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Personally, I find this law to be absolutely abhorrent, and I hope it is repealed.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 can, I'm a feminist - don't at me please.

However, I can also see it's devaluing all the positive relationships that teenagers are in to criminalise all the males. As I've already said, even if most of the time it's coercion from the male, it would be entirely wrong to criminalise every male.

If we want to help young women feel sufficiently confident and empowered to say No to sex they don't want, I don't see how refusing to believe in the validity of their consent to sex they do want helps them in the least. If we are supporting women to make up their own minds and have their wishes taken notice of, the last thing we need to support is the idea that their wishes can be ignored just because they are saying Yes to sex that some people disapprove of them having.

I didn't start saying to other people on this thread 'you're not a feminist because you don't agree with me' which is so ridiculous, and so divisive. How can we ever make any progress when whenever there is disagreement between feminists they say 'you're not a feminist'. It is absolutely pathetic and I would ask you not to do it again, ever, on line or in any real life conversation about feminism.

to my mind, mocking somebody who challenges the current status quo which suits men very well does not logically lead to the conclusion that that person is not a feminist.

That wasn't addressed at me was it?

I don't like the 'if you were a real feminist' line of argument either.

I apologise goodegg, it was rainbowsky who used that 'argument'. I can take anything but that. I don't know what the answer is, but to me anyway it seems pretty clear that the current status quo suits boys more than girls, and part of the reason for that is biological. I am not blaming boys for the fact that girls risk pregnancy. It's just a physiological reality.

And to Solid, nowhere did i say or imply that girls don't enjoy sex or that I disapprove of girls having sex. Never said that, never meant that. I meant that it's a man's world and it's a boys world too. Young girls have a tendency to 'accept' things on boys terms. It's a people-pleasing trait that needs to be beaten out of us. We are raised to be nice. There was a thread on mumsnet a while ago, and the number of women who had sex to be polite because they weren't able to articulate their reasons for NOT agreeing to sex in their younger years was a significant number alright. The average 14, 15yo girl is no mumsnetter iykwim

I don't know if I agree with you on that Valium. It seems to me that our entire education system here is geared towards girls' strengths as opposed to boys'. As a Mum of boys, I have felt this since ds1 was in Junior Infants!

A "people-pleasing trait that needs to be beaten out of us ."

The education system is one thing but the parallel universe of reality is another. I agree that girls in general seem to benefit from and adapt far better to the system, but I think the world outside the school doors is a different matter...

Or maybe it's the capacity of girls to accommodate themselves to the status quo that serves them well in school but works against their better interests when it comes to dealing with boys. Are girls used to doing what's expected of them both in school and out?

Maybe it's the same dynamic, with the difference of course being that doing well in school has positive results whereas the same people pleasing outside of school can lead to serious problems.

Ok, another one for ressurecting this thread.

Now, I'm in favour for the age of consent for many reasons. I'm not sure what age teenagers finish school in Ireland, but I know in England, the age of consent coincides with the age of consent. Common sense, yes?

BUT, back on topic. I have so many problems with this.

Firstly, by criminalising teenage boys for consensual sex, this removes the important element of decision from teenage girls which we have fought so long and hard for. "Yeah, sorry dear. You don't have a Y chromosome. Your decision doesn't matter."

Now, I know there's going to be the "peer pressure" argument. And, oh look...It's been. But what we need to teach our DC is not to bow to peer pressure, and that it's never ok to pressure your partner into sex. More focus needs to be put on the importance of consent (We never ONCE covered this at school, and I only left ten years ago) and the religious influence needs to come out of sex education, allowing teachers to advise about contraception; particularly important if families struggle to have this discussion.

I would ideally love to see all countries legalise abortion. I don't like the idea of a woman being forced to keep an unwanted pregnancy. We have the right to pierce our bodies, tattoo our bodies, plastic surgery... so isn't forcing someone to keep an unwanted pregnancy a bit... backward?

Someone made the suggestion of two levels of "age of consent" earlier in the thread. I think that idea could be a possibility, but for the lower age, no more than x months or a year between the couple, with neither being under the age of 14. I don't like the idea of my 15 year old niece having sex, but I'd rather know she didn't feel her or her boyfriend would be criminalised for doing so, safely and responsibly, which would probably lead to more teenagers out of those having underage sex using protection. I know my both of my nieces were under the impression you couldn't buy condoms under the age of 16.

I'll probably have more to say later, but this is all I can think of at the moment.

my views on this may be clouded because i was quite confident as a 15yr old and never felt pressure to have sex i didn't want (and didn't have sex till i was almost 18) but i knew at 15/16 what i did want and if i'd had a steady boyfriend then i might have wanted sex.

i think that we should be encouraging girls of that age to make good decisions and encouraging boys of that age to LISTEN to their girlfriends and respect their decisions. if the girls don't have any decision making powers then how can boys learn this.

putting the age of drinking consent, sexual consent and living away from home for the majority all into 12 months is just too much at once imo.

Maryz:
"And I really hope that you as a feminist aren't saying that we should bring back laws that treat people unequally depending on their sex."

I'm not saying I approve of the law because of course it's unfair but what you are missing Maryz is that SEX treats people unequally depending on their sex. The consequences for girls (especially in a country that forbids abortion) are far greater than for boys.

HRH, I agree there.

Don't laws like this assume all men have the capacity to rape? I might just sit DS down when he reaches puberty and say "be prepared to be told you pressured your girlfriend into sex, regardless of whether she consented or not...". It's either that, or lock him in a tower. I forgot how EVERY male on the planet is a danger.

HRH i didn't mean in sex itself but in the aftermath. As in who gets pregnant.

Dittany, I'm not saying remove all legal ages of consent. But to me there's a big difference to a 15 year old boy sleeping with his girlfriend of the same age (where they've both consented) compared to a 16 year old sleeping with a 13 year old. Now, you keep bringing up the underage girls, but the boys are also underage. What of situations where the girl makes the first move?

Now, it's not a boys choice to not get himself pregnant. It's nature. Like I said. Improve education on contraception, remove the Catholic stigma about contraception, and they'd probably find teen pregnancy rates would start to fall. Then would you still want to see teenage boys prosecuted for something that was a mutual decision?

This is insane. I have a son. I really, really, really do not want him or any other children I may have having sex at a young age, but they may do. If my son has a child, he will damn well care for it. Why should he be criminalized if he and the girl are the same age and there's no coercion involved?

I was brought up at a time when many believed girls had to be protected from boys, men and sex. It restricted my freedom in ways that my younger brother did not have his freedom curtailed. I was being protected by denying me the right to make decisions about my own body and my own life.
No one is arguing that girls are the only ones at risk from pregnancy, but I still feel that this law would be the absolute antithesis of progressive for women's rights.
The law needs to change in Ireland, but criminalising one child and not another is not the way forwards.