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Personally, I find this law to be absolutely abhorrent, and I hope it is repealed.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

[EvenLessNarkyPuffin]

Bloody Dittany. At first when I read what you'd posted I thought you were being a fruit loop. Now I'm actually considering the fact that you might have a point, in terms of the inequality of risk. Stop making me think.

[EvenLessNarkyPuffin]

In a country where abortion is illegal the case for the law is strengthened.

[chipmonkey]

dittany, do you need to have a penis to use a skate park?

[AyeRobot]

Can I just ask what those who are opposed to this law want instead? Both prosecuted? Neither prosecuted and therefore effectively changing the age of consent?

I totally get why this guy is challenging this decision. I just don't agree that he should succeed because sex is not an equal act in terms of potential outcomes. Shock! It's about being equitable, not equal.

Interestingly, I was thinking about this thread earlier and about the fact that boys will only stand trial if they get caught. Funny how "getting caught" has also been used in terms of pregnancy. I guess that's the equitable bit.

[SpringchickenGoldBrass]

I really can;'t see that this law is coming from feminists in the first place. Ithink that the people behind it are displaying more the same sort of mindset that drives the disgusting Father And Daughter Purity movement in America, where a young girl's virginity is her father's property until it is passed to her husband and whate she wants is irrelevant and unimportant.

And there has always been a strain of feminist thinking that is so obsessed with stopping people from having sex that the deranged religious rightwing anti-sex organisations become appealing fellow campaigners rather than the deadly enemies of women's freedom that they really are.

[AnnieLobePassoverSeder]

Oh, holy shit and all other such expressions! dittany, I've just realised I've got you mixed up with someone else and feel truly horrible. I'm so sorry!

[AnnieLobePassoverSeder]

I will ask to have those comments removed. There is a poster who seems obsessed with men's apparent inability to keep their dicks under control, and it does drive me nuts, but it's not you and I'm so sorry for making that mistake.

[AnnieLobePassoverSeder]

Right, as I've requested my posts with comments to dittany to be removed, I'm re-posting my views on the subject at hand.... Apologies to all for screwing up the thread.

To be frank, I pressured my boyfriend into sex when I was 17. I've been irresponsible with contraception more often than the men I've slept with. Women like sex; PIV, down and dirty sex. Teenage ones, adult ones, and the risk of pregnancy is not always a deterrent.

It's insane to put all the blame of underage sex on the boy. It's also sexist, draconian and insulting to the intelligence of teenage girls.

The only good I can see coming from this law is the burden of proof being removed if an underage girl really was raped. But I think it will hurt more innocent teenage boys than help sexually abused teenage girls. Especially if parents of girls start using it to remove 'undesirable' boyfriends from the picture.

[chipmonkey]

Sorry, didn't realise it was SGM's post originally, dittany. But I never, ever remember any boy stopping me from doing anything I wanted to do and there were girls on ds1's soccer team when he played soccer. If I were building a skate-park, I genuinely would not think I was building it for boys only, I would assume some girls would join in? Otherwise what are we saying? That girls should participate only in "feminine" activities? Organise a sewing circle for them, perhaps?

I have been thinking a lot about this thread and this case. IIRC, this laws came into effect here because some bloke challenged the constitution saying that it was unfair that he was convicted of statutory rape as he had not known the age of the girl in question.

This led to the government "tightening up" the laws but tbh I do think this is going too far.

15 year olds should not be having sex but they will and if it is consensual, it is wrong to have law for one gender and a different one for the other. It is discriminatory.

And I am wondering what will happen if this is taken to the European Courts?

[EvenLessNarkyPuffin]

I wondered about that too Chipmonkey.

Under 17s are less likely to think of the potential risks of sex, and as minors protecting them from themselves is the place of the law. In a country where abortion is illegal, girls are more at risk from the possible consequences than boys. Maybe this law evens up the risk.

I do think it's relevant where this case happened, and wonder if there has ever been- or will ever be- a similar case in Dublin.

[chipmonkey]

To be honest, even when I was a teen, being sent to the Gaeltacht to learn Irish, could often result in learning a whole lot of other stuff your parents didn't plan on you learning! There have been cases of girls getting pregnant at the Gaeltacht before because it's an ideal setting. There are Irish classes, then a load of free time, then a ceili in the evenings followed by a dark walk home to the house you are staying in! I had my first kiss in the Gaeltacht at 13. Not enough supervision really and it seems not much has changed.