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Personally, I find this law to be absolutely abhorrent, and I hope it is repealed.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

So the boy should be jailed, and the girl should be punished for being an intemperate or weak-willed slut and sent to the modern equivalent of the Magdalene sisters?
Or the boy jailed, and the girl supported and nurtured as the simple, innocent, exploited blossom that she is?
Yet both are 15.
I have encouraged both of my children to behave responsibly in their lives, and that includes taking responsibility for their sexuality and the consequences.

There's a lot of teen sex that is not between consenting couples in Ireland. Lots of cider fueled one night stands, or ten minute stands. And really and truly the remnants of Catholic stigma about contraception are not troubling the teenagers who are staying out til all hours boozing and partying.

If 15 year old girls are 'living' for the time they can spend with a boyfriend -- this is just sad. There is a lot of pressure on girls to find and keep a boy, a lot of pressure on girls to go bareback. In some circles the status of having a boyfriend is all that matters. Power lies with the boys. Consent as an idea is fine but reality is far more complex, and these are minors we are talking about. There has to be some way of protecting them from themselves.

In some parts of the world you can't even get a tattoo until you turn 18 without parental permission. Reason being you don't want stupid, shortsighted teenagers doing something that is very hard to undo.

Of course not, but there will be the odd teenage girl who WANTS to have anal sex. I'm not saying she should , but she may.

I think if you criminalise underage pregnancy and one of the pair will end up in jail, then buggery will end up being more common as you are less likely to get pregnant.
I can't imagine anyone enjoying it, but that's just my personal revulsion.

If I found out my daughter was having sex (anal or otherwise) at a very young age we would be having a discussion about her choices, etc, with consequences to follow. If I found out she was being PRESSURED to have sex, anal or otherwise, I'd serve up seven flavors of shit.

Yes, the girl who wants to be "buggered" or have sex or whatever CAN wait until she is older, but if she and her partner CHOOSE NOT TO I can't see that it's more his fault than hers.

'What about the more common scenario of the teenage girl who doesn't want to be buggered but is being pressured? '

Good girls say no and tell their parents so that the boy can be threatened with jail.
What happened to the idea of girls feeling empowered and supported enough by their peers, the adults they know and their own self-image to be able to reject unwanted attentions, groping and sex?
What happened to the idea of boys recognising that girls are equal beings and that they do not have to self-define by how much sex they've had?

Next step will be the criminilistion of underage buggery so.

We should protect all our children, and guide them in their choices.

Do you have sons, Dittany ?

Agree with dittany.
I'm not an equalist.
The consequences of sex are not equal for girls and boys.
The patriarchy protects girls more than boys on this one, and they are right to do so.

I assume my son won't, actually. But also if he did, I would assume that it was consensual. And if he and the girl in question created a baby and she decided to keep it, I know that he would care for and support the child.

I think it may make it a bit different, yes. If you have a son and think of him being criminalized for a consensual act, it may bring it home a bit more.