Should the age of consent be reduced to 16?

freshpopcorn

At the moment I think it should unless I was shown research that it would have a real negative effect on people.

Should the age of consent be reduced to 16?
Note I'm referring to 16 to 18 year olds not a 40 year old sleeping with a 16 year old.
Age of consent is 17!

KERSPLAT!

Why do you think it should be reduced to 16?

GLaDOS

Yes but only if both people are under 18.

The_Valeyard

No problem with 16-18s getting it on with such a close age. But say mid 30s male sleeping with a 16 year old girl, seems bit scummy to me.


Restrictions and separate laws would need to remain in place regarding teachers and their students, etc.

mansize

No. Its fine as it is. 15/16 years olds can have sex with each other and
The consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions is required for any prosecution of a child under the age of 17 years for this offence. A person who is convicted of this offence and is not more than two years older than the victim is not subject to the requirements of the Sex Offenders Act 2001. This means they will not have their name placed on the Sex Offenders Register.

Agent Smyth

There are some countries in Europe where I think the age of consent is 12
I think that is too low, 16 is alright if the child is mature enough but personally I feel 18 is the right age for most people

questionmark?

Jail bait trouble OP?

The Backwards Man

I dunno, on the one hand I think yeah, why not? But on the other, why the fcuk do people want to grow up so fast for? First getting into nightclubs, then riding one another and driving cars and voting. Yep, I was the same at that age, like everyone else I thought I knew it all.

But like everyone else, I knew fcuk all.

freshpopcorn

Agent Smyth wrote: »

There are some countries in Europe where I think the age of consent is 12
I think that is too low, 16 is alright if the child is mature enough but personally I feel 18 is the right age for most people

So you think it should be risen?

nullzero

No and as a grown man I wouldn't be in the least bit concerned if it did change as I wouldn't be availing of it anyway.

Subcomandante Marcos

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Yes but only if both people are under 18.

This, basically.

Criminalising 16 year olds for f**king is like criminalising bears for shi*ting in the woods.

Agent Smyth

freshpopcorn wrote: »

So you think it should be risen?

well there you go, shows how much I know :rolleyes:

whatismyname

Out of interest, every time we discuss this, is it the same things being said each time?

freshpopcorn

whatismyname wrote: »

Out of interest, every time we discuss this, is it the same things being said each time?

All topics are like that tough nearly unless there's some amazing new research or people have changed there minds to life experiences!

Samaris

Mh..overall, no. A lot of growing, mentally and physically, happens between 16 and 18.

freshpopcorn

Samaris wrote: »

Mh..overall, no. A lot of growing, mentally and physically, happens between 16 and 18.

So you want it risen?

anitaca

freshpopcorn wrote: »

At the moment I think it should unless I was shown research that it would have a real negative effect on people.

Should the age of consent be reduced to 16?
Note I'm referring to 16 to 18 year olds not a 40 year old sleeping with a 16 year old.
Age of consent is 17!

If an 18 yr old having sex with a 16 yr old would not have a real negative effect how would a 40 yr old?

Tigger

anitaca wrote: »

If an 18 yr old having sex with a 16 yr old would not have a real negative effect how would a 40 yr old?

It would make me me feel old

esforum

ScienceNerd wrote: »

Yes but only if both people are under 18.

So a 16 and 17 year old is ok but when after being together for a year the older one is 18 and the younger one 17, it becomes a crime?

Dick phelan

What needs to change is people who are of a similar age being prosecuted for, it should not be a crime for a 16 year old lad to have sex with a 15/16 year old girl. The law is extremely sexist toward males

Keane2baMused

esforum wrote: »

So a 16 and 17 year old is ok but when after being together for a year the older one is 18 and the younger one 17, it becomes a crime?

No because they would be 17!

Keane2baMused

Dick phelan wrote: »

What needs to change is people who are of a similar age being prosecuted for, it should not be a crime for a 16 year old lad to have sex with a 15/16 year old girl. The law is extremely sexist toward males

I agree with this. This law makes absolutely no sense.

diomed

I can think of a few areas of the country where it should be raised to 75 (just to be sure).

ElleEm

I don't think the legislation actually affects the behaviour of those it applies to.

confusedeire

The law should be half your age plus 7....

One eyed Jack

freshpopcorn wrote: »

At the moment I think it should unless I was shown research that it would have a real negative effect on people.

Should the age of consent be reduced to 16?
Note I'm referring to 16 to 18 year olds not a 40 year old sleeping with a 16 year old.
Age of consent is 17!

At the moment, a 40 year old can have sex with a 17 year old, and lowering the age of consent would mean anyone, of any age, could have sex with someone once they turn 16 as long as they're not directly related to them. So I can't see what you're really changing by just lowering the age? I think what you're actually looking for is the change that's already being proposed in the upcoming Sexual Offences Bill 2015 - the age of consent remains at 17, but there's a "proximity of age" defence.

Dravokivich

confusedeire wrote: »

The law should be half your age plus 7....

Doesn't work if your 14.

Samaris

freshpopcorn wrote: »

So you want it risen?

Where did you get that from?

GLaDOS

esforum wrote: »

So a 16 and 17 year old is ok but when after being together for a year the older one is 18 and the younger one 17, it becomes a crime?

The age of consent is 17, so no.

esforum

ScienceNerd wrote: »

The age of consent is 17, so no.

Keane2baMused wrote: »

No because they would be 17!

so what are you actually suggesting then?

THat the age should be 16 but at 16 you cant have sex with someone older than 18?

or that the age of consent shouldnt matter once both peple are under 18? ie a 12 year old and a 17 year old.

or as has been suggested, that once both are under 18 theres an allowance for people of similar age?

Pac1Man

Filthy talk. A bit of hugging is all you need.

GLaDOS

esforum wrote: »

or as has been suggested, that once both are under 18 theres an allowance for people of similar age?

This, essentially. 16 year olds having sex with people of a similar age should not be criminalised. Lowering it to 16 in all cases (ie a 24 year old could have sex with a 16 year old) doesn't sit right with me.

Age of consent is a tricky thing. There are 15 year olds mature enough to have sex, while there are 17 year olds who aren't. Teens mature differently and no matter what age you choose, it's always going to be a bit arbitrary and cut off or include people who shouldn't be.

poa

How times change.
My great-grandmother married at 16, my great-grandfather was 28. They had 10 children, my grandmother was the last born in 1916.
They lied on the census saying she was 18, but her birth and marriage certificate told the truth.
The thing is, back then it was no big deal to marry or have a child at 16. Often children left school at 13 or 14 and went to work.
If anything, I would say 16 year olds are more mature than say 100 years ago.
The way I see it is this, say a 16-18 boy/girl want to have sex, that should be legal. But over 18 should be illegal to have sex with a 16 year old or younger.
The reality is often girls are sexually active at 14 or 15 anyway. So the age of consent is meaningless to them.
My friend was 19 and had a 16 year old girlfriend. She got pregnant at 16. They are now married with 2 daughters; the eldest is 16 herself now. And he is paranoid about her getting pregnant like her mother did.
I never thought it would last when I knew them back then; but here they are 16 years later happily married.
Now if you apply today's laws to their situation; he would be deemed a sex offender, having sex with a 16 year old at 19. But that couldn't be further from the truth. She was mature, and wanted sex with him.
It's a difficult one to legislate for. I can see it from both perspectives; a 19 year old lad that wants the ride; and a protective father too.
The way I see it is this; whether the age of consent is 16 or 17, it won't stop a 14 or 15 year old girl having sex if she wants to. It may deter some older men, but it may not.
I would like to think it reduces the number of underage sex offences; but in reality I don't think the age of consent does.
16/17/18, sex/drive/vote, smoking, drinking. Maybe it should be 18 for everything? But would it really make a difference? I think no.
I see plenty of under 18's in my town smoking and drinking, so I think its meaningless in a lot of cases.

Tombi!

Lower it and provide better sex education.
Or higher it and provide better sex education.

Or just provide better f**king sex education.

Same opinion on it the last time this was asked (this isn't to say the thread is bad, OP. I'm just copying my old post since it's still my opinion and just as valid now)

poa

Tombi! wrote: »

Lower it and provide better sex education.
Or higher it and provide better sex education.

Or just provide better f**king sex education.

Same opinion on it the last time this was asked (this isn't to say the thread is bad, OP. I'm just copying my old post since it's still my opinion and just as valid now)

That is probably the most sensible solution.
I think the main problem is Ireland's schools are still mainly church controlled.
And the Catholic Church won't like giving say 14-16 year olds better sex education.
The pill, condoms, implants, coils, STD's; the things they need to know about.
Its sad really, as often teens get pregnant as a result of little or no sex education at school or home. Its often just the repressed Catholic guilt of sex being dirty and sinful.
My friend educated both her daughters from 11 onwards about everything from periods to condoms. She bought them books on puberty etc. Now they have no shame or embarrassment going to her with questions on sex. I think as embarrassing it may be for some teens or parents; they need to get over that and make up for the lack of sex education in schools. Rather than deal with the accidents that happen after.

Cathy.C

freshpopcorn wrote: »

Note I'm referring to 16 to 18 year olds not a 40 year old sleeping with a 16 year old.

Just finished the 4th chapter in Burt Reynolds autobiography there before logging in and the last thing that happened was that he was telling of how when he was 15-years-old he was seduced by this gorgeous 43 year-old woman on a pier where he fished and it was the beginnings of what went on on to be a three month long affair

Age exemptions I agree with to a point. I would actually lower it to 15-years-old for the same age and up to 18 and the 16 for up to 21 and 17 without exemptions. In the UK there have been some calls for 15-years-old to be the age of consent. Although in Spain they increased it from 13 to 16 quite recently.

Incidentally, correlation between teen pregnancies and lower ages of consent doesn't appear to be the case as the UK has one of the highest in Europe and their teen pregnancies rate is also one of the highest. Whereas Germany and Italy have one of the lowest rates of teen pregnancies and their age of consent is 14.

RDM_83 again

poa wrote: »

That is probably the most sensible solution.
I think the main problem is Ireland's schools are still mainly church controlled.
And the Catholic Church won't like giving say 14-16 year olds better sex education.
The pill, condoms, implants, coils, STD's; the things they need to know about.
Its sad really, as often teens get pregnant as a result of little or no sex education at school or home. Its often just the repressed Catholic guilt of sex being dirty and sinful.
.

I will point you too the UK with its extremely limited influence of the Catholic Church and the highest Teen pregnancy rate in western Europe.

esforum

ScienceNerd wrote: »

This, essentially. 16 year olds having sex with people of a similar age should not be criminalised. Lowering it to 16 in all cases (ie a 24 year old could have sex with a 16 year old) doesn't sit right with me.

Age of consent is a tricky thing. There are 15 year olds mature enough to have sex, while there are 17 year olds who aren't. Teens mature differently and no matter what age you choose, it's always going to be a bit arbitrary and cut off or include people who shouldn't be.

I would agree, i think in all reality, a general age of consent and then an age difference limit is about as good as you will get.

I personally would have the age at 16 and a 2 year limit

Lavinia

I'd vote for 18 if anyone would ask me...
Same as what's for considering someone responsible adult in the eyes of the law..

poa

RDM_83 again wrote: »

I will point you too the UK with its extremely limited influence of the Catholic Church and the highest Teen pregnancy rate in western Europe.

Ireland 4.6M.
UK 66M.

One can hardly compare teen pregnancy rates 4.6M v 66M population.
Age of consent across Europe does not match teen pregnancy rates.
Its a moot point.
But to clarify younger consent doesn't mean more teen pregnancies, nor does higher consent mean less.
More Church state school control means less sex/contraception education; that's a given.
According to the 2011 census, Christianity is the most popular religion in the UK.
So it doesn't matter whether its Catholic/Ireland influence in schools, or Protestant/English influence. The ethos is the same, lack of sex education on contraception/birth control etc.
Ironically more liberal countries with less religious influence seem to have lower teen pregnancy rates, than both the UK and Ireland; so the indoctrination of teens in schools clearly fails anyway.

FizzleSticks

This post has been deleted.

If I recall correctly 17 was a political compromise between the former 16 for heterosexual sex and 18 for male gay sex. 17 was to ensure equality but without any specific logic behind it. I don't think there was ever an age limit for girl-girl sex, not sure if there is now....

Age limits among same age teens make little sense except as a guide to good parenting (though then they should be much higher).

El_Duderino 09

Tombi! wrote:

Lower it and provide better sex education. Or higher it and provide better sex education. Or just provide better f**king sex education.

This.

Research shows that children who receive better sex education, tend to wait longer before actually having sex and report a more positive sexual experience and more positive attitude towards sex, lower rates it unplanned pregnancy and abortion. That's probably the most desirable outcome.

Little CuChulainn

mansize wrote: »

No. Its fine as it is. 15/16 years olds can have sex with each other and
The consent of the Director of Public Prosecutions is required for any prosecution of a child under the age of 17 years for this offence. A person who is convicted of this offence and is not more than two years older than the victim is not subject to the requirements of the Sex Offenders Act 2001. This means they will not have their name placed on the Sex Offenders Register.

Are you sure that's not the proposed law as opposed to existing law?

benjamin d

Personally I don't think there should be ANY age of consent other than under 18s being among their peers (+ or - 2 years or whatever). If 11 or 12 year olds are having sex that's a serious problem, but adding criminal charges to that is bloody stupid imo.

looking_around

I think it would be easier to add a Juliets law. Whete by teenage partners can be within 2 years of eachother age. So that one doesn't suddenly become a criminal for being 17 and the partner is 15.
This recognises that teens can and do consent to sex, while protecting them from predators. Which is supposed to be the point to the law isn't it?

benjamin d

benjamin d wrote: »

Personally I don't think there should be ANY age of consent other than under 18s being among their peers (+ or - 2 years or whatever).

People forget sometimes that teens can be more cruel, nasty and manipulative towards each other than almost any adult could be.

ToddyDoody

I think you should need written parental permission between, say, 14 and 18. Then once legally an adult, it's their decision.

freshpopcorn

Samaris wrote: »

Where did you get that from?

Samaris wrote: »

Mh..overall, no. A lot of growing, mentally and physically, happens between 16 and 18.

Because in your original post you said there's a lot of growing up to be done between 16 and 18 and the age of consent at the moment is 17!

esforum

ToddyDoody wrote: »

I think you should need written parental permission between, say, 14 and 18. Then once legally an adult, it's their decision.

what? You think a teeneger should be able to approach a parent and ask for a note that gives them permission to have sex with random strangers?

Its not PE ffs!

Agent Smyth

esforum wrote: »

what? You think a teeneger should be able to approach a parent and ask for a note that gives them permission to have sex with random strangers?

Its not PE ffs!

Yeah but there letters I'd love to see

Dear Dad
You know that boy I have been seeing........