You are viewing [info]theycallmeboy's journal

Previous Entry | Next Entry

I continue to lose faith in my government.

  • Dec. 10th, 2006 at 2:23 PM
homer
The front page of the Sunday Times today, the 10th of December. The headline: "Cabinet set to reject lower age of consent." It would seem many of our ministers are opposed to lowering the age of consent from 17 to... 16.

Sixteen. We're talking one year here. Never mind that most Irish teenagers think the age of consent is 16, anyway. Everyone from the Rape Crisis Network to the Catholic Church is opposed to the idea. The Ministers for education, foreign affairs and defence are also against it. Ironically Brian Lenihan, the children's minister, has no problem with it. You've got to ask, if the guy in charge of protecting children's rights supports lowering the age of consent, why are we listening to the defence minister?

Apparently most of our TDs don't spend a lot of time walking around their constituencies. Young single mothers are not an anomaly. The high teen pregnancy rate in Ireland has often been a topic of debate. I hate to break it to the government, but somebody's been fucking.

Most young people would like to see the age of consent lowered, while most older people want it to stay the same (though if you're over 17, why the hell should you care?) The "morality" argument is coming into play yet again, but when so many young people are having sex already, is it not immoral to prevent them from having access to information and protection?

Two years ago a report came to light highlighting the ignorance among teenagers, both here and abroad, when it came to sex. When kids are using clingfilm and crisp packets as condoms, someone's not been doing their job in educating them. And keeping the age of consent at 17 is not going to protect any of them. If anything, it turns them into criminals.

In one of those blue moon moments, I find myself in agreement with justice minister Michael McDowell, and support lowering the age of consent. It doesn't make our society any less immoral, and it doesn't help paedophiles and rapists from commiting their awful crimes. All it does is allow a group of people, some of whom are having sex anyway, to practise it safely, without fear of recrimination. The government would be wise following the recommendatons of the Oireachtas commitee that proposed the idea.

Sorry for this rant, I'm just a bit annoyed that once again, my government has shown just how ignorant and out of touch it is with Irish society.

Tags:

Comments

( 4 comments — Leave a comment )
[info]kiji_kat wrote:
Dec. 10th, 2006 05:21 pm (UTC)
Ah, but see, conservatives think that just by having these laws in place, it's going to turn all the young kids into lust-crazed nymphomaniacs. That was one of the arguments that conservative Christians used recently to try to stop a vaccine from being made mandatory. You see, the vaccine is against several viruses that are know to cause cervical cancer - and are usually contracted through sexual contact. Giving young girls these shots, it was argued, would encourage them to become promiscuous.

Bullshit. What keeps kids from being promiscuous is an honest look at the facts, not denial, threats, or overwrought, borderline fairy tales about how it just takes willpower and Jay-zuz to keep you from having sex out of marriage. That whole thing pissed me off and caused me to write an entry that pissed a co-worker and his wife off, and while I'm sorry for making them and their beliefs feel attacked (they're the good kind of Christian), I'm not sorry for writing it. It had to be said.

The problem isn't morality. It isn't "Satan tempting the youth." The problem is the lack of responsibility. We teach teens that they have no control over themselves or their actions; we blame their fuck-ups (figurative or literal) on everything but them. That's not to say that I think kids should be punished and screamed at if they mess up (hell, give them all the support you can - it sucks to be a teen), but I also don't think that wailing about how lowering the age of consent will warp the children is going to get anything done. You want to prevent teen pregnancy? How about treating the teens like actual people instead of idiots and giving them access to the knowledge, medicines, and contraceptives that they need? I mean, Saran Wrap and chip bags? And you wonder why so many teen moms are running around out there. (And, speaking as a woman...um, no. And ow. Which combined makes, "now." As in, "take that shit off and go get some real condoms RIGHT FUCKING NOW. Is this some kind of joke?")

I think that one of the things that drew me to Japanese culture was their culturally-instilled belief in personal responsibility. It's not always a good thing - it's not unusual for kids to fling themselves in front of trains because they got bad exam grades and "brought disgrace to the family" - but I think we could do with some of the more positive aspects of that belief in the Western world. Step up, stop blaming everyone and everything but yourself, and start treating causes of problems, not just symptoms. And if your kids have sex and the girls get pregnant, take a good hard look at what you taught them and what you gave them so they could help themselves act as responsible individuals. If you taught them the facts, gave them the medicines and contraceptives and they still refused to listen, then you can get a little angry. Otherwise, go into the bathroom and scream at the mirror, because you have no one to blame but yourself.

Ok, I think I'm done. But I'm linking to your entry so more people can read it, because they should.
[info]shadownex wrote:
Dec. 11th, 2006 02:16 am (UTC)
Using crisp packets as condoms? I guess you have to give them points for resourcefulness.
I agree with the Kiji-Kitty. This is referred to as a statuatory law, because the only thing that makes it a crime is the person's age. Same thing applies for underage drinking.
Some do think lowering the age of consent one year will cause all the 16-year-olds to run out and do the nasty soon as the parents' backs are turned. These folks seem to be unaware (or in denial) that there are quite a lot of 16-year-olds (and younger) doing it already.
This is another example of government focusing on the criminalization of a personal choice when they could be putting their time and resources towards more important issues. For instance, a proper sex education program that explores ALL the options. Anything, really. Ipods with lasers.
[info]theycallmeboy wrote:
Dec. 11th, 2006 10:59 am (UTC)
I guess if kids are willing to use crisp packets as condoms, Ipods with lasers are a natural next step.

I agree with both of you. Making a kid a criminal because they choose to engage in consentual sex is ridiculous. Do people think that a 16-year-old isn't capable of saying "yes" or "no" until he/she reaches legal age? Those single mother statistics would say differently.

The health minister got into trouble here recently when she suggested that girls as young as eleven should have access to the morning after pill. There was uproar of course, and pretty soon she stopped mentioning it. But the fact is, there are a small number of kids who are having sex at that age. It's sad to think about it, but it's a fact that a lot of kids grow up way too fast these days.
[info]gefingerpoken wrote:
Dec. 12th, 2006 08:47 pm (UTC)
That's so screwed up that kids are using clingfilm because they can't afford condoms. In my town, the schools give away free condoms to any kid that asks, because they'd rather the kids get to use condoms than try to find more "creative" ways of protecting themselves.
( 4 comments — Leave a comment )