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
  • 12-08-2013 10:31pm
    #1
    Specialun
    Registered Users Posts: 3,068 ✭✭✭


    I dont want to go around banging a bunch of 16 yr olds girls but I was listening to a debate on 4fm earlier and this was mentioned

    I personally think it should be lower as these days teenagers are more aware of the consequences and more mature

    Whats your opinion


«1345

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Specialun wrote: »
    I dont want to go around banging a bunch of 16 yr olds girls but I was listening to a debate on 4fm earlier and this was mentioned

    I personally think it should be lower as these days teenagers are more aware of the consequences and more mature

    Whats your opinion


    Seriously? :pac:


    Oh yeah- No.


    And having listened to the same "debate", it's probably best to give it some context as to what they were talking about -


    http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23653172

    Former newspaper owner Eddy Shah has said under-age girls who engage in consensual sex can be "to blame" for the abuse they experience.

    Mr Shah was recently cleared of raping a schoolgirl in London hotels when she was between 12 and 15.

    He said charges of rape involving girls under 16 who "threw themselves" at celebrities could be "technical".

    But the NSPCC and National Association of People Abused in Childhood said rape was always a crime.

    Mr Shah, the 69-year-old founder of the newspaper Today, who lives in Chippenham, Wiltshire, was found not guilty at the Old Bailey last month of raping a girl at upmarket London hotels when she was between 12 and 15.

    After the case he called for a review of how rape cases are dealt with by police, saying: "Anybody walking down the street can point at a celebrity and say, 'he raped me'.

    And on Saturday he told BBC Radio 5 live's Stephen Nolan rape charges involving girls who "threw themselves" at celebrities were a legal technicality.

    Mr Shah said: "If we take the pop groups and people of the 1960s, 70s, and 80s, who everybody knows that women were throwing themselves at them - young girls who looked 17, 18, 19 and 20...

    "Rape was a technical thing - below a certain age. But these girls were going out with the pop groups and becoming groupies and all the rest of it, and throwing themselves at them. You cannot put that down to the fact they've been abused.

    "Young girls and young men have always wanted a bit of excitement when they are young. They want to appear adult and do adult things."

    When asked if he was implying that under-age victims could themselves be at fault, he said: "If we're talking about girls who go out and just have a good time, then they are to blame.

    "If we talk about people who happen to be out and actually get 'raped' raped, then I feel no - and everything should be done against that."


  • Options
    #3
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 81,994 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    well you could start by making the consent laws gender-neutral..


  • Options
    #4
    wazky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,516 ✭✭✭wazky


    My opinion?

    Leave your front door open, no point in having the Guards smash it down.


  • Options
    #5
    Tombi!
    Registered Users Posts: 6,689 ✭✭✭Tombi!


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

    Or just provide better f**king sex education.


  • Options
    #6
    Brego888
    Registered Users Posts: 1,314 ✭✭✭Brego888


    When you delete files off your computer/laptop they are not really gone.
    Burn your hard drive or throw it in a lake


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    Specialun
    Registered Users Posts: 3,068 ✭✭✭Specialun


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Seriously? :pac:


    Well when i was in school we had zero sex education..nowadays it is thought in schools..thus more aware of the dangers of sex


  • Options
    #8
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Specialun wrote: »
    I dont want to go around banging a bunch of 16 yr olds girls but I was listening to a debate on 4fm earlier and this was mentioned

    I personally think it should be lower as these days teenagers are more aware of the consequences and more mature

    Whats your opinion

    It criminalises teenagers for having sex with teenagers, which is fucking mental. It should be lowered to 14 or 15 with an exception for those within a few years in age.

    And, as mentioned, be made gender neutral.


  • Options
    #9
    matrim
    Registered Users Posts: 7,517 ✭✭✭matrim


    I wouldn't mind it being lower but having a kind of tiered system (and without the gender issue that is currently there), e.g. 2 15yo isn't illegal. A 16yo and 15yo isn't illegal but maybe a 17yo and 15yo is illegal.

    There obviously has to be common sense in terms of how it's applied, e.g. a couple who have been together for a while and suddenly one of them has a birthday and it is now illegal but if you have any kind of age of consent you'll have to deal with that kind of situation.


  • Options
    #10
    CuriousG
    Registered Users Posts: 420 ✭✭CuriousG


    No way


  • Options
    #11
    biko
    Registered Users Posts: 81,223 ✭✭✭✭biko


    15 is quite common. I think between 15 and 18, as long as both are of adjacent years, that could work. Over 18 you can bang anyone/any age.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    Frosty McSnowballs
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,396 ✭✭✭Frosty McSnowballs


    Higher it to 25

    "My Teen Mom" and "16 and pregnant" have ruined tv for me


  • Options
    #13
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    biko wrote: »
    15 is quite common. I think between 15 and 18, as long as both are of adjacent years, that could work. Over 18 you can bang anyone/any age.


    Even fat oul fellahs of 43. Yes ladies, tis true.


  • Options
    #14
    Tombi!
    Registered Users Posts: 6,689 ✭✭✭Tombi!


    I think a two year age gap would work once you're 15. Maybe 14 - 15 can have sex, 15 - 17, 16 - 18 and 17 - 20

    Baring obvious things like a person in a position of authority, etc.


  • Options
    #15
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Specialun wrote: »
    Well when i was in school we had zero sex education..nowadays it is thought in schools..thus more aware of the dangers of sex


    They have fcukall sex education in school nowadays either. They make a piss poor ham fisted attempt at it, but that's all it is- the dangers of sex, nothing about how enjoyable it can be when handled from a mature perspective.

    Information != Education.

    Understanding = Education.

    Because children and young adults mature intellectually at different levels and ages and process information differently, a more individualised approach is needed, ie- Make it the responsibility of the parents to educate their children, rather than one adult fielding questions from 30 children of different intellectual levels while delivering only the basics of what the curriculum requires.

    There HAS to be an arbitrary age, and 17 is that age, it doesn't need to be reduced. Teenagers were always having sex, no different now than it was 30 years ago, it's not the age of consent needs to change, it's the method of delivery of the information.

    The curriculum hasn't kept up with the cultural changes.


  • Options
    #16
    RandomName2
    Registered Users Posts: 5,566 ✭✭✭RandomName2


    The highest age of consent in the EU. Some achievement I suppose.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Age_of_Consent_eu.png

    Sure contraception has only been legal here two decades.


  • Options
    #17
    Owen_S
    Registered Users Posts: 1,211 ✭✭✭Owen_S


    IMO it should be 16, with a 2 year age gap to account for certain situations(like a 17 year old and a 15 year old). This would make it clear that an old perv can't have sex with somebody under 16, while also preventing young people having consensual sex from being prosecuted(in most cases).


  • Options
    #18
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    ...............
    There HAS to be an arbitrary age, and 17 is that age, it doesn't need to be reduced. Teenagers were always having sex, no different now than it was 30 years ago, it's not the age of consent needs to change, it's the method of delivery of the information.

    The curriculum hasn't kept up with the cultural changes.


    To the best of my knowledge teenagers within two years of each other have been prosecuted for having consensual sex - they may have been put on the sex offenders register. That's a culture that needs to change there.


  • Options
    #19
    shleedance
    Registered Users Posts: 240 ✭✭shleedance


    Should be in two ranges. If you're 17 or under, then 14 could suffice. If you're 18 or over, then the age of consent is 17.


  • Options
    #20
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Nodin wrote: »
    To the best of my knowledge teenagers within two years of each other have been prosecuted for having consensual sex - they may have been put on the sex offenders register. That's a culture that needs to change there.


    That 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.


  • Options
    #21
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    That 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.


    ....they'd love you in Saudi. I'd put up "sex crime" but the song isn't angry and contempt filled enough.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Nodin wrote: »
    ....they'd love you in Saudi. I'd put up "sex crime" but the song isn't angry and contempt filled enough.


    We're not living in Saudi Arabia though, are we?

    Also it's worth noting that as long as the age difference IS only two years, the teenager will NOT be put on the sex offenders register.

    If teenagers think they're old enough and bold enough to engage in sexual activity and consider themselves mature enough to have sex, then shouldn't they also be considered mature enough to deal with the possible adverse consequences of same?

    Would you like to see a double standard apply where they're considered adult enough to have sex, but they're only kids when it comes to dealing with the consequences if things don't go to plan?


  • Options
    #23
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,522 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    That 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.

    Should both teenagers be held responsible in this case?


  • Options
    #24
    qo2cj1dsne8y4k
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,646 ✭✭✭✭qo2cj1dsne8y4k


    I don't think so. Hell even at 17, I don't think someone is mature enough to make that decision, I know I wasnt at least. I don't think kids are having sex quite as early as they lead their friends ect to believe.


  • Options
    #25
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    NiallSparky wrote: »
    Should both teenagers be held responsible in this case?


    Yes? Is that a trick question?


  • Options
    #26
    Amirani
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 12,522 Mod ✭✭✭✭Amirani


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Yes? Is that a trick question?

    Nope. Just that it's not really the case at the moment.


  • Options
    #27
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    We're not living in Saudi Arabia though, are we?

    Also it's worth noting that as long as the age difference IS only two years, the teenager will NOT be put on the sex offenders register.

    If teenagers think they're old enough and bold enough to engage in sexual activity and consider themselves mature enough to have sex, then shouldn't they also be considered mature enough to deal with the possible adverse consequences of same?

    Why should there be consequences at all?


  • Options
    #28
    Crooked Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 5,678 ✭✭✭Crooked Jack


    Specialun wrote: »
    I dont want to go around banging a bunch of 16 yr olds girls

    What's wrong with you?


  • Options
    #29
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    LexieOnRale wrote: »
    I don't think so. Hell even at 17, I don't think someone is mature enough to make that decision, I know I wasnt at least. I don't think kids are having sex quite as early as they lead their friends ect to believe.


    Lexie I've dealt with eight year olds giving blow jobs to 11 year olds, it's not uncommon as you might think, and certainly kids think they're more clued in to sex nowadays.

    They shìt themselves then when they think they have an STI or they might be pregnant when their period is a few days late.

    There is a STAGGERING lack of information in todays youth surrounding the myriad of sexual matters- they know all the moves in the bedroom, but know fcukall about how to take care of their sexual health or the possible consequences thereafter, and that's not even getting into whether they're emotionally capable of processing their sexuality and understanding more complex issues surrounding all things sexual.


  • Options
    #30
    qo2cj1dsne8y4k
    Closed Accounts Posts: 23,646 ✭✭✭✭qo2cj1dsne8y4k


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Lexie I've dealt with eight year olds giving blow jobs to 11 year olds, it's not uncommon as you might think, and certainly kids think they're more clued in to sex nowadays.

    They shìt themselves then when they think they have an STI or they might be pregnant when their period is a few days late.

    There is a STAGGERING lack of information in todays youth surrounding the myriad of sexual matters- they know all the moves in the bedroom, but know fcukall about how to take care of their sexual health or the possible consequences thereafter, and that's not even getting into whether they're emotionally capable of processing their sexuality and understanding more complex issues surrounding all things sexual.

    Good God, that's really disturbing. I made that comment just based on my own experience and group of friends, I know I lied about doing it before I actually did it.

    It's really sad that kids are doing that before they even hit puberty. :/


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    NiallSparky wrote: »
    Nope. Just that it's not really the case at the moment.


    Here's why the distinction-

    If both people are under 17, why are boys and girls treated differently?
    The law makes this distinction because it does not want to seem to punish pregnancy nor to discourage reporting by female victims of incidents of sexual assault or rape.


    Source: http://www.b4udecide.ie/the_facts/age_of_consent.htm

    Nodin wrote: »
    Why should there be consequences at all?


    Why should there be consequences when people choose to break the law? Seriously Nodin? You know better.


Advertisement