislation against predators trying to groom young teens. We're in agreement here. This is the post that's causing me confusion:

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.

They should not be prepared to face the consequences of their decisions because there should not be any consequences for having consensual sex, any more than Turing should have had to face chemical castration for being gay. People should not have to face the consequences of pointless punitive measures because they should not exist in the first place.

See above. The DPP has prosecutorial discretion when a case of two teenagers under the age of consent having sex is reported to the Gardai by a guardian of one or both of the teenagers.

Yes, so basically teenagers can be prosecuted for having consensual sex. There should not be a conduit for angry parents to enact vengeance when they find their fifteen-year-old girl in bed with her boyfriend.

The intent of the law is not to criminalise teenagers. It's not as clear cut as you'd like to make out.

The result of the law is that teenagers are criminalised. If the intent of the law was solely to protect teenagers from manipulative adults then it would be structured so that it is effective when there is a clear age gap between the two parties. Of course this age gap will be ultimately arbitrary, as is the age of consent, but it would be a clear improvement on the current system.

Contingents should be in place so that the law achieves its purpose without any collateral damage. If you're caught on the street with a stanley blade you can be rightfully prosecuted. Fortunately, the law is such that plumbers working on site are not subject to the same measures.

The law serves no apparent purpose to you. It serves a purpose though to teenagers who are manipulated into having a sexual relationship with an adult above the age of consent.

I can see the purpose the law in this regard. I can also see that a byproduct of the legislation is that teenagers can be punished for having consensual sex. Change the law, as above, so that this is not the case.

Well I don't see then why you're getting so bent out of shape about it when you assume the law will never need to apply to you.

OK, so I'm a mé féinner who concerns himself with issues that don't affect himself in any way.

People concern themselves with all sorts of things that have no direct impact on their lives; it's called empathy. You generally seem like a reasonable enough bloke so I'm sure you'll have no problem understanding this.

As it so happens, one of my best friends was almost a victim of this legislation when his girlfriend's pissed-off father found out they'd been sleeping together. Fortunately, my mate's parents managed to talk him down - this should be as far as these things go, a personal discussion between relevant parties. My friend is one of the nicest blokes you'll meet an went out with the same girl for four years after the event. There should not have been a state-endorsed option to have his name dragged through the mud when he had done absolutely nothing wrong.

Czarcasm

floggg wrote: »

Have you any grasp on reality?

I imagine there are few if any parents who aren't sending their kids to school because of specific issues with the curriculum.

The most likely do so because they don't value education. The sex ed curriculum won't have much impact on their attitude.

Let me guess- they're irrelevant to the discussion so?

Ok, lets discount the parents and the children that have no interest in education then. It's not as if those children from lower economic backgrounds are most in need of it or anything.

And while the Irish education system most certainly has flaws its hyperbolic and insulting to teachers to say they can barely teach kids to read and write.

Sorry I was just browsing Facebook there, what were you saying about kids hardly being able to read and write?

We have learned anecdotally that schools on England and Germany have implanted more effective sex education - and in Germany it seems on a compulsory basis.

We are culturally quite close to England, so I can imagine at the very least we could manage a similar standard.

If we tried hard enough we could do a lot better.

Are we? How are those LGBT marriage equality rights coming along then? Or our half arsed legislation on abortion? That only took 20 years to come with, and you're talking about trying hard enough?

floggg our Government doesn't know the meaning of the expression trying hard enough. "It'll do" seems to be the Irish approach to anything, as demonstrated by RandomName's post above.

You are appealing to extreme and disproportionate consequences (refusal to send children to school) and teaching deficiencies which bear no relation to reality.

Much less a refusal, and more an inability or a lack of willingness to make sure their children understand the value as you said of an education.

As for teaching deficiencies which bear no relation to reality, well you're going to love this- the department of education are phasing out school inspection visits in favor of self assessment! Seriously, as long as the numbers look good on paper, the school and it's students can go to shìte.

You still think there's money in the department of education budget to implement a comprehensive sex education program when the government hasn't so much as a pot to piss in and teachers care more about their croke park hours than they do about their students?

Not only is the money not there, the motivations not there either.

Weirdly you seem to think comprehensive sex education is a good idea in principal but seem opposed to any steps to try and implement it.

When did I ever say that? Because I said sex education in school is crap? It IS! That's a fact. You're opposed to parents talking to their children about sex because you believe they're not the best qualified people to do so. They're only the child's parents, what would they know about sex, right? Seems legit.

If we take the approach that "Irish attitudes aren't ready for a proper discussion on sex so we should never try to have an honest discussion about sex" nothing will ever change.

Well when we try that here, we have fly by posters insinuating that I'm some kind of sick minded pervert with a thing for ten year olds. You think that's the attitude of a person prepared to have an honest discussion about sex? I don't.

And the abstinence sex ed was illustrative. If they get no sex ed at home then the school program will be uncontradicted and I can't really think of any other form of sex ed parents might teach unless they are going to come up with something bat**** like sleeping with a virgin cures aids.

The parents may not contradict the program (that's not necessarily a good thing either when you think about Irish educational regimes historically speaking when parents didn't question educational authorities), but you were a child once, what sex myths did you pick up from your friends and from television and even the internet?

That's just a rhetorical question btw.

floggg

Czarcasm wrote: »

Let me guess- they're irrelevant to the discussion so?

Ok, lets discount the parents and the children that have no interest in education then. It's not as if those children from lower economic backgrounds are most in need of it or anything.




Sorry I was just browsing Facebook there, what were you saying about kids hardly being able to read and write?







Are we? How are those LGBT marriage equality rights coming along then? Or our half arsed legislation on abortion? That only took 20 years to come with, and you're talking about trying hard enough?



floggg our Government doesn't know the meaning of the expression trying hard enough. "It'll do" seems to be the Irish approach to anything, as demonstrated by RandomName's post above.

So lets give up trying anything so. Great.





Much less a refusal, and more an inability or a lack of willingness to make sure their children understand the value as you said of an education.

As for teaching deficiencies which bear no relation to reality, well you're going to love this- the department of education are phasing out school inspection visits in favor of self assessment! Seriously, as long as the numbers look good on paper, the school and it's students can go to shìte.


You still think there's money in the department of education budget to implement a comprehensive sex education program when the government hasn't so much as a pot to piss in and teachers care more about their croke park hours than they do about their students?


Not only is the money not there, the motivations not there either.





When did I ever say that? Because I said sex education in school is crap? It IS! That's a fact. You're opposed to parents talking to their children about sex because you believe they're not the best qualified people to do so. They're only the child's parents, what would they know about sex, right? Seems legit.





Well when we try that here, we have fly by posters insinuating that I'm some kind of sick minded pervert with a thing for ten year olds. You think that's the attitude of a person prepared to have an honest discussion about sex? I don't.





The parents may not contradict the program (that's not necessarily a good thing either when you think about Irish educational regimes historically speaking when parents didn't question educational authorities), but you were a child once, what sex myths did you pick up from your friends and from television and even the internet?

That's just a rhetorical question btw.

Now who's twisting and misrepresenting things?

I neither said they should be discounted, nor is it the logical conclusion of the point I made.

The fact that a small minority of parents don't value education generally is not a reason however we shouldn't try and improve the curriculum for all children.

Even the kids whose parents don't value education will gain some benefit from an improved curriculum, though less than they might if they and their parents were more engaged.

It would be hard for kids to use Facebook if they can't read, wouldn't it?

According to wikipedia we have 99% literacy (as of 2003). Only 7 countries have 100% - 4 of which are micro-state (Vatican City, Andorra, Luxembourg and Lietchentstein).

Per this 2012 Article we were ranked 11th internationally for education standards - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-20498356


So please just stop with your argument that we can't manage to teach reading and writing. You're making yourself look bad.

There are flaws but Irish kids are generally well educated. And certainly Irish schools are capable of delivering some reasonably comprehensive lessons on sex ed.

We manage to do reasonably well in plenty of other subjects - otherwise how would we ever have doctors, accountants, lawyers, scientists, computer programmers?

In fact, I would say it is one of the few that students would pay attention to, even if for the sake of how cringey it would be for the teacher.

I can still remember the two hour lesson we got in sixth class (seriously - that was it) for sex ed. One of the few lessons I can remember.

12 year old kids will pay attention if you mention sex.


And I never said I was opposed to parents talking to their kdis about sex. I did say the state should have primary responsibility for teaching kids the facts about sex as not all parents will do so.

After that its up to the parents to decide what else they say, but at least the kids will have been told the basic facts at least once.

And yes, kids learn myths on the playground. That's why you have sex ed to dispel those myths.

gcgirl

1shot16 wrote: »

15 is right...

17 at least they are nearly old to deal with a unwanted pregnancy at 15 you can't really deal with your doctor when it comes to different stuff not only trying to obtain contraceptives

floggg

gcgirl wrote: »

17 at least they are nearly old to deal with a unwanted pregnancy at 15 you can't really deal with your doctor when it comes to different stuff not only trying to obtain contraceptives

If keeping it at 17 meant that 15 year olds wouldn't have sex I'd agree with you entirely.

Czarcasm

floggg wrote: »

If keeping it at 17 meant that 15 year olds wouldn't have sex I'd agree with you entirely.

As someone else mentioned in the thread already though floggg, there's a whole multitude of issues need to be looked at before we look at changing the age of consent.

I would reply to your last post, but we'd be going WAY off topic tbh.

suicide_circus

Do you know what kids aren't doing enough of? Ridin'

gcgirl

floggg wrote: »

If keeping it at 17 meant that 15 year olds wouldn't have sex I'd agree with you entirely.

From 13 onwards I was exploring my sexuality didn't actually have sex till my early 20's mainly because the guys I had previously been with were in all words hopeless and hadn't a clue, I do think a lot of boys/lads lie a lot about their sex life, saying they have one when actually its palm and her 5 sisters, currently I'd be horrified if I discovered my 12 yr old daughter was in any way sexually active but alas she is not interested in boys my 7 yr old on the other hand is another story but alas its only Harry and Niall n Zayn for now

suicide_circus

gcgirl wrote: »

From 13 onwards I was exploring my sexuality didn't actually have sex till my early 20's mainly because the guys I had previously been with were in all words hopeless and hadn't a clue, I do think a lot of boys/lads lie a lot about their sex life, saying they have one when actually its palm and her 5 sisters

Pam AND her FIVE sisters????!!!
I certainly wasn't getting that kind if incestuous gang action in my youth, mostly just pulled the wire off myself

Mike 1972

RandomName2 wrote: »

In fairness to McDowell it was emergency legislation onal.

Emergency legislation should by its nature always incorporate a clause providing for it to lapse after two years or whatever length of time it takes for properly debated legislation to be drafted and enacted.