Does anyone have figures for people in prison for consensual sex with similarly aged but underage partners?

Like other posters have already said this doesn't happen often.

Sea Houses SIL is an example of where the parent wants to get involved but the girl doesn't - this is usually the case.
The law exists and it stands as it does - however it doesn't mean that it is 'used' if you like, unless in unusual circumstances ie girl is pregnant, parents are outraged and want something done about and insist that the matter is reported to the police.
But your right in that mutually agreed sex amongst teens is happening all the time without being reported to police - but it doesn't mean that it then makes it legal.

A is the boy
B is the girl
If (conditions apply blah blah) then A commits the offence

'females get the police onto men for no reason'

The reason being that they are breaking the law, ie having sex with a girl under the age of 16. How does this make it a myth?

SQ
'"Another thing that is illegal is in the case when both boy and girl are under 16yrs. The boy would be able to be prosecuted but not the girl. "

I don't think this is true.
Please can you link.'

Sure, I have copied it directly from the legislation

Older children engaging in sexual conduct with each other
(1) If a child (?A?), being a child mentioned in subsection (2), does any of the things mentioned in subsection (3), ?B? being in each case a child mentioned in subsection (2),then A commits an offence, to be known as the offence of engaging while an older child
in sexual conduct with or towards another older child.
(2) The child is a child who?
(a) has attained the age of 13 years, but
(b) has not attained the age of 16 years.
(3) The things are that A?
(a) penetrates sexually, with A?s penis and to any extent, either intending to do so or
reckless as to whether there is penetration, the vagina, anus or mouth of B,
(b) intentionally or recklessly touches the vagina, anus or penis of B sexually with
A?s mouth.
(4) In the circumstances specified in subsection (1), if B engages by consent in the conduct
in question, then B commits an offence, to be known as the offence of engaging while
an older child in consensual sexual conduct with another older child.
(5) In paragraph (b) of subsection (3), the reference to A?s mouth is to be construed as
including a reference to A?s tongue or teeth.

I have never said that the law is not there to protect boys and girls. Be it from older, abusive, predatory or exploitive methods. So please stop infering that I am saying that. I thought that this thread was about mutually agreed sex between similar aged teenagers, that is what I am referring to. Also, it doesn't make it NOT true however many times YOU say it, the law WAS created in part to protect them as they were the most vulnerable of the two, ie risk of pregnancy.

SQ why is there a higher risk for females in terms of STDs? Do you know of an STD that only targets girls? and is it rife?

Yes, there is that (oft trotted out) penalty that the girl will be pregnant. But that doesn't mean taht such encounters are a bed of roses for the lad.

The age of 16 is an arbitrary age set by law. I think we'll all agree that the actual age of 'sexual activity' in the individual can vary quite wildly...

Thanks for starting this thread SQ.
Always feel irritated by these anecdotes of 16/17yo in prison/YOI's for consensual sex with 15yo girls, my gut feeling that its just not true, but not followed the thoughts through.
Im thinking now that its basically another way of complaining that laws to punish sex offenders simply make criminals of males who have a healthy libido.
Glad to hear it is indeed a pile of nonsense.

I'd imagine a 15 year old girl is more dangerous to the lad than vice versa...

Once all those hormones are on the rampage.

Another thing that is illegal is in the case when both boy and girl are under 16yrs. The boy would be able to be prosecuted but not the girl. Even though they are both, say, 15 yrs and it was consensual. This goes back to my previous point of protecting the girl more, as she has the most at risk and the greater requirement for protection.

It is a shame that this message has been 'lost' over the years and that even though everyone knows the age of consent is 16 most people seem to think that it doesn't matter anymore. No wonder young girls are feeling more pressure into having sex at younger and younger ages.

KlickKlack - could you explain a little more about why you think that?
obviously in more serious crimes, like murder, an investigation would automatically begin regardless of whether anyone reports it or not. But something like this would definitely need the cooperation of the parties involved unless of course other aspects of exploitation, abuse etc are present.

"You really need to read the act."

Perhaps you should have a look over the entire act and stop focusing on the just the one paragraph.

It IS an offence for a 16 yr boy to have sex with a 15 yr girl. The part you keep focusing on states that it is not the intention of the law to jump on and prosecute in all of these situations. Realistically this would never happen. However what it doesn't mean is that it is no longer illegal.

It is still illegal. There are loads of different parts of the act which is relevant to this discussion. I have copied a very small part of it for you.

Having intercourse with an older child
If a person (?A?), who has attained the age of 16 years, with A?s penis, penetrates to any extent, either intending to do so or reckless as to whether there is penetration, the vagina, anus or mouth of a child (?B?), who?
(a) has attained the age of 13 years, but
(b) has not attained the age of 16 years,
then A commits an offence, to be known as the offence of having intercourse with an older child.

We met a group of ex convicts, two of whom were on life licence. They told us (Post 16 students and teachers) that the law has been changed, and consensual sex between underage (either males or females) or with of age (either male or female) and underage 'children' is STATUTORY rape and SHOULD be investigated, and lead to prosecution. He spent qute a while explaining it to the students (for obvious reasons) and there was a forensic criminal psychologist there who did not contradict. He was very convincing- perhaps that is where the comments on the other thread are coming from?? I must admit I have been telling my students- of course if no complaint is ever made then it will not get that far. As a poster said earlier- the girl may be asked for a statement, which is not the same as making a complaint.
My knowledge of law tells me that what is written in 2003 can be interpreted differently in 2012 as we have the principle of precedent which can alter the usage of law........
Chocladoodle- I am pretty sure that your assertions about the requirement for a complaint (whilst seeming logical) are not correct.

'"They would of course require the 15 yr girls to comply and give statements in order to make a complaint against him"

A complaint of what?
Consensual sex?
Make a complaint?
Of what?
Nice sex?'

To make a complaint to the police basically means that you are reporting a crime to them and as a witness to the crime, a statement would need to be taken highlighting the details of that crime.

If the sex in mutually agreed then the likelyhood of this ever occuring is slim.

If however the parents of the underage girl discover that sex has taken place then they might try and encourage the girl to make a complaint to the police.

Without her cooperation then there can be no proceedings taken against the boy.

'A pregnancy does not magically render consensual sex, non-consensual'

Of course it doesn't and to say that it does is ridiculous.

Pregnancy however is a true indicator that a girl has had sex and this pregnancy would no doubt bring attention from alot of sources.

Whether or not at this point the parents push for the girl to make a statement to the police is a decision that the family would have to make. You seem to find that anyone wanting to do that as unbelievable, but it does happen. I'm sure some parents of pregnant teenagers would like some action taken against the boy involved. In reality however it rarely happens. It would require the girl to make a complaint and this is usually where the procedure falls down.

"Why on earth would a 15 yo girl want to involve the police after having consensual sex with her boyfriend?"

Perhaps pressure from her parents and Social Services who believe she is too young and/or immature to be involved in sexual activity and needs protecting.

'You seem to be saying that girls can have boys put in prison for getting them pregnant.'
Did I? I don't think I did say that.

'It is there to protect children and teens from abuse, exploitation and coercion'
Of course that's why the law is there, but I didn't think we were discussing anything other than consensual sex amongs similar aged teenagers. But I stand by that the law, going back many, many years, which has been altered and updated over the decades has always had the protection of young teenage girls in mind and the prevention of them getting pregnant. After all it was always the case that a teenage pregnancy by far disadvantage the girl than it did the boy.

It's the difference in language between 'mutually agreed' and 'consensual'

A falling-over-drunk woman could agree to sex, but I think we'd all say she wasn't able to give proper consent.

Sorry, this is off on a tangent.