Does anyone have figures for people in prison for consensual sex with similarly aged but underage partners?

[SardineQueen]

Just looking at another thread on here and a lot of people saying they know young men who are in prison / on the sex offenders register for consensual sex - the ages being talked about are 15 and 17.

Also someone saying that in young offenders institutes there are a of young people in there for similarly aged consensual sex.

This seems unlikely to me but I have no figures to go on so I don't really know. Does anyone have any stats on this?

Thanks.

"This goes back to my previous point of protecting the girl more, as she has the most at risk and the greater requirement for protection."

Predatory men do target boys as well you know. As do some predatory older women.

Your idea that boys do not need protection is outdated and wrong. I think it is right that children of both sexes are protected under the law, from abuse, coercion etc.

Thanks for starting this thread SQ.
Always feel irritated by these anecdotes of 16/17yo in prison/YOI's for consensual sex with 15yo girls, my gut feeling that its just not true, but not followed the thoughts through.
Im thinking now that its basically another way of complaining that laws to punish sex offenders simply make criminals of males who have a healthy libido.
Glad to hear it is indeed a pile of nonsense.

lowflyingbirds yes it makes me so uncomfortable

I hadn't thought about this "its basically another way of complaining that laws to punish sex offenders simply make criminals of males who have a healthy libido" that is a really good point.

Also feeds into myths about "scorned" females lying about things to get males into trouble (which is what quite a few posters on here and the other thread are talking about even if they won't spit it out)

And the idea that it is easy for females to get prosecutions and convictions when they accuse men of things.

A whole horrible sackful of an idea about women lying all the time an the law being on their side. It's patent cobblers.

Anyway. Has that other thread gone? I can't see it any more.

Thinking about it

If so many teenage boys are being told that if they have (mutually agreed and enjoyable) sex with their similarly aged just under 16 yo girlfriend they might go to prison

Is it any wonder that so many older men are so caught up with rape myths? If they have that drummed into them when they are young then it follows that they will grow up thinking that females get the police onto men for no reason, that it's easy to get someone sent to prison if they commit a sex crime etc etc

It's a really dangerous message isn't it.

SQ why is there a higher risk for females in terms of STDs? Do you know of an STD that only targets girls? and is it rife?

Yes, there is that (oft trotted out) penalty that the girl will be pregnant. But that doesn't mean taht such encounters are a bed of roses for the lad.

The age of 16 is an arbitrary age set by law. I think we'll all agree that the actual age of 'sexual activity' in the individual can vary quite wildly...

SQ
'"Another thing that is illegal is in the case when both boy and girl are under 16yrs. The boy would be able to be prosecuted but not the girl. "

I don't think this is true.
Please can you link.'

Sure, I have copied it directly from the legislation

Older children engaging in sexual conduct with each other
(1) If a child (?A?), being a child mentioned in subsection (2), does any of the things mentioned in subsection (3), ?B? being in each case a child mentioned in subsection (2),then A commits an offence, to be known as the offence of engaging while an older child
in sexual conduct with or towards another older child.
(2) The child is a child who?
(a) has attained the age of 13 years, but
(b) has not attained the age of 16 years.
(3) The things are that A?
(a) penetrates sexually, with A?s penis and to any extent, either intending to do so or
reckless as to whether there is penetration, the vagina, anus or mouth of B,
(b) intentionally or recklessly touches the vagina, anus or penis of B sexually with
A?s mouth.
(4) In the circumstances specified in subsection (1), if B engages by consent in the conduct
in question, then B commits an offence, to be known as the offence of engaging while
an older child in consensual sexual conduct with another older child.
(5) In paragraph (b) of subsection (3), the reference to A?s mouth is to be construed as
including a reference to A?s tongue or teeth.

I have never said that the law is not there to protect boys and girls. Be it from older, abusive, predatory or exploitive methods. So please stop infering that I am saying that. I thought that this thread was about mutually agreed sex between similar aged teenagers, that is what I am referring to. Also, it doesn't make it NOT true however many times YOU say it, the law WAS created in part to protect them as they were the most vulnerable of the two, ie risk of pregnancy.

I don't think you can have copied and pasted as this bit makes no sense

(2),then A commits an offence, to be known as the offence of engaging while an older child in sexual conduct with or towards another older child.

'females get the police onto men for no reason'

The reason being that they are breaking the law, ie having sex with a girl under the age of 16. How does this make it a myth?

Oh hold on I think I get it.

Where does it say that if it is a 15 yo boy and girl the boy will be prosecuted but not the girl?

chocladoodle why would a girl contact the police about having consensual sex with a boy?

People do not tend to contact the police about consensual sexual activity. The idea that females do this is a rape myth, and a very pernicious and dangerous one.

A is the boy
B is the girl
If (conditions apply blah blah) then A commits the offence

2(4) In the circumstances specified in subsection (1), if B engages by consent in the conduct in question, then B commits an offence, to be known as the offence of engaging while an older child in consensual sexual conduct with another older child.

Like other posters have already said this doesn't happen often.

Sea Houses SIL is an example of where the parent wants to get involved but the girl doesn't - this is usually the case.
The law exists and it stands as it does - however it doesn't mean that it is 'used' if you like, unless in unusual circumstances ie girl is pregnant, parents are outraged and want something done about and insist that the matter is reported to the police.
But your right in that mutually agreed sex amongst teens is happening all the time without being reported to police - but it doesn't mean that it then makes it legal.

It goes both ways.

The sexual offences act 2003 where it relates to young people is designed to protect both girls and boys from predators, abuse, coercion etc.

It is not do do with penalising boys for getting girls pregnant. Pregnancy is considered to be a social issue.

chocladoodle are you going to acknowledge that your understanding of the law is incorrect, and based on what your idea of the law is rather than what it actually says.

You keep posting incorrect information on here. What point are you actually trying to make.

Chocodoodle, surely the second part which relates to oral sex could equally apply to boys and girls, in both straight or gay partnerships.

The law does not state anywhere about the girl being pregnant - I did not say that - I used it as an example of where it is explicity known that a girl has engaged in sex. I also used it as an example of how it can be more damaging to a girl for the results of said sex.

I never stated that the law is there to penalise boys for getting girls pregnant - you have misinterpreted what I have been saying. You seem to be looking for an argument in everything that I have said by mixing my words.

I believe my understanding of the law to be correct, as it is never just a case of picking snippets of information from the legislation but looking at the whole picture.

I HAVE copied and pasted the above information directly from the legislation so to suggest that I have somehow done this incorrectly is insulting and I can't quite understand your reasoning for accusing me of this.

Can you please highlight the incorrect information that I 'keep posting'. If so then I will correct it.

Optimistic - yes that's right

I merely said that A = boy and B= girl for ease of reading as it is relevant to the thread.

Can you link where you got that from, as I can't find it in the act, all I can find is crimes which specify a child under 13 and/or an adult over 18 being involved.

Which act and which section of the act is that in?

You said
"Another thing that is illegal is in the case when both boy and girl are under 16yrs. The boy would be able to be prosecuted but not the girl."
In the piece you have pasted this is the part
"2(4) In the circumstances specified in subsection (1), if B engages by consent in the conduct in question, then B commits an offence, to be known as the offence of engaging while an older child in consensual sexual conduct with another older child."
ie if they are both under 16 they are both committing the same offence

But please can you tell me where you got the bit you pasted as I am havign trouble finding it.

In short, what you pasted to back up your ideas about what the law is, proved that you were wrong.

And I can't find where you got it from anyway.

I mean you seriosuly believe that a 15yo girl and boy having sex the boy can be prosecuted but not the girl? Seriously?
The fact that you can even imagine that the law would say that shows that you have a very unrealistic grasp of how things are in our country.

here

I have copied the legislation that says boys aged 16+ can be prosecuted for having sex with girls under 16.
Isn't that what the whole point of this thread was about?

From the exerpt posted, it seems in the case of PIV sex only the boy would be prosecuted (it specifically states penetrates with his penis) but in the case of oral sex performed on a boy then both could be prosecuted

Oh are you scottish? You have linked to the law in scotland.

I have been discussing English law ie the sexual offences act 2003.
If you are going to use different legislation to the one that has talked about all through the thread it would be helpful for you to mention it, save other people time and effort.

Fact is though that it clearly says that if a 15 yo boy and girl have sex with each other then they are both committing the same offence.