Should Ireland lower it's age of consent?

philologos

brianthebard wrote: »

And yet people still think its ok if we just hang onto our higher age of consent and not tell kids what sex is, maybe they won't get curious? Dream on.

I didn't merely say to hang onto it. I suggest that it should be leveled to the age of adulthood, and that some form of affirmative action should be taken to ensure that it is engrained in society as a social norm. However, loosening the laws is definitely the wrong way to go about it.

Macha

Jakkass wrote: »

So taconol, do you not think that moral consistency is important to have within a society?

I'm not saying that I don't have my own person idea of what society should be like but as Dudess said, we have to be realistic about these things.

Take the current example of underage sex and teen pregnancies. I don't think either of these are very good things and I think that it would be good if both of these were reduced. From there, the next question is what measures will have the best impact in reducing underage sex and teen pregnancies? Any moral decree, say in the form of legislation, is useless if it isn't effective in tackling the issues. And I'm not sure that outlawing underage sex is effective...

OK it's like this. Things aren't just wrong full stop. They're wrong for a reason. And sometimes bringing morality, etc into it can make people lose sight of the target, if you know what I mean. So the most important thing isn't that underage sex is illegal, but that we get the levels down.

What exactly do you mean by moral consistency?

acorntoast

Another interesting statistic, on Channel 4.com

The physical development of children and young adults is changing. The first stages of the pubertal process are happening earlier, according to recent studies – changes that are usually attributed to better nutrition. The onset of puberty in the UK has dropped from an average 16.5 years for females and 17.5 for males in 1840, to 11.9 and 13.1 years respectively in the 1990s.

Dudess

AARRRGH wrote: »

The problem I have with taking everything down to a case-by-case basis is you can apply that to everything. It means you can say the Nazi's weren't "bad", because some of them individually were "good", etc.

No it's not. At all. It's saying that despite how reprehensible the nazi ideology was/is and despite the countless horrors that were committed in the name of nazism, not all nazis were bad people - which is true.

We have to generalise somewhat when we talk!

Sure. When we've at least some semblance of back-up - e.g. "students tend to be broke" (based on the fact that they're not earning) rather than e.g. "in my experience..." or "anecdotally speaking..."

Most people, to some degree, can tell roughly what age most people are.

Very different to what you said earlier about being 100% positive etc.

philologos

brianthebard wrote: »

Sounds like your position boils down to "where's the moral outrage??" Calm, clear consideration of the issues not enough? (yay alliteration).

No my position is rather clear. If the Government doesn't hold strong positions on issues such as these, what is to stop them from loosening others?

I just personally would prefer a society in which people honestly respect themselves, I see that as a better society to live in than one in which promiscuity is practically encouraged.

acorntoast

brianthebard wrote: »

I'm fairly confident that teen pregnancy figures are rising here and in the UK, despite our respective age of consent being higher than France, Germany and the Netherlands.

Teen pregnancy rates are also low in Norway and the Netherlands (age of consent 16). I don't think there is statistical evidence to support any inference that lowering the age of consent has a negative impact on teen fertility.

Education and the availability of abortion are probably more significant factors.

In 2002, the teenage fertility rate (number of births per 1,000 women) for the EU-15 countries was 13.64 (see figure 2.2). Countries with a low fertility rate included Norway (10.3), and the Netherlands (7.68)

AARRRGH

If the age of consent was lowered to say 15, how would people feel about 15 year old prostitutes, or 15 year old pornstars?

And why stop at 15? Why not 14? 13?

brianthebard

Smooth slippery slope you are on there.... Didn't you godwin earlier, what have you got left to say?

JohnK

What? You think there arent already 15, 14 & 13 year old prostitutes and porn stars? Prostitution is illegal anyway no matter what the age...

acorntoast

Lots of adults want to have sex with teenagers.

As people seem to have trouble accepting that, here is my first piece of evidence.

In two thirds of all teen pregnancies in California the fathers are adults.

From the abstract:

Officials, media coverage, and prevention programs have assumed that fathers of infants born to US school-age (10-18 years old) mothers are school-age peers. This study analyzes fathers' ages in 46 500 California births to school-age mothers in 1993, for which 85% of the fathers' ages were stated and whose distribution is similar to that less complete national samples. Adult, postschool men father two thirds of the infants born to school-age mothers and average 4.2 years older than the senior-high mothers and 6.7 years older than the junior-high mothers. The extensive involvement of adult males in both school-age mother-hood and its precursors represents a significant, undiscussed factor deserving greater attention.

AARRRGH

JohnK wrote: »

What? You think there arent already 15, 14 & 13 year old prostitutes and porn stars? Prostitution is illegal anyway no matter what the age...

Prostitution is legal in Ireland.

AARRRGH

acorntoast wrote: »

As people seem to have trouble accepting that, here is my first piece of evidence.

I think some people are just arguing for the sake of it.

For example, one of the people arguing with me said this a few months ago:

? wrote:

It's not unusual for a person to not feel ready for sex until their 20s. As I said, I was 18 but definitely would have lost it later if I hadn't felt under so much pressure. Being physically ready for something is not the same as being emotionally ready. I personally think sex is called an adult activity for a reason.

philologos

brianthebard wrote: »

Smooth slippery slope you are on there.... Didn't you godwin earlier, what have you got left to say?

Well it's a smooth slippery slope, only if we go to the justifications that others have used in the past for legalising cannabis, and legalising prostitution. It's already there, so just legalise it.

I've made my views clear anyway. I don't intend to create the law, but if the age of consent was made to the age when teenagers can first conceive I can't imagine it being a better world.

AARRRGH

Jakkass wrote: »

Well it's a smooth slippery slope, only if we go to the justifications that others have used in the past for legalising cannabis, and legalising prostitution. It's already there, so just legalise it.

I think part of the problem - and this is particularly evident when people are talking about legalising drugs - is people only view the issue from their own point of view.

"I take ecstasy and I don't cause any problems"
"I wouldn't try to have sex with a 15 year old"

They ignore the fact that there are quite a few unbalanced people in Ireland, and we need these laws to protect us - and them.

JohnK

AARRRGH wrote: »

Prostitution is legal in Ireland.

Seriously? Well fancy that!

AARRRGH

JohnK wrote: »

Seriously? Well fancy that!

Seriously.

This is the law -

You can be a prostitute, but don't pick up clients on the street, and don't advertise your services in an Irish publication.

What a lot of prostitutes do now is they work from an apartment or a hotel, and they advertise on UK based websites like escortireland, escort-ireland, etc.

acorntoast

AARRRGH wrote: »

The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as "every human being below the age of 18 years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier." So yes, 16 year olds are children.

Ignoring the definitions of words like child and children is a tactic used by pro-pedophile activists.

words like "child" or "childhood", which have psychologically developmental meaning, should be "resisted at all costs"

acorntoast

Dudess wrote: »

Originally Posted by AARRRGH
I used to run porn sites. Teen porn is BY FAR the most popular porn there is.

Those girls are still over the age of consent.

A lot of most popular search terms include the word teen. They aren't like - "Asian women who look young but are actually of the age of consent".

K4t

Jakkass wrote: »

It's ethical to actively discourage sex before reaching adulthood, but unfortunately the Government is not going to take such a line. Just because something exists in society doesn't mean we can't take affirmative action in society to change it.

As for "allowing" people to become pregnant, that isn't what it's about. Other posters in this thread have already said that contraception is avaliable to all, although I wouldn't be highly supportive of encouraging teenagers to have sex, but raising it to 18 in law would at least set Ireland's ethical standard.

Yes I agree. However, that does not mean pretending it doesn't exist and ignoring the subject. Children need to be informed about sex/health/sexual health at a young age. This would in my humble opinion start to rid the whole hodoo surrounding the subject and make Irish people more at ease and informed about sex.

AARRRGH

K4t wrote: »

Children need to be informed about sex/health/sexual health at a young age.

I think most people would agree with this, but I don't think sex education at a young age means the age of consent should be lowered.

As acorntoast showed earlier url=http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58504908&postcount=107]here[/url Norway and Holland (age of consent 16) have low teen pregnancy rates whereas England, Wales and Scotland (age of consent 16) have high teen pregnancy rates. The difference? Good sex education.

Also, according to this there is a lot more social stigma about teen pregnancies in Holland, and abortion is considered a more acceptable option when compared to the UK.

Of interest too is the fact that surveys show teenagers in Holland are likely to start having sex on average a year later than teenagers in the UK. (As acorntoast also showed earlier url=http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=58504426&postcount=94]here[/url, children who have sex at a young age are more likely to have STI problems, etc.)

I've searched for reasons why the age of consent should be lowered, and all I can find are arguments from paedophile type groups, and they all seem to revolve around the concept that adults should be allowed have sex with younger teenagers. I can't find anything which says lowering the age of consent lowers STI and pregnancy risk - in fact, everything I've read says younger teenagers who have sex have higher rates of STIs and pregnancies.

I would agree with changing the law so peers can have sex with each other, for example, an 18 year old can have sex with a 16 year old without risk of getting done for rape, but I don't agree with reducing it just because some adults want to have sex with teenagers, or because teenagers are physically able to have sex (they're physically able to do a lot of things but that doesn't mean they should do them, or are emotionally ready to do them).

I'm surprised so many people think the opposite.

Dudess

AARRRGH wrote: »

I think some people are just arguing for the sake of it.

For example, one of the people arguing with me said this a few months ago:

Wow! HOW did you fish that one out? Anyhoo, people can change their minds - even in a matter of months.
Threads on this very website in recent times have made me rethink sex from a biological perspective rather than a social/cultural one.

Plus, I'm not saying my own experiences and views are what everyone else should go by. For example, I wouldn't take ecstasy or cocaine - that's just my own personal decision. Doesn't mean however that I think others shouldn't, or that I'm anti-drugs.

Nope, definitely not arguing for the sake of it - can't stand people who do that.

K4t

AARRRGH wrote: »

I think most people would agree with this, but I don't think sex education at a young age means the age of consent should be lowered.

So would you agree then that the age of consent should remain the same and the age at which children begin to receive sex education be lowered?

This would mean that children would be more informed about sex at a younger age and imo this would lead to a decrease in underage pregnancies.

philologos

K4t wrote: »

So would you agree then that the age of consent should remain the same and the age at which children begin to receive sex education be lowered?

This would mean that children would be more informed about sex at a younger age and imo this would lead to a decrease in underage pregnancies.

Yes, definitely. That would be the logical approach. I'd recommend putting the age of consent to 18, but I suppose if the right pre-emptive measures would be put in place that mightn't be as necessary.

Zombrex

I've been trying to follow this thread but I'm a bit confused by something.

Is there evidence that the age of consent itself (independent of sex education) has any bearing on when kids actually start having sex?

JohnK

While I have no evidence at all I would imagine it has little or no impact on when kids start having sex. All I can say for sure is when I was in school everyone thought the legal age was 16 but the reality was no one actually cared and they certainly weren't saying "oh dear I'm too young for that so I'd better not"

Ericaa

Ok, here's what I have to say on the subject.

I am 18 years of age and I think the age of consent in Ireland should be 16.
I have many reasons for feeling this way. My main one of course is living in fear of being prosecuted for having a sexual relationship with my own boyfriend. We've been together for almost two years now.

His mother went to a lawyer when I was 17 and tried to have me prosecuted. How ridiculous is that?

I've been reading this thread and alot of people here seem to think that the terrible sex ed. in this country is to blame for teenage pregnancies and STI's. Sorry but there is a wealth of information on the internet, and if I ever had a sex related question, that's where I'd go. And anways all they tell you in school is the stuff you already know.

Another thing, I live in a town where young girls seem to WANT an older man. Why is that such a problem? Sure some get taken advantage of, but that's their own damn fault for being an idiot. Laws are aren't going to stop men getting younger girls especially when it can be so easy to keep it a secret.

Well anyways, that's my bit said.

Blue_Wolf

I think once one understands the consequences of sex than it shouldnt be a problem. However, One does not understand unless educated. Can we start educating 12 year olds about sex and being safe? I don't think so.
Why ruin a child's innocence? What is wrong with children just playing around...if you get me. The only thing that puts pressure on children from a younger age are the explicit programmes on tv, although we do have the watershed enforced maybe the parents shouldn't be so laisse faire.
One has to be of an age to understand a sex education, the consequences of sex, how to have safe sex. I think 16 is a fine age. What good is it to reduce the age and have what we saw in the papers the other day a 12 year old was it? fathering a child. Sick! He can't even look after himself. We would just be saying a yeah go ahead no problem there kids.

JohnK

Blue_Wolf wrote: »

Why ruin a child's innocence?

Ignorance about your own body is not something that should be encouraged...

Blue_Wolf wrote: »

What good is it to reduce the age and have what we saw in the papers the other day a 12 year old was it? fathering a child. Sick! He can't even look after himself. We would just be saying a yeah go ahead no problem there kids.

Perhaps if he'd been properly educated he'd have known about contraception and the risks of unprotected sex which would have allowed him to make a more informed decision.

Hiding from the truth and pretending that kids don't have any sexual urges is just ignoring the problem and not only does it not help anyone, it increases the risks kids face when they do have sex while unaware of the potential consequences like pregnancy, STD's etc.

metrovelvet

Ericaa wrote: »

Ok, here's what I have to say on the subject.

I am 18 years of age and I think the age of consent in Ireland should be 16.
I have many reasons for feeling this way. My main one of course is living in fear of being prosecuted for having a sexual relationship with my own boyfriend. We've been together for almost two years now.

His mother went to a lawyer when I was 17 and tried to have me prosecuted. How ridiculous is that?

I've been reading this thread and alot of people here seem to think that the terrible sex ed. in this country is to blame for teenage pregnancies and STI's. Sorry but there is a wealth of information on the internet, and if I ever had a sex related question, that's where I'd go. And anways all they tell you in school is the stuff you already know.

Another thing, I live in a town where young girls seem to WANT an older man. Why is that such a problem? Sure some get taken advantage of, but that's their own damn fault for being an idiot. Laws are aren't going to stop men getting younger girls especially when it can be so easy to keep it a secret.

Well anyways, that's my bit said.

i take it then you wouldnt have a problem with a 40 year old man having sex with a 16 year old boy? Do you support the efforts of NAMBLA?

Blue_Wolf

Blue_Wolf wrote: »

I think once one understands the consequences of sex than it shouldnt be a problem. However, One does not understand unless educated. Can we start educating 12 year olds about sex and being safe? I don't think so. What is wrong with children just playing around...if you get me. ...have what we saw in the papers the other day a 12 year old was it? fathering a child. Sick! He can't even look after himself. We would just be saying a yeah go ahead no problem there kids.

Where do I even start?
Maybe he was just "playing around" innocently too? Perhaps if he'd been educated in the first place he wouldn't have had a child?
I have to fully admit I'm shocked at the idea of kids doing this but it does happen and putting your head in the sand with some rose-tinted nostalgic view of childhood innocence is not going to help anyone. They'll go ahead and do it anyway, and do so extremely unsafely. The best thing to be done is to 1/ educate them and 2/ encourage them not to do it for some time and emphasise the risks.

Girls get their periods around 9-11, younger these days it seems. There's a thread in the parenting forum where some parents are shocked it's happened so quickly and would prefer it to go away although dealing with it. Do you think we should just pretend they're ill too or something? Keep them ignorant and happy? Much as we would all like the idea of kids just being kids, enforcing unsafe ignorance on them in any body matters when they are clearly going through it already is just not acceptable.

Black Swan

Health studies of teenage pregnancies appear to have conflicting results in terms of women 15 years or older. Some show increased risk to mother and child, while others do not. See International Journal of Epidemiology review article:
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/31/3/552

Social and economic context appear to be significant factors in terms of success or failure of early teenage pregnancies (age 15 or older). A highly supportive environment is associated with success.

Should Ireland lower the age of consent from 17 to something younger? Admittedly many girls and boys experiment with sex before it becomes legal, but would such official action encourage a greater number of earlier pregnancies in a population?

Personally I do not think the age should be lowered, because the 15 or 16 year old teenage mother will not have completed leaving cert. To face this educational challenge with the additional burden of an ongoing pregnancy or newborn would place her at a disadvantage, which may result in many teenage mothers not completing this minimum educational measure. Occupational and higher education opportunities may be placed at risk?

Furthermore, if a pregnancy occurs, and the father is only 15 or 16, to what extent will this event impact on his ability to complete leaving cert? Will he assume the responsibilities of a teenage father, including support of the child? How will this added burden at a young age affect his education and occupation?

Of course, contraception could reduce the likelihood of pregnancy, but will the incidence of pregnancy increase in the population? Or the pregnancy could be terminated, but how will this affect the teenage mother or father?

If the age is lowered to 15 or 16, will such action encourage earlier, illegal sexual relations between greater numbers of younger children (under age 15 or 16)?

And frankly, what's the big hurry? Hormones are raging, but are the girl or boy mature enough to take on a meaningful sexual relationship?

RandolphEsq

The age of consent should only be for the protection of teenagers and children being exploited by adults.

The best model would be to have an age (16/17/18) above which you cannot have sex with a person below the age.

2 people under the age will have sex anyway regardless of the 'law'.

The only logical reason for the age of consent is to protect young people from exploitation by adults.

A 15 year old should not be locked up for having con-sensual sex with another 15 year old. They are not harming each other and certainly not exploiting each other. But a 23 year old having sex with a 15 year old is certainly exploitation

Black Swan

Other age thresholds come to mind. If a child is qualified to give sexual consent at age 14 per se, should they also be "adult" enough to drink alcohol, sign contracts, leave home, or join the military without parental approval? What's the "magic" age when children know, understand, and can be held accountable for their actions, and how they affect others?

And just because some children are going to experiment, is that a justification to lower the age of consent?

Even though their bodies may be ready, would two 11-year-olds fully understand the consequences of their actions to where they could give informed consent to each other (even if you had given them prior sex education and contraception)?

Blue_Wolf

JohnK wrote: »

Ignorance about your own body is not something that should be encouraged...


Perhaps if he'd been properly educated he'd have known about contraception and the risks of unprotected sex which would have allowed him to make a more informed decision.

Hiding from the truth and pretending that kids don't have any sexual urges is just ignoring the problem and not only does it not help anyone, it increases the risks kids face when they do have sex while unaware of the potential consequences like pregnancy, STD's etc.

Ok right so you go to a 12 year old kid tell them go on have sex but use contraception. They are too immature to digest the actual real risks of unprotected sex. Children have been told their whole life don't do this, don't do that and frankly we have all pushed the red button and done exactly the opposite and we as kids have found that there were no bad consequences of our actions, and if we were caught we got slap on the hand. Tell them about the severity and importance of safe sex at that age and it's a waste of time.

I was not encouraging ignorance about our body. But you tell that to the millions of parents who tell their children how children are made. They all make up little stories of how the baby got into the belly. According to you that's encouraging ignorance about the bodies. I think not, there's a time and place for everything.

Blue_Wolf

bluewolf wrote: »

putting your head in the sand with some rose-tinted nostalgic view of childhood innocence is not going to help anyone.

If every parent took the responsibility to be responsible than we wouldn't have such a big issue. It's the parents fault that they aren't looking after their children. What has changed in 100 years, society has changed but children have not. What children are being exposed to now compared to say 50years ago has an impact on this issue. It's the parents fault for letting their children being exposed to so much. Letting them stay up past the water shed is one small contribution. It should be the parents that are the one's to be educated on how to rare a child.

Terodil

Blue_Wolf wrote: »

Ok right so you go to a 12 year old kid tell them go on have sex but use contraception. They are too immature to digest the actual real risks of unprotected sex.

I don't think anybody is telling them to 'go on have sex'. The suggestion was to tell them what it was, and to point out the dangers and remedies. Which is the lesser evil, clearly, to having kids discover the dangers *after* they've had sex.

BTW it's not as if kids don't have a clue about right, wrong, or dangers at the age of 12. And they certainly will have picked up about sex in a more or less concrete fashion by then too.

Blue_Wolf wrote: »

Children have been told their whole life don't do this, don't do that and frankly we have all pushed the red button and done exactly the opposite and we as kids have found that there were no bad consequences of our actions, and if we were caught we got slap on the hand.

Exactly. But what is better, the chance of them experimenting blindly, unaware of the dangers, or the chance of them refraining from experimenting because of the risks?

Blue_Wolf wrote: »

I think not, there's a time and place for everything.

Agree, but IMO 12 is long past that point this time and age. Kids are getting into puberty earlier than 50 years ago. Society in general becomes a lot more open to sex too. Withholding this information till 14 or later is frivolous.

philologos

Terodil wrote: »

BTW it's not as if kids don't have a clue about right, wrong, or dangers at the age of 12. And they certainly will have picked up about sex in a more or less concrete fashion by then too.

Emotional maturity is very important also. Can 12 year olds really deal with the emotional pain and the like that comes from loose sexual relationships. As I've explained before when two people value sex differently in a relationship that's when problems start. If we are going to continue cheapening the value of sex within Irish society this is going to be a real problem in the future. This really isn't something we should be encouraging children to do. No doubt this would increase the rate of teen pregnancy even further. If anything raising the age of consent to 18 would be the pragmatic thing to do.

Terodil wrote: »

Exactly. But what is better, the chance of them experimenting blindly, unaware of the dangers, or the chance of them refraining from experimenting because of the risks?

They still will be experimenting blindly even if the age is lowered.

Terodil wrote: »

Agree, but IMO 12 is long past that point this time and age. Kids are getting into puberty earlier than 50 years ago. Society in general becomes a lot more open to sex too. Withholding this information till 14 or later is frivolous.

Physical maturity != emotional maturity.

Sex education should be taught earlier, but what on earth is the point in lowering the age of consent too?

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

Emotional maturity is very important also. Can 12 year olds really deal with the emotional pain and the like that comes from loose sexual relationships. As I've explained before when two people value sex differently in a relationship that's when problems start. If we are going to continue cheapening the value of sex within Irish society this is going to be a real problem in the future. This really isn't something we should be encouraging children to do.

Where has tero or myself or jk said we should encourage them to have sex? Seriously?

And for goodness' sakes this is nothing to do with sex being "cheap" or not.

philologos

bluewolf wrote: »

And for goodness' sakes this is nothing to do with sex being "cheap" or not.

I don't see how encouraging "as low as can you go" type age of consent is going to do anything good in the end though. If you could lay out your reasoning on the table that'd be helpful.

Just because someone is physically mature doesn't mean that they are ready emotionally.

Jakkass

Jakkass wrote: »

I don't see how encouraging "as low as can you go" type age of consent is going to do anything good in the end though.

I'm still waiting for you to point out where myself, tero or JK suggested children be encouraged to have sex at that age or that the age of consent be lowered.

philologos

Apologies, just read through the last set of posts, only glanced the first time. I totally agree with having sex ed at 12 years old, I did when I was 13 most of my classmates were twelve. Was really only common sense to do so.

KeyLimePie

The age of consent in ireland is 17 for EVERYONE !
there is no different ages of consent for boys or girls or gays

And I think that the age of conent should be 15 if two 15 year olds are gonna do it and 17 for every other age

Joey the lips

Honestly: We should raise it not lower it.

Victor

Blue_Lagoon wrote: »

Other age thresholds come to mind. If a child is qualified to give sexual consent at age 14 per se, should they also be "adult" enough to drink alcohol, sign contracts, leave home, or join the military without parental approval? What's the "magic" age when children know, understand, and can be held accountable for their actions, and how they affect others?

42, i.e about the lowest age for most people to become grandparents.

Mike 1972

There is something badly wrong with a country which brands the majority of its young people as paedophiles/rapists/sex offenders :rolleyes:

genericnames

Hi, I only read the first 6 pages of this thread so I amn't quite up to speed, but I am 17 so I thought you might all want my opinions?


Sexual education was in my primary school in both 5th and 6th class, but only on a 'penis into vagina, fun times are had by all, babies are made' kind of level, then they talked about bodily changes. In my secondary school 1st through 3rd years are taught in detail and allowed ask questions, so there are no real sex ed problems I know of in my area, at least.

As for it being illegal for 17 year old men to sleep with 15 year old girls...really? Because iif so I know quite a few statuatory rapists... like, lots. it kind of removes some of the power from the word 'rape' when it is used to refer to people having sex when society says (correctly in many cases) that they are not old enough to be ready?

Also, whats the, uh... punishment? Because I am 17 and I love this girl and shes 16 and she and is 'sexually active' as I think it's normally put, so she would be unhappy in a sexless relationship with me...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.