Is Ireland correct to declare war on boys who have consensual sex with their girlfriends?

[femtastic]

Personally, I find this law to be absolutely abhorrent, and I hope it is repealed.

Court hears 'Romeo and Juliet' laws appea

THE Supreme Court has been urged to overturn as unconstitutional the so-called "Romeo and Juliet" laws which allow the prosecution of teenage boys for having sex with teenage girls but prevent prosecution of the girls.

The court is hearing an appeal arising from a 15-year-old boy being charged under the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 with having sex with a 14-year-old girl in the Donegal Gaeltacht.

The boy is also charged with buggery and his trial is on hold pending the outcome of the appeal, which opened yesterday and will resume on a future date.

Section 3 of the 2006 act created an offence of defilement of a child under 17 and provided for a sentence of up to five years' imprisonment. Section 5 of the act stated a girl under 17 cannot be guilty of such an offence.

In the High Court in March 2010, Ms Justice Elizabeth Dunne ruled, while the law did amount to gender discrimination, that discrimination was not invidious, capricious or disproportionate.

As the risk of pregnancy as a result of underage sex was borne by girls only, not boys, society was entitled to deter such activity and to place the burden of criminal sanction on those "who bear the least adverse consequences" of it, she said.

Outlining the boy's appeal against that decision, John O'Kelly SC said the kernel of the appeal was that both parties involved in this sexual act were children in law aged under 17, with only about a year between the two of them.

The boy's case was they engaged consensually in an act of sexual intercourse but under the act, one of them was liable to be convicted and possibly jailed for up to five years while the other was guilty of no criminal offence at all.

Mr Justice Nial Fennelly noted the 2006 act is neutral as to whether the act of sexual intercourse is consensual or not and the court was not getting involved in that issue in the appeal.

John Finlay SC, for the state, opposed the appeal and argued the High Court decision should stand. The disputed provision was a proportionate measure on grounds of pregnancy, he submitted.

I'm in Ireland and I'm in favour of this. I think young boys push for sex more than girls do. It's girls who need to be protected. Discretion will be used. If two fourteen year olds have sex and the girl insists that that's what she wanted, then I'm sure nothing will happen. But if there is a genuine suspicion that a young girl of 14 or younger even was coaxed into having sex with a boy a couple of years older then at the least the law will have the power to do something. It will be a deterrent. Parents of boys as well as girls will caution them against having sex too young. At the moment, a lot of parents watch their dds like hawks but have a more casual attitude to their sons having sex.

Is the issue about sexual enjoyment though dittany? Do you think it's ever ok for a woman to just enjoy sex? Or do you just assume that all women don't? And at what age does sex become an Ok thing for a woman to do, and not just somehting you think they're doing because you assume the man has coaxed them into it, and is in it for his own means? I have never been with a partner that disrespectful and tbh I think that's a pretty dim view you have there of men as a whole.

You seemed to be suggesting that women got nothing out of sex except the possibility of getting pregnant. Making it something very negative, and suggesting that sex was to serve men's purpose and enjoyment.

I was thinking about the underage sex laws after posting on the Reading footballer thread last night. It suddenly hit me (doh!) that the modern laws exist primarily to protect girls against pregnancy. They aren't really about sex at all but the consequences of sex.

are you calling a fourteen year old girl a 'woman'.

The US Supreme Court thinks the same

"(b) One of the purposes of the California statute in which the State has a strong interest is the prevention of illegitimate teenage pregnancies. The statute protects women from sexual intercourse and pregnancy at an age when the physical, emotional, and psychological consequences are particularly severe. Because virtually all of the significant harmful and identifiable consequences of teenage pregnancy fall on the female, a legislature acts well within its authority when it elects to punish only the participant who, by nature, suffers few of the consequences of his conduct."

I tell you, dittany, I get exhausted reading this board sometimes, but the breakthroughs are immense. And am glad to add my googling skills into the mix

Like StayFrosty, I was thinking about the OG Nikki (?sp) thread and the footballer one and was getting really squirrely about some of the comments. Then it occurred to me to think about why we have age of consent laws. As you mentioned on the rape thread, protection against exploitation is a big one but then you get the "but girls that age want to have sex and why shouldn't they?" type of comments. So that Supreme Court judgment sums it up for me, really.

Yes, I saw the buggery bit. I wonder where he got that idea from...

I do feel this is discriminatory. Whether is is wrong or not is another thing. I do think boys can put huge pressure on girls to have sex and perhaps knowing that they can be criminalised for it might act as a deterrent. Mind you, when I spoke to ds1, the main thing that has acted as a deterrent for him was being shown pictures of genitalia suffering the effects of various different STI's!

I do agree with Maryz by the way on the attitude of young girls here to pregnancy. A lot of them have a very romantic, rosy view of it. And are massively disillusioned when the reality happens.

OG Nikki thread for dittany.

That's Ok, no need to acknowledge or say thanks, ditttttaannny, though I see you're now posting on that thread. :)

This "Romeo and Juliet" law in Ireland is incredibly anti-feminist and incredibly unjust.

I think it is disgraceful that teenage boys are having their lives destroyed simply for having consensual sex - especially when so many genuine rapists face no reprecussions for their crimes.

I don't think he is being charged with rape, is he? It's people like you who refer to him as a non-genuine rapist (whatever that is) who will destroy his life.

Any comments on the rest of the posts explaining why it isn't anti-feminist?

"I don't think he is being charged with rape, is he? It's people like you who refer to him as a non-genuine rapist (whatever that is) who will destroy his life."

I'm not for one moment describing him as a "no-genuine rapist". I'm saying that it's ridiculous that whilst so many rapists evade justice, there is such zealous effort to prosecute a teenage boy for having consensual sex with his girlfriend.