Age of consent confusion

brummytom

1ZRed wrote: »

Ah to be having sex at 17 again!

Aren't you 18?


How much have things changed in a year?...

suicide_circus

I interfered with a 15 year old schoolgirl












When i was 15

biko

Absoluvely

Nobody has mentioned underage lesbian couples yet



'Cause I know that's what you're all thinking of (dreaming of).

1ZRed

Where To wrote: »

Ah to be having sex at all.

I second that, I'm cutting glass over here atm!

brummytom wrote: »

Aren't you 18?


How much have things changed in a year?...

I am, and they've changed many multiple times since

fasttalkerchat

Absoluvely wrote: »

Nobody has mentioned underage lesbian couples yet



'Cause I know that's what you're all thinking of (dreaming of).

Teenage lesbians are weird emo girls. There are no hot blonde ones until mid 20's.

1777

The whole age of consent thing really is absurd.

How is having sex with a 15 year old wrong? At least, any more wrong than having sex with an 18 year old?

In the liberal age, laws are needed for this kind of a thing, and it ends up as a load of nonsense. Back in the day, COMMUNITIES comprised of REAL MEN set the sexual mores. Without this solid foundation, societies turn to dirt.

im invisible

Dotsie~tmp wrote: »

Shíte. I was hoping this was a New Order thread.

no, we had that on the 21st of January,

Hasmunch

SCOOP 64 wrote: »

Don't be panicking or worry to much, properly come to nothing.

At 17 he'll probably come over everything!!

Seaneh

admiralofthefleet wrote: »

if a 17 year old girl has sex with a 13 year old lad she gets away with it?

I don't think so, as she'd be above the age of consent while he would be under, thus she's breaking the law.


However, if a girl is 16 years and 11 months and 3 weeks old, and she has sex with a boy who has just turned 13 (so, really, the same as your question admiralofthefleet) the girl cannot be charged but the boy can be and can even end up in jail. It's called a "Romeo and Juliet" Law and it's retarded in the extreme.

smash

1ZRed wrote: »

Ah to be having sex at 17 again!

Wasn't that last year for you?

1ZRed

smash wrote: »

Wasn't that last year for you?

2011 actually :pac:

I was taking the piss as tho I were an auld lad. Jesus

RUSTEDCORE

Guys and girls have different emotional levels.. although it is believed that girls mature mentally quicker than guys it is known that guys will make a choice based on what they want whereas girls can give consent and not really want to its kinda just how we are designed for lack of more accurate wording as ive been up all night I would say guys are aggressive and girls defensive.

and of course drink heightens these qualities.

munchkin_utd

Seaneh wrote: »

I don't think so, as she'd be above the age of consent while he would be under, thus she's breaking the law.


However, if a girl is 16 years and 11 months and 3 weeks old, and she has sex with a boy who has just turned 13 (so, really, the same as your question admiralofthefleet) the girl cannot be charged but the boy can be and can even end up in jail. It's called a "Romeo and Juliet" Law and it's retarded in the extreme.

yup, and a challenge to it in the high court failed there a few months back with the reasoning that the consequences for the female (possible pregnancy) waranted a corresponding consequence (entry in the sex register that will haunt you for life) for the male

Seriously, two 16 year olds get jiggy and its more than possible that the male side of the jiggyness ends up in court with a prosecution, jail time and an entry in the sex register that is flagged every time he later in life looks to train a football team.

How in the f+ck can a 16year old who is interested in a 16year old be considered a paedophile or in the same bracket and on the same register as some scumbag who breaks into a grannys house and rapes her in a violent hammer attack?

the groutch

RUSTEDCORE wrote: »

Guys and girls have different emotional levels.. although it is believed that girls mature mentally quicker than guys it is known that guys will make a choice based on what they want whereas girls can give consent and not really want to its kinda just how we are designed for lack of more accurate wording as ive been up all night I would say guys are aggressive and girls defensive.

and of course drink heightens these qualities.

sounds like you're struggling to make excuses for a sexist law

smash

munchkin_utd wrote: »

How in the f+ck can a 16year old who is interested in a 16year old be considered a paedophile or in the same bracket and on the same register as some scumbag who breaks into a grannys house and rapes her in a violent hammer attack?

And even though legally allowed to have sex, if someone who's 17 sends a dirty picture to their partner of the same age the recipient can be done for possession of child pornography and the sender can be done for distribution.

Pumpkinseeds

A friend of mine was telling me recently that her 13 year old son is being pursued by a 17 year old girl. I was kind of shocked by it as when I was her age it was older guys that I and my friends would've been interested in. I can't really see why a 17 year old girl would be drawn to a 13 year old boy though. It just seems a bit creepy to me.

smash

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

A friend of mine was telling me recently that her 13 year old son is being pursued by a 17 year old girl. I was kind of shocked by it as when I was her age it was older guys that I and my friends would've been interested in. I can't really see why a 17 year old girl would be drawn to a 13 year old boy though. It just seems a bit creepy to me.

Have you seen this?

1ZRed

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

A friend of mine was telling me recently that her 13 year old son is being pursued by a 17 year old girl. I was kind of shocked by it as when I was her age it was older guys that I and my friends would've been interested in. I can't really see why a 17 year old girl would be drawn to a 13 year old boy though. It just seems a bit creepy to me.

It must be the Justin Bieber effect taking hold at long last :eek:


He's just a singer they said. He'll do no harm they said!

munchkin_utd

Pumpkinseeds wrote: »

A friend of mine was telling me recently that her 13 year old son is being pursued by a 17 year old girl. I was kind of shocked by it as when I was her age it was older guys that I and my friends would've been interested in. I can't really see why a 17 year old girl would be drawn to a 13 year old boy though. It just seems a bit creepy to me.

at least he is fine (legally) since she is 17.

Now....
Should she have been 16 and force herself on him only 13 then that would be a matter for the guards and that 13year old boy would have caused an offence to the girl that is actively persuing him, so great that he would have his name on the sex offenders register for life.

Whereever he moves he will need to update his where about to the guards.
Should he have kids down the line he will not be able to help train their football/ soccer team etc as the garda vetting procedures now will flag him as a (statutory) rapist and paedo for having relations with an over forceful older girl.

It really is the most idiotic law still in the irish law books since stuff like the ban on catholics owning large horses was removed a couple of years back (amongst other crazy stuff that beggars belief)

Kinski

What I find interesting is that some people try to defend the sexually-discriminatory nature of our age-of-consent laws on the basis that "girls can get pregnant, and therefore face more serious consequences"; this seems to be the rationale which legislators and the courts follow when defending and upholding this law.

But, of course, not all sex acts can result in pregnancy (I assume anal sex is considered full penetrative,) and the use of contraceptives would render pregnancy a very unlikely outcome. And it doesn't take very long to find out if someone is pregnant or not, yet females in these cases are innocent of any offence because they might have got pregnant, even though they didn't? On top of that, a young man who becomes a father must live the consequences of that too, as the state will insist he at the very least contribute financially to the child's upbringing. How does slapping him with a conviction for rape when he's still a child himself help give his offspring the best start in life possible (which should IMO be the focus in underage sex cases which involve pregnancy)?

It's an incoherent, unfair, dumb, counterproductive, conservative law.

orestes

munchkin_utd wrote: »

Seriously, two 16 year olds get jiggy and its more than possible that the male side of the jiggyness ends up in court with a prosecution, jail time and an entry in the sex register that is flagged every time he later in life looks to train a football team.

How in the f+ck can a 16year old who is interested in a 16year old be considered a paedophile or in the same bracket and on the same register as some scumbag who breaks into a grannys house and rapes her in a violent hammer attack?

This isn't true. If there is less than a 2 year age difference between the two parties then nobody goes on the sex offenders register, even if they are found guilty. So a 17 year old guy who has sex with a 15 year old will not end up on the sex offenders register. I linked to the law on the first page of the thread.

smash

orestes wrote: »

This isn't true. If there is less than a 2 year age difference between the two parties then nobody goes on the sex offenders register, even if they are found guilty. So a 17 year old guy who has sex with a 15 year old will not end up on the sex offenders register. I linked to the law on the first page of the thread.

I'm pretty sure there have been cases where it has happened. Not so long ago there was a 17 yr old that was having sex with his 16 yr old gf and her father caught them and pressed charges!

ScumLord

munchkin_utd wrote: »

yup, and a challenge to it in the high court failed there a few months back with the reasoning that the consequences for the female (possible pregnancy) waranted a corresponding consequence (entry in the sex register that will haunt you for life) for the male

There's also the implication there that women/girls shouldn't be held responsible for their actions were as men/boys should. This despite the general consensus that women mature faster than boys.

It is sexist in every way, for men it's inequality. For women it's the same old story of men know better and the women folk need to be protected and married off.

orestes

smash wrote: »

I'm pretty sure there have been cases where it has happened. Not so long ago there was a 17 yr old that was having sex with his 16 yr old gf and her father caught them and pressed charges!

I didn't say he can't be charged, I said that even if he is charged and found guilty he wouldn't go onto the sex offenders register if the age difference is less than two years.

0ph0rce0

Since when has it been 17, i always thought it was 16

Ooooohhhhhhhhhhhhh ****!!!!

Off to book flights

Iwasfrozen

Biscuit17 wrote: »

Would they not turn a blind to it or something.

Nope it's statutory rape. If they wanted to you'd be in the slammer.

Ghost Buster

SCOOP 64 wrote: »

ya ,but if you got the boat over to the uk you would be ok!

Protestants for ya is right...

checkyabadself

I read this and pictured a 17 year old boy holding a condom in one hand and his phone in the other wating for someone from AH to give him the OK to get it on with his new friend.

blatantrereg

1777 wrote: »

The whole age of consent thing really is absurd.

How is having sex with a 15 year old wrong? At least, any more wrong than having sex with an 18 year old?

In the liberal age, laws are needed for this kind of a thing, and it ends up as a load of nonsense. Back in the day, COMMUNITIES comprised of REAL MEN set the sexual mores. Without this solid foundation, societies turn to dirt.

Back in what day? There's been an awful lot of kiddie fiddling over the last number of decades, and probably further back too. The men in this country setting the mores were the catholic priests no? These days people have started to stop just turning a blind eye to it all.

15 year olds are kids. 18 year olds are kids too really, but they're an awful lot more grown up than 15 year olds.