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Personally, I find this law to be absolutely abhorrent, and I hope it is repealed.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

This particular case came about because the girl's mother found condoms in her bedroom. The existence of condoms is evidence that the couple were practicing safe sex, and thus the risk of pregnancy resulting from their sexual encounters was minimal.

Sending teenage boys to prison is not the solution to the problem of teenage pregnancy in Ireland. Instead, the answer lies in the comprehensive sexual education in schools and the legalisation of abortion.

I am pretty sure that ds (15) and his 15 year old girlfried are having sex. They have been going out with each other for a year now and spend a lot of time together. They are both very much into their studies and are both hitting As consistently. They study together far better than I would ever have done with my boyfriend at this age. It is an equal relationship. To say that ds should be prosecuted is ludicrous. His girlfriend does not need protecting from him. She and her parents would laugh at this.

To those who support this "Romeo and Juliet" law, I ask this:

If you had to choose between abortion being legalised and "Romeo and Juliet" being scrapped, or the status quo continuing, what would your choice be?

I'd choose to legalise abortion and keep the law. Laws are all about the application. You could leave it on the books as a deterrent and use it to remove the burden of proof when girls have been assaulted/coerced by boyfriends. The sentence is up to 5 years - that could be a suspended sentence where applicable ie no time served.

Under this law you don't need to prove that the girl did not consent, just that sex took place. It means that any girl who is attacked by a boyfriend has much more chance of a conviction.

Oh Reality, excellent point. It is also about infantilizing girls - their consent is irrelevatnt, it;s up to the state to decide whether they can have sex or not.

I cannot believe that any true feminist would be naive enough to think this law is prompted by feminist principles .It is not. This law has behind it the thinking that women are unequal to men, that they are incapable of being equal to men of similar age, and that they need protection in order to keep them safe.

Fine, let those who wish to side with this law do so, but I shall say this: don't be surprised when those behind this law pat women on the heads and say, 'Now, now, dear, only MEN are capable of doing this job. Stop worrying your little head about'.
Yeah, agree with 1% of something, but don't be surprised when the remaining 99% of it bites you. It is insane to agree with a system because 1% suits when the rest is totally anti-feminist.

It amazes me that anybody could actually think criminalising teenage boys and wrecking their lives is a valid solution to solving teenage pregnancy when the sex is between two consenting people of same age. Talk about taking a sledgehammer to crack a nut!

Anybody who agrees with this law is NOT a feminist, because being a feminist means treating men and women equally and not taking gender into account when forming judgements. This law clearly does NOT do this.

Well, dittany, according to your stance here, we should NOT treat people who are different (men and women) as exactly the same. In other words, we should have laws based around gender.

The problem with your stance is that it gives carte blanche for governments, laws, etc to treat women differently from men in every area of life according to the political agenda of the government of the day.
Yes, this law may suit you, but what if they came up with a law that meant that as women are different to men and natural care-givers (after all, according to you a teenage boy 'hits and runs' when it comes to childcare), men should not get parental leave?

Whereas if laws are applied regardless of gender, then there will be no room for this. No room at all.

I have to ask you this: you agree with this law, but do not you think that Ireland's track record on women's rights, is, on the whole pretty shabby?
I do and it seems to me that you are ignoring all the other anti-female laws Ireland has in favour of one that does suit you.

You can't assume that all teenage girls who get pregnant will want an abortion. So changing the abortion laws will only be of benefit to some. Abortion is freely available in the UK and there are still a huge number of teenage mothers. And a boy should be held responsible if he gets a girl pregnant and if he's too young to pay up for child support, then his parents should until he's old enough to foot the bill. The girl's parents will most definitely be out of pocket.

I personally have taken a pro-choice stance any time I have been asked to vote in an abortion referendum here. And God, some of them are not even about abortion per se but on information about abortion i.e should an Irish clinic be allowed to tell a woman where in the UK to go for an abortion!
But the Irish people have chosen democratically over and over again not to allow abortion. And the most vocal pro-lifers are women themselves.

Our government cannot constitutionally legislate for abortion until the majority of people vote pro-choice.

So, if you are pregnant and are told that your baby has a condition incompatible with life, you must carry that baby to term, deliver it and watch it die or travel to the UK for a termination. Because your fellow citizens have made it so.

IMO the biggest issue is the apathetic view of the younger generation towards voting at all.

The older pro-life people will get out and vote, the younger, more pro-choice people couldn't be bothered.

Thinking back to when i was an underage teenager, I had sex because I found it enjoyable, not because some desperate young man was desperate to abuse my body. I think it is more than a bit skewed to just assume young men/boys are only after one thing, will shag and run, are out to abuse. Infact it is just ludicrous.

(despite my mn name I am female btw)

chipmonkey the last time we had a referendum on abortion was coming up to 20 years ago now, 18years ago now perhaps, and the wording made me see red! It was hard to just simply vote yes or no. Abortion should be allowed. abortion should not be allowed. It was not that simple. The questions had a very suggestive angle. The way the questions were worded coralled people into voting no imo.

MaryZ, so how even things up?? because girls are the ones who are at risk of being pressured/manipulated into having sex. Boys aren't at risk of being pressured into having sex.

Is there something we can just say to young lads to get them to prioritise respecting girls over their desire to get laid?

how can this be fixed? or do we just have to shrug, it's a man's world afterall.

i using my phone for this as my internet is down and wont be back til the 20th [grrr] but i think this is question of balancing the various risks borne by both participants and rightly judging that for girls in ireland under 17 the risks associated with sex outweigh the benefits and the costs to society in the current economic climate outweigh the benefits of allowing experimentation. there` a strong culture of male entitlement in ireland and i hope this may begin to redress that.

Was it 20 years ago, Valium? Christ, I feel old, now! I agree re the wording, can we not vote either for or against something without a load of rhetoric. I felt so sorry for those poor women who took their case to Europe, especially that lady who had cancer and IIRC should have been allowed a termination here ( equal right to life of the mother) but no-one would do it and ill as she was, had to travel.
Sorry am getting off the point!

There have been some major reports out in the past fortnight on the level of violence against teenage girls. Think the NSPCC said they are the group most at risk of domestic violence - i.e. being assaulted by their boyfriends. No idea whether Ireland is completely different to the UK in this area but I doubt it.

There is an entirely logical argument that the law should have regard to the different needs or special characteristics of different groups. And IIRC that already happens in plenty of other examples - although helpfully none immediately spring to mind.

wrt the risk of potential criminilisation of all males just to protect a few girls - don`t all rape laws have that potential, given the nature of sex?

I find it bizarre that under this law if a 16 year old girl has consensual sex with a 13 year old boy the boy could be put in prison up to 5 years and be labelled a sex offender for the rest of his life effectively destroying it.

It basically says that girls will never know whats good for them, they are always a victim in any situation and that they can't even think. As well as being highly discriminatory to boys.

The 'consequences' are not even balanced, yes a girl may get pregnant but hopefully with proper education on contraception the risk of pregnancy is minimal. And having a child will not necessarily ruin a persons life whereas being on a sex register would.

Teens have always had sex, even with this law it won't disappear all you will have is numerous boys going to jail for consensual sex with a teen similar to their own age. I imagine this will be used mainly by parents of daughters who don't like the boy she is with.

Adding my voice as someone who was the main instigator of sexual experimentation as a teenager in a great, respectful, fun relationship. If my boyfriend had got in trouble it would have been absolutely obscene. I had regular sex and varied sexual activity from age 14, I was ready to do so, careful, and enjoyed it.

I entirely agree that it is a sexist law. Teenagers are perfectly able to experiment with sex. The only issue is educating them about consent issues and sexual and domestic violence. But this is not an issue automatically in every teenage relationship and it's unbelievable to suggest all boys would be treated like criminals for sexual experimentation.

Dittany your views do come across on this topic as coming from the assumption that males are the driving force behind teen sex, and this just isn't true. Even if it was true for the majority, would you really be happy to see all males criminalised for consensual sex? What magically changes at 17?

'MaryZ, so how even things up?? because girls are the ones who are at risk of being pressured/manipulated into having sex. Boys aren't at risk of being pressured into having sex. '

I disagree, it does happen. It happened to two of my family members.
It happens with boys who have girlfriends who are keener to advance the relationship than they are, with girls who are more sexually confident than their chosen partner.
It happens to teenagers with teachers.
It happens less often than with girls, but saying 'Boys aren't at risk of being pressurised' is untrue.

Bother, I wasn't going to post on this thread.