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Personally, I find this law to be absolutely abhorrent, and I hope it is repealed.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

[TeiTetua]

It is interesting that if two juveniles of about the same age have sex, in England they're both guilty of a crime, in Scotland neither is, and in Ireland, only the boy.

[femtastic]

"Anti-feminist to the max, because what could more feminist than having laws making sure that boys can have as much sex as they want (including buggery) with underage girls."

These are the important points:

1. He was underage too.
   
2. The age gap between them was only a couple of months.
   
3. They were in an relationship.
   
4. The sex was consensual.
   

This "Romeo and Juliet" law is one of the most disturbing and hypocritical pieces of legislation on the statute books of any country in the western world right now.

Does this boy really deserve to spend five years in prison simply for having consensual sex with his girlfriend?

Additionally, I fail to see what is so abhorrent about consensual anal intercourse.

[chipmonkey]

Reality, don't you think you were a bit young, though? Would you be happy if you found out your own dc's were having sex at that age? I possibly might have had sex at that age but my parents were uber-strict and although I resented them at the time, I am kind of glad now, IYKWIM.

I do think some girls do feel pressurised into having sex so although they may consent, they may not be happy about consenting. I do think maybe if a boy knows that the onus is on him NOT to get a conviction for statutory rape, he might actually make sure that the girl is actually happy to have sex rather than feeling pressurised into it.

I don't know the details of this case but I do wonder how it came to court? Did the girl herself tell, or did her parents find out? If she came forward herself, the chances are that she wasn't happy having had sex and may have felt coerced?
Just speculation though.

[GapsAGoodUn]

I agree with you Maryz.

[SpringchickenGoldBrass]

Oh here we go again. Teenage girls can't possibly like sex or instigate it, because only penis-bearing rapists like sex and real women avoid it and aren't capable of choosing to have sex ever because women don't like it.

While teenagers who consider themselves 'in love' with each other quite often don't end up spending the rest of their lives together, that doesn't mean that their feelings are invalid and that all the boys want to do is fuck the girls and then post the footage on YouTube. Teenage boys can be passionately romantic, as can teenage girls.

[Saltatrix]

I find this law as abhorrent just like I find Ireland's law on abortion abhorrent.

[GapsAGoodUn]

SCGB I concur. Like Reality, my first proper sexual bf was the one with whom I felt entirely comfortable in exploring sex. We didn't go as far as anal - but pretty much everything else. I was 18 (as was he) but I instigated a lot of our exploration.

I also explored not using contraception just to see if I could get pg. I didn't, but the reality of having a baby was as bizarre and yet appealing to me as walking on the moon.

[GapsAGoodUn]

But dittany it's impossible to eliminate underage pregnancy. Age is only a number and it's only relatively recently in the evolution of the human species that 'childhood' has existed.

Whilst I wouldn't encourage my children to have sex early I think it is naive to expect every one to be ready to have sex at an arbitrary age limit - whether that be 16 or 18. Some mature earlier and others later. I know plenty of people that had sex the day after their 16th birthday. Was it great? Empowering? bollocks.

Of course they could get up to other stuff, but the opportunity for pg apart, it is just as risky in terms of infection and self esteem.

My feeling is that this legislation unfairly demonises the vast majority of boys who are not dicks on legs. They can be just as sensitive and sentimental as the perception of women. In the sense of a consensual sexual relationship they should not be unfairly blamed.

Surely if there is a patriarchy that needs challenging it is that of the celibate members of the Church who cannot or will not recognise that most of the population likes sex.

[SpringchickenGoldBrass]

Dittany: some teenage girls want to get pregnant. And teenage boys are not incapable of a romantic passionate desire to marry and have families either. While very early pregnancy is a bad idea, generally, in societal terms it's understandable in biological ones.
I do actually agree that sex education should place a lot more emphasis on the fact that PIV is not the only type of sexual activity to be engaged in and that most of the other stuff is more fun as well as being low-risk for pregnancy. However, criminialising teenagers for having consensual sex is a very bad idea. Teenagers have feelings, incluyding sexual feelings, and shouldn't be told that these feelings are bad and wrong, that wanting to have sex makes them a rapist, that having sex makes their adored and adoring partner a rapist when they have been exploring their sexual feelings in a way that they both enjoyed and wanted.

[SpringchickenGoldBrass]

Dittany: why do you think that teenagers are incapable of using contraception? And do you really think that teenage girls invariably hate and fear PIV to the extent that they need to be legally protected from their own choices ie that if they say they want to engage in PIV they must be deluded and therefore the state will take that choice away from them by putting their boyfriends in jail.
As to the romance/marriage argument, I don't think it's a good idea to marry young, but you seem to think that all teenage boys are heartless rapists and I am pointing out to you that this is not so, that teenage boys are human beings with different ideas and attitudes, which may include romantic views of love and sex.

[EvenLessNarkyPuffin]

I think that the point Dittany made about it removing the burden of proof that the sex was non-consensual is actually a huge breakthrough for any girl of under 17. If they are raped they don't have to prove the rape, just the sex. If this is how the legislation was being used ie selectively to protect girls who have been attacked or are vunerable, I would be delighted. The latest stats show that those most likely to suffer realtionship violence are teens, followed by the 20-24 year olds. It could be very powerful in protecting girls from sexual violence as it would be very easy to prove and could result in a 5 year sentence.

Unfortunately it could be used to prosecute a 16 year old boy for having consensual sex with his 16 year old girlfriend, because her parents found condoms in her room.

[GapsAGoodUn]

But if it is consensual who says it is a sacrifice? Is it not their body to decide - perhaps naively I thought that was one of the founding tenets of feminism?

There are twats of both genders Dittany - boys under the age of 17 are not the ones capable of this.

[GapsAGoodUn]

not the only ones

[Wamster]

Any law that makes criminals out of a pair of teenagers for having consensual sex is f*ing nuts.

[Wamster]

Hmmm... Well here are my fundamental loyalties:

There is zero point in making a criminal out of two teenagers of roughly the same age having consensual (and I stress consensual sex).
The law has to assume that, being of the same age, they are of roughly same mental development and neither is taking advantage of the other (and before anybody says anything, I say this: if you are happy that age should be a factor when deciding laws and do not advocate that every individual should be assessed for individual mental age for every area in life, then you cannot disagree with me here). In fact, it has just struck me that a lot of people would argue that girls are more developed than boys of the same age!

No point of prosecuting whatsoever. Yes, it would perhaps be better for them to wait; but this is the real world and, more often or not, they do not.

The fact that the girl can get pregnant is not relevant. If this way of thinking is applied to every area, i.e. the unintended result of something should be reason to outlaw it, then we should ban all cars because there are traffic accidents or ban butter because it causes heart attacks.