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Personally, I find this law to be absolutely abhorrent, and I hope it is repealed.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

[Wamster]

Agreed with StewieGriffinsMom and Reality.

The way I see it is like this: there are several logical stances in this issue:

1, We assume that teenage boys and girls are equal and therefore neither is taking advantage of the other sexually. Or, alternatively, they are BOTH taking advantage and therefore should be equally punished. I tend to go for the 'no advantage' stance myself and not making either a criminal.

2, Women are inherently inferior to men and are thus in need of protection to the extent that they cannot be relied upon to give sexual consent to somebody of the same age as them. In which case, the logical outcome from this will be that women simply cannot be trusted to undertake professional jobs and should get back into the kitchen. NOT a view I take!

Hmmm... Ireland is so very, very forward thinking on feminist matters though, isn't it. Wonder if the paternalism of the country would suit them. I wonder if those quick to support this law would actually like to live there themselves?

[SpringchickenGoldBrass]

Dittany: do you think that it's impossible for a woman or girl to like, want and enjoy PIV sex? You never seem to acknowledge the possibility of anyone female engaging in sexual activity because she wants to, it's always a matter of preventing it happening to women whatever the woman thinks.

[Wamster]

This law will not prevent girls getting pregnant underage. If that is the intention, it will not work. As a separate issue, I find it deeply ironic that Ireland -lovely place though it is in many ways- is being held here by some feminists as a country that upholds feminist values via this law.

This law is completely paternalistic and assumes that teenage females are inferior to teenage males when it comes to making decisions.
Either both should be prosecuted or neither. I go for neither.

[AyeRobot]

So, what should the age of consent be?

[Wamster]

Not sure it should be a criminal offence for someone to have sex with someone they are in a position of power over. I think that would be a waste of the courts' time. It should be a striking off from the profession offence, though; just as it is for the medical profession.

I don't think it is a good idea for girls of 14 or 15 to be having sex, either, but I don't see why making criminals out of the boys of the same age that they are having sex with is going to help.

[TeiTetua]

As Dittany rightly said, "what is important is preventing teenage pregnancy for underage teenage girls".

To that end, until recently the Irish had this excellent system of homes where girls at risk could go, where they'd be cared for by kind religious people until they were ready to face the world as adults. There was a film made about it:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Magdalene_Sisters

or read about the girls who were helped:
www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2003/feb/07/artsfeatures

Good feminists there in Ireland. Applause.

[80sMum]

The answer is simple. They shouldn't have sex until both partners are at least 17. Problem solved!