The Age of Consent

hansfrei

Should we lower the age of consent? Whole idea doesn't sit well with me. How amny 16 year olds are responsble enough to bring life into the world, let alone rich enough!

Iwasfrozen

If anything it should be raised to 18.

danniemcq

16, take the taboo away from it, have better sex ed (or just have ANY sex ed) in schools.

to say that raising it or lowering it wouldn't make any change, come on seriously if you are 16 and so is your OH do you really think the thought of breaking the law is gonna stop you?

But by having the age so high it means that there is a lack of teaching and support to those that would need it.

realgolfgeek

It would be pretty sick for this poll to be anything but 100% no.

Sinfonia

In an ideal world, there would be no need for a legal mandate in the first place, and people would just be educated well by their parents and teachers.

In the real world, it should probably be 30 years old, and banned altogether for most people.

Sulla Felix

Realistically:
15 yr old with 15/16 yr old is ok
16 yr old with 15/16/17 yr old is ok
17 yr old with 16/17/18+ yr old is ok
18 yr old with 17/18+ yr old is ok

Teenagers are going to have sex. Lines in the statute book aren't going to change that.

hfallada

I think the bigger issue is the fact sex ed in Ireland is ****. It's about a column in a biology book and half is about how the "roman Catholic Church does not approve of abortions or any form of family planning unless its natural". I went to school 5 years ago and we were given a 30 min talk on sex, meaning I know **** all.

Contraceptives in Ireland are so expensive for young people( I know they are cheaper than a baby etc etc). But €12 for a box of condoms and its like nearly €100 for a 3 month supply of the pill. But we wonder why we have such a high teenage pregrency rate?

Sulla Felix

hfallada wrote: »

I think the bigger issue is the fact sex ed in Ireland is ****. It's about a column in a biology book and half is about how the "roman Catholic Church does not approve of abortions or any form of family planning unless its natural". I went to school 5 years ago and we were given a 30 min talk on sex, meaning I know **** all.

Very true. The only sec ed I got was a half day "fun" seminar with a bunch of crypto-fundamentalists about the dangers of sex. Highlights were the lads being told of an std that could turn the tip of your willy black and it'd fall off and stop working, and the girls being told about how horrible it must be to give a blowjob to a lad who might/might not have taken a slash in the last 24 hours.

camel jockey

hansfrei wrote: »

How amny 16 year olds are responsble enough to bring life into the world, let alone rich enough!

So it should be raised...

cnocbui

realgolfgeek wrote: »

It would be pretty sick for this poll to be anything but 100% no.

Given that most countries in the world have a lower age of consent than Ireland, why do you think the notion of lowering the age of consent is sick?

The average for countries is 16.

Meangadh

I know this isn't the general consensus, but I am often baffled by this whole "sex education is crap in Ireland" thing. I'd definitely agree it was in the past, but nowadays it's way better. Kids in primary school go through a full Relationships and Sexuality programme, and in secondary school the students are given sex Ed classes in religion (ok, not ideal, but it has come a long way from what it was, majority of teachers now are not priests or nuns) and more importantly, it's part of the SPHE programme. On top of that, any students who study Science (which is probably most) and Home Economics will also learn about human reproduction.

And on top of that, I'm sick of hearing the same old tripe about schools not doing enough in this area and it being no wonder we've so many teenage pregnancies when all these teens have parents who should be talking to them about sex and not leaving it to their teachers. I'd include my own parents in that, we didn't really talk about it much, just a quick chat and a book given to me to read. Parents have to be the ones who are the main educators in this area- and if they feel they don't know enough then it's up to them to read up on stuff.

Bottom line- kids aren't half as clueless as we think about sex. They're just typical teenagers- they don't think about the consequences of their actions till it's too late- including the consequences of having sex.

realgolfgeek

put it another way.

Should it be legally right for a 35 year old man to have sex with a 16 year old girl ?

rovoagho

realgolfgeek wrote: »

It would be pretty sick for this poll to be anything but 100% no.

You know that 16 year olds are having sex right now this very minute, right?

I don't think you understand what "age of consent" means. It's not a paedophile licence, there are other issues involved.

Perhaps a little less Mass might help to pull your mind out of the gutter on the issue.

danniemcq

I've been out of school for 10 years now so yes things may have changed but in all the years in school we got 1 sex ed class and that was in transitition year not as part of the standard year.

We had a Canadian chastity group visit twice though and all they said was no sex till you are married.

YbFocus

That poll is worrying!

realgolfgeek

rovoagho wrote: »

You know that 16 year olds are having sex right now this very minute, right?

I don't think you understand what "age of consent" means. It's not a paedophile licence, there are other issues involved.

Perhaps a little less Mass might help to pull your mind out of the gutter on the issue.

yes, you're right:rolleyes:

Pro Hoc Vice

realgolfgeek wrote: »

put it another way.

Should it be legally right for a 35 year old man to have sex with a 16 year old girl ?

Put it another way is it right that a 16 year old boy, gets a conviction as a sex offender for having sex with his 16 year old girlfiriend.

super_furry

Education and access to contraception is much more important than criminalising the natural urges of consenting teenagers. If you have to look down the legal route, maybe a law designed to prevent older adults from taking advantage of them.

realgolfgeek

infosys wrote: »

Put it another way is it right that a 16 year old boy, gets a conviction as a sex offender for having sex with his 16 year old girlfiriend.

I completely agree with you, no, it's not right ... and that's why it's difficult to draw the line.
I just think by lowering it you're advocating the more evil side of a smaller percent of the population to take advantage of it.

Pro Hoc Vice

super_furry wrote: »

Education and access to contraception is much more important than criminalising the natural urges of consenting teenagers. If you have to look down the legal route, maybe a law designed to prevent older adults from taking advantage of them.

A Juliet law would be a good idea, an age of consent with a 1,2 or 3 year age difference.

Pro Hoc Vice

realgolfgeek wrote: »

I completely agree with you, no, it's not right ... and that's why it's difficult to draw the line.
I just think by lowering it you're advocating the more evil side of a smaller percent of the population to take advantage of it.

You can advocate a lowering of the age and in no way condone the more evil side, my personal view is that the age of majority should be the same for everything, be that 16, 17 or 18. But in relation to the age of consent a Juliet law of say 2 years.

seamus

super_furry wrote: »

Education and access to contraception is much more important than criminalising the natural urges of consenting teenagers. If you have to look down the legal route, maybe a law designed to prevent older adults from taking advantage of them.

Pretty much this.

I posted here about abolishing the fixed age of consent before and making the nature of the offence related to the age of the two individuals involved:
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=85968403&postcount=64

Of course it should be gender-neutral, with the aim that children are protected from sexual predators and parents are brought into the loop, while at the same time protecting minors from potentially being branded as a sex offender for the rest of their lives, or from getting a criminal record for engaging mutually and consensually in what teenagers are going to engage in.

Grayson

infosys wrote: »

A Juliet law would be a good idea, an age of consent with a 1,2 or 3 year age difference.

yep. there are 15 year olds who are physically capable of (well, 99% are capable of it) and emotionally able to deal with sex (I won't even hazard a guess as to how many are emotionally able to). It will happen whether it's legal or not. It's best not to turn 15 year olds into criminals for doing something that is really 100% natural. However that doesn't mean it should be legal for a 40 year old to hit on a 15 year old.

Grayson

seamus wrote: »

Of course it should be gender-neutral, with the aim that children are protected from sexual predators and parents are brought into the loop, while at the same time protecting minors from potentially being branded as a sex offender for the rest of their lives, or from getting a criminal record for engaging mutually and consensually in what teenagers are going to engage in.

Or the 15 year olds in the US who had a pyjama party, dressed up and took photo's, shared them with each other and were then charged with producing and distributing child pornography.

GLaDOS

I think it should be 16, but only with people within 2 years of their age (ie up to 18). After 18, they can go nuts.

ted1

realgolfgeek wrote: »

put it another way.

Should it be legally right for a 35 year old man to have sex with a 16 year old girl ?

Yes but that shouldn't have an impact on the age of consent.

in countries that have an age of 16 , there are restrictions, in that they can't have age with someone 4 years older or similar.

so although the age of consent is 16 it still illegal fora 35 year old to have sex with them

Pro Hoc Vice

ted1 wrote: »

Yes but that shouldn't have an impact on the age of consent.

in countries that have an age of 16 , there are restrictions, in that they can't have age with someone 4 years older or similar.

so although the age of consent is 16 it still illegal fora 35 year old to have sex with them

Can you point out a country that has such a limitation.

Pro Hoc Vice

Grayson wrote: »

yep. there are 15 year olds who are physically capable of (well, 99% are capable of it) and emotionally able to deal with sex (I won't even hazard a guess as to how many are emotionally able to). It will happen whether it's legal or not. It's best not to turn 15 year olds into criminals for doing something that is really 100% natural. However that doesn't mean it should be legal for a 40 year old to hit on a 15 year old.

Chatting up, hitting on are not in themselves illegal, in fact for a 15 year old consent can be given for what would be called sexual assault. It is illegal to engage in sex with a child of that age.

Grayson

infosys wrote: »

Chatting up, hitting on are not in themselves illegal, in fact for a 15 year old consent can be given for what would be called sexual assault. It is illegal to engage in sex with a child of that age.

In some jurisdictions grooming is illegal.

hansfrei

Well, we can be sure that this isn't being driven by teenage lobbyists so lets be serious. This is about old bangers having wants for pale young boys.

Not surprising its in focus during the term of this particular government either.

pedanticpat

I think it should be raised to be honest. It's 16 in the UK, and you have 15 year olds taking the piss out of each other for being virgins. It's hideous.

There should be more education about it though. I never received any education about it in school. Kids should be shown that there's other ways of enjoying each other's company outside of penetrative sex.

ted1

infosys wrote: »

Can you point out a country that has such a limitation.

Here's a link. http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-r-0149.htm

it outlines different laws in different state in America.

pablomakaveli

pedanticpat wrote: »

I think it should be raised to be honest. It's 16 in the UK, and you have 15 year olds taking the piss out of each other for being virgins. It's hideous.

There should be more education about it though. I never received any education about it in school. Kids should be shown that there's other ways of enjoying each other's company outside of penetrative sex.

Funnily enough here in the UK at the moment there's been calls to lower the age to 15. Recent polls here have found that about a third of teenagers lose their virginity before the age of 16 and the arguement is that if the age is lower it will give them easier access to sexual health services and contraception.

The Dom

infosys wrote: »

A Juliet law would be a good idea, an age of consent with a 1,2 or 3 year age difference.

If a 16 year boy gets to shag a 15 year old girl, then why can't I an older guy.

That's age discrimination that is and if it's brought in, I'm someone could sue.


I'm kidding.

Here's a relevant story from the UK from earlier this week:

Health expert calls for age of consent to be lowered to 15

A leading public health expert has called on the Government to consider lowering the age of consent to 15.

Professor John Ashton, president of the Faculty of Public Health, said the current legal limit prevented sexually active younger teenagers from getting support with issues of disease and contraception.

With official figures indicating that as many as a third of all 14- and 15-year-olds are having sex in Britain, Prof Ashton told the Sunday Times a nationwide debate was needed to discuss the benefits of lowering the present age of consent of 16.

This morning Downing Street quickly rejected the suggestion from one of the Government’s most senior health advisors. A spokesperson for David Cameron said the law was in place to protect children and that the Prime Minister had “no plans to change it”.

Prof Ashton said keeping the age of consent at 16, first set in 1885, had left the public “confused”. He argued that it would make more sense to lower the limit by one year and “draw a line in the sand” against sex at 14 or younger.

It would also make it easier for 15-year-olds who are already having sex to obtain contraception or sexual health advice from the NHS.

“Because we are so confused about this and we have kept the age of consent at 16, the 15-year-olds don't have clear routes to getting some support,” Prof Ashton said.

“My own view is there is an argument for reducing it to 15 but you cannot do it without the public supporting the idea and we need to get a sense of public opinion about this.

“I would not personally argue for 14 but I think we should seriously be looking at 15 so that we can draw a line in the sand and really, as a society, actively discourage sexual involvement under 15. By doing that, you would be able legitimately to organise services to meet the need.”

A lawyer representing 72 of the victims of Jimmy Savile warned against any move to lower the age of consent.

Liz Dux, who heads a specialist child abuse team at Slater & Gordon, said: “I have real concerns about the prospect of the age of consent being lowered.

“Predatory adults would be given legitimacy to focus their attentions on even younger teenagers and there is a real risk that society would be sending out the message that sex between 14-15-year-olds is also acceptable.

“My work with victims of abuse results in me talking to many who felt pressurised into having sex at a young age but have gone on to live a lifetime of regret.”

David Tucker, head of policy at the NSPCC, said he would be happy to have a debate on the issue but said he would want to see the evidence for Prof Ashton's claims.

“Has there really been a significant change in the amount of young people having sex over the past 20 or 30 years? If it has changed, then is reducing the age of consent the most sensible way to deal with it?” he told the Sunday Times.

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said that Prof Ashton had been right to identify the problem but said that he did not believe that lowering the age of consent was the solution.

“We have far too high levels of teenage pregnancy. I'm worried, like everybody's worried, about the sexualisation of the culture and the information that so many young people are bombarded with at the moment. That's why I do want see action,” he told BBC1's The Andrew Marr Show.

“I'm constantly urging (Education Secretary) Michael Gove and the Department for Education to update and modernise sex education in schools which hasn't kept up with the internet age. But do I think simply a blanket reduction in the age of consent is the answer to this difficult dilemma? No.”

pedanticpat

pablomakaveli wrote: »

Funnily enough here in the UK at the moment there's been calls to lower the age to 15. Recent polls here have found that about a third of teenagers lose their virginity before the age of 16 and the arguement is that if the age is lower it will give them easier access to sexual health services and contraception.

I can understand the concerns with that, but in reality, the droves will take it as a license to breed. It won't change much (whether it's changed or not tbf)

Pro Hoc Vice

ted1 wrote: »

Here's a link. http://www.cga.ct.gov/2003/olrdata/jud/rpt/2003-r-0149.htm

it outlines different laws in different state in America.

Don't think any of them say that there is a age of consent of 16 but there can be a differential. A Juliet law allows a person under the age of consent to have intercourse with a person within a certain age, but an age of consent is just that. I took your original post to say 16 is the age of consent but there is an offence if the person is 4 years or more older,( i.e a 16 year old having intercourse with a 21 year old when the age of consent is 16) I am not aware of any such law.

From your link " (1) less than 15 years old and the actor is at least four years older or (2) at least 15 years old but less than 17 years old and the actor is at least 10 years older " that is simply a Juliet law, the age of consent is in effect 17, but there is a 4 year or 10 year rule depending on age.

cnocbui

infosys wrote: »

Can you point out a country that has such a limitation.

Several - read the notes at the bottom: http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979253831

pablomakaveli

pedanticpat wrote: »

I can understand the concerns with that, but in reality, the droves will take it as a license to breed. It won't change much (whether it's changed or not tbf)

Thats pretty much been the argument against it as well. I personally think it should stay at 16 but make sexual health services available to underage people. Better they are being safe if they are going to have sex.

Pro Hoc Vice

cnocbui wrote: »

Several - read the notes at the bottom: http://i1276.photobucket.com/albums/y462/staffpicks/Animated_GIFs/vet.gif

Am i missing something, lovely animated gifs but can see anything in relation to a country that sets the age of consent at 16 but makes it an offence for a 21 year old to have intercourse with said 16 year old.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

If anything it should be raised to 18.

I'd go for 23 judging by some of the idiots you see in nightclubs on any given night out. A 15 year old is probably in a better position to give consent than some of the adults in the toilets of Coppers at about 1am.

Of course, how you enforce it is antoher thing...

Pro Hoc Vice

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'd go for 23 judging by some of the idiots you see in nightclubs on any given night out. A 15 year old is probably in a better position to give consent than some of the adults in the toilets of Coppers at about 1am.

Of course, how you enforce it is antoher thing...

A intoxicated person in a night club toilet may not be in a position to give real and informed consent, there has been a number of rape cases on the whole issue of real consent while intoxicated.

Of course it should be lowered. If a 16 year old wants to have sex and they believe that they are mentally and physically ready, then why shouldn't they be allowed? A parent and the education system really need to improve their sexual education - remove it from simply a small part of Religious studies (which is the worst place for it!) and give it its own thing. Have better access to contraceptives, reduced rates for those younger. You can't really stop teenagers having sex - you can try, but you'll only increase their urges to have it. So you might as well ensure they are better prepared both through education and protection.

Heck, I'm sometimes amazed at the complete lack of sexual education in people my own age!

Speaking of contraceptives, I never understood the taboo that seems to exist around the purchase of them in smaller pharmacies. Many times have I gone in to buy condoms, to have some biddy behind the counter essentially tutting me.

cnocbui

infosys wrote: »

Am i missing something, lovely animated gifs but can see anything in relation to a country that sets the age of consent at 16 but makes it an offence for a 21 year old to have intercourse with said 16 year old.

My apologies - cut and paste error. Should have been: http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979253831

The Dom

pedanticpat wrote: »

Kids should be shown that there's other ways of enjoying each other's company outside of penetrative sex.

Yes, cause they Feel Love too.

pedanticpat wrote: »

the droves will take it as a license to breed.

Junk.

realgolfgeek wrote: »

It would be pretty sick for this poll to be anything but 100% no.

Smalltown boy?

YbFocus wrote: »

That poll is worrying!

Why?

hansfrei wrote: »

This is about old bangers having wants for pale young boys.

Ain't Necessarily So.

Pro Hoc Vice

cnocbui wrote: »

My apologies - cut and paste error. Should have been: http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474979253831

Again other than Juliet laws, none says the age of consent is 16 but an offence if the other person is 21. The age of consent is just that and age above which a person can validly consent, many countries have a Juliet law below that age. But that is not what the original post I responded said.

Guy:Incognito

Some people have been calling for the voting age to be lowered to 16. So then we'll have a situation where you can decide on who gets to run the country and laws that require a referendum at 16 but youve to wait a year to have sex ( then another year to drink).

We're picking and choosing to suit ourselves when people are deemed adults.

CrazyRabbit

Any law based on age is going to be flawed.
Reaching a specfiic age does not mean you have reached the level of maturity required for responsible sexual activity.

Age difference is far more important. For those under 17/18, a restrictions on the age difference between partners is much more useful. Those younger can be more easily manipulated/coerced into sexual activity by older adults.

I'd like to see exams that test knowledge of STD's/pregnancy, with sex becoming legal only after getting 95% or more. And couple this with excellent sex-ed with a strong focus on the right to say 'no' and how to handle peer pressure.

ted1

infosys wrote: »

Don't think any of them say that there is a age of consent of 16 but there can be a differential.

"The age of consent varies by state, with most states, including Connecticut, setting it at age 16"

if a Juliet law is required then so be it, because the net result will be the same. in that it criminalizes an adult taking advantage of a teen and it allows the teen to get intimate with one of her/his peers.

Maximus Alexander

I don't think 15-17 year olds should be criminalized for having sex with each other, but I also don't think adults should be having sex with 15-17 year olds. I'd imagine it's possible to draft laws to reflect this.

Iwasfrozen

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Teenagers are going to have sex. Lines in the statute book aren't going to change that.

No but stern punishments for offenders will.

Maximus Alexander wrote: »

I don't think 15-17 year olds should be criminalized for having sex with each other,

Why not? They're not mature enough to make that kind of decision.

diomed

Raise the age of consent to 80 and everyone is a paedo.