Stupid laws make sex a crime -- if you're male

**frostyboy** · 29th-October-2009

Written by Kevin Myers for the Irish Independent:

Stupid laws make sex a crime -- if you're male

'If some pretty girl on the pensionable side of 16 offered me a
bit of pelvic refreshment, why her knickers would be hanging off
a tree in Mongolia before she could change her mind'

Why is this society apparently addicted to passing stupid laws
that, if enforced, can only cause misery and wreck lives, and in
no way add to the sum of human happiness or wisdom? The
entirely predictable -- and predicted -- consequences of the
Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Act 2006 are now coming about.
A 19-year-old boy, who had consensual sex with a girl who was
just under 17, the lawful age of consent, is to be imprisoned.

Now, if you want to grasp the sheer magisterial folly of our law-makers, the preposterous law that was used against the boy was the Criminal Law Sexual Offences Act 2006, as amended by Section 5 (1) of the Criminal Law (Sexual Offences Act) 2007. In other words, they didn't even manage to get the law right back in 2006, and had to go back with their legislative spanners and screwdrivers a year later. And still they got it wrong.

But throughout, you could see these pathetic, fumbling, nervous idiots had their eye on what the feminist-lobby would say about them if their contemptible little law failed to make women the invar- iable victims of any sexual episode.

And lobby is the right word. Because you could fit this tiny but headline-making group of a few addled and bitter idiots into a broom cupboard: they no more represent women's opinions than Licensed Vintners Association represents Alcoholics Anonymous.

This is the world we are now living in. Among the under-25s, 31pc of men and 22pc of women had full sex before they were 17. The average age of first sexual contact (not full intercourse) is probably closer to 14. But according to the Sex Offences law passed, not under the Lord Protector, Oliver Cromwell, but by the 21st century Dail Eireann (at two bites of the cherry, so to speak), any 16-year-old boy who has sex with 16-year-old girl is a criminal, but the girl isn't.

It was a bad law, bound to make a bad case sooner or later, and by God, that's what it has done. We have created a legal apartheid which sees consensual neo-adult females as "victims". Indeed, the press coverage of the Mullingar affair referred to her throughout as such.

What makes Mullingar really special is that it hinges upon the girl's parents' feelings about the boy in question.

He and their daughter had previously had sex. She agreed to have sex again (there's my girl). But her father had since met and disliked the boy.

So, suspecting something was -- so to speak -- afoot on the evening in question, he followed his daughter and found her, well, you know what, and called in An Garda Siochana.

What an admirable fellow!

The lad is now to get a custodial sentence, even though he thought -- and the judge accepted that he thought -- that the age of consent was 16.

Oh shag this age-of-consent mullarkey. For I was 19 once, and by Jesus, if some pretty girl on the pensionable side of 16 offered me a bit of pelvic refreshment, why her knickers would be hanging off a tree in Mongolia before she could change her mind. Moreover, any boy of 19 who says NO to such a girl deserves to rot in jail.

So only the weakest of legislators would indulge the cruel instincts of the few sad feminists who seek to wreak ruin on any boy simply because he surrenders to desires that are entirely natural, and are reciprocated by a girl of around the same age.

But as we all know, these country constables of the feminist movement are few in number, and are scorned by most women. So one can only conclude that our cowardly law-makers are delighted that their moral supinity is going to cause a young man to be jailed, merely for doing what all young men are programmed by nature to do.

Moreover, you can go back 40 years and not find a prosecution as absurd as the Mullingar case. For at least 22pc of girls aged under 17 today have lost their virginity, which means, of course, that every male responsible is a criminal.

I know! What we really need today is a few more sleuthing fathers, healthily spooring after their daughters at twilight, or beating through the undergrowth with their blackthorn sticks looking for sets of rutting buttocks. Why, that way we could fill our prisons with young males who are guilty of the terrible crime of surrendering to sexual desire.

And then remember this. The law was carefully and deliberately defined by our law-makers in 2006. Having made it illegal for any person under 17 to have sex with another person under-17, the bill then added: "A female child under the age of 17 shall not be guilty of an offence under this Act by reason only of her engaging in an act of sexual intercourse."

TD, by the way, is an old Irish term meaning What A Shower of Wankers.

**Nynrah Ghost** · 29th-October-2009

This is too sick for words, all sex will be illegal if someone reports it someday and like the article says, the male is always guilty. It will be a matter of time before the law is so strict that women can enforce themselves up men through seduction, blackmail or maybe even brute force and still have the guy imprisonned for it...

Also, what is ridiculous is that the law expects a teenager to know the laws out of his head? Laws get tweaked (in secret even) often, how can a boy that age be expected to know this?

**haahoo** · 29th-October-2009

By default, hetrosexual sex is rape until proven not to be..

That is the state of the law now..

If a woman cries "rape" then a man has to prove his innocence..

**Percy** · 29th-October-2009

The law was carefully and deliberately defined by our law-makers in 2006. Having made it illegal for any person under 17 to have sex with another person under-17, the bill then added: "A female child under the age of 17 shall not be guilty of an offence under this Act by reason only of her engaging in an act of sexual intercourse."

Equality eh.

One used to be able to say 'only the Oirish could do that', but now......

**senach** · 29th-October-2009

Quote from haahoo

By default, hetrosexual sex is rape until proven not to be..

That is the state of the law now..

If a woman cries "rape" then a man has to prove his innocence..

This is why productive Irish have been leaving Ireland and only come back to visit,if that,we are long overdue a rebellion.
The good part is that,Ireland has the most generous Welfare payment's,let us see if they can keep paying for our Irish Whore's and lazy bum's and drunks when they are not collecting taxes to pay them.Maybe that is why the dail got back in favour with Europe by voting yes,hoping that they will get paid for breathing.
Well the Irish have the Goverment that they deserve.

Those whom God wishes to destroy he first make's mad.

**Zuberi** · 30th-October-2009

So much for equality!

**Percy** · 30th-October-2009

From the Grumpy Old Sod.

We wrote recently about the craven and deeply stupid performance by the Irish electorate when they voted to bend down and take the Lisbon Treaty right where it'll hurt the most.

Christopher Crossman has his own take on the débacle, and sent us this letter to explain it ...

As an Englishman living in Ireland, I have to tell you that the Irish were kidded, conned and coerced over Lisbon 2 - all over the country, except here in Donegal where, alone, we voted "No".

In all the weeks of active campaigning by the "Yes" side of the Lisbon 2 debate, in all the megabytes of emails and multiple Government-sponsored pro-Lisbon websites, throughout all the positive TV coverage and mostly uncritical print media reporting, amid all the blitzing of letterboxes with pamphlets and town centres with posters, there was not one single good reason articulated for the Irish people to vote in favour of another bid to enhance the power of Brussels.

But still they fell for it.

Because the Irish government ran such a massive propaganda campaign to deliberately mislead and misdirect the public's attention, by persistently implying the Lisbon 2 referendum was really about continued membership of the EU, and by explicitly stating that a "Yes" vote would have a positive, early effect on employment, wages and on the Irish economy. I myself saw hundreds of party-sponsored posters along roads and in towns here that said simply "Yes to Europe, Yes to jobs" - as if one statement was the natural consequence of the other.

The irony is that Lisbon 2 was an even murkier deal than the previously-rejected Lisbon constitution, and provided no certainty even of an Irish EU commissioner in the future - only the chance to suggest one. And the supposedly independent Referendum Commission made no attempt to cover both viewpoints, but blatantly set out its own, wholly sympathetic, version of the "Yes" case. All these statements, slogans and claims were untruths bordering on falsehoods, but if you could winkle out any proper argument at all, from all misinformation and downright deceptions, it seemed to come down to: Ireland did quite well from the EU in the past, so vote "Yes" now - and if you don't vote "Yes" now they will punish us.

And it worked.

They got away with it because compliant media editors and hundreds of ministers, would-be ministers, bureaucrats, quango bosses, union-leaders-on-a-promise and other assorted gravy-train riders, were all involved in a massive, conscious or unconscious, conspiracy of suppression and complicity. Knowing that the truth was that a "Yes" vote would mean less money for Ireland from Europe and more money paid in. Knowing it meant less influence for Ireland over its own border affairs and internal policies and more power to Brussels. Knowing it would mean less control over Ireland's economy, industries, businesses and its people's lives, and much more meddling, interfering and imposing of one-size-fits-all policies over all member states, especially pesky, insignificant little Ireland.

But they lent their support, voices and authority to the big lie nevertheless - out of self-interest, for money or favours to come, and because nobody had a vision for any alternative outcome.

The irony is that all the Irish people, and in their hearts and minds everybody with any insight or power, knew all this - but such was the lure of position, patronage and pork-barrel politics, and the inflated salaries, status and gold-plated pensions of those already on the gravy train and the others waiting to get on, that the Irish people had to be conned and coerced into a "Yes" vote at all costs. Besides, the killer consideration was, if the people voted "No" what would happen to the gravy-train riders?

The Irish people had a chance to loosen the ever-tightening grip of the EU, to literally stop the monster in its tracks, and sad to say they blew it. They had a chance to say "no more ratification", "... rationalisation" and "... harmonisation", to send a message that what people want is a lot less top-down decision-making, a lot less waste and an end to corruption, cronyism and feather-bedding. Most of all to get a lot of the authority to govern their own affairs returned to the member states.

But we blew it and the same chance will never come again, that much is certain.

But here in Donegal, we tried. We stood out against the pressure, we were not to be bullied. So think kindly of us here, feel sorry for us when we are left out of future funding and regeneration schemes, and maybe come see for yourselves why Donegal is different.

Yours,

Christopher Crossman

The GOS says: Right on. Still, fair's fair. On this side of the Irish Sea we didn't even have the gumption to make enough fuss to force the government to keep its promise of a referendum.

And if they had, it's by no certain that we'd have had any more sense than the Irish. I mean, look at our police, look at our legal system, look at our immigration policy (not), look at our schools. Look what we already put up with. Let's face it, Brains R'n't Us.

**Tahiri** · 2nd-November-2009

Ho, lee, crap...

1) So it's ok to ruin this boy's entire life (and his parents, and scar the girl who now thinks sex=imprisonment) because he had consensual, loving, non-harmful sex with a girl?

2) How in the judge's right mind can he do this when he admitted the boy's impression on the age of consent was logical? How can you punish someone for doing something you would do yourself!?!??!

3) So it's ok to waste space in prison with someone who did no harm? And is now wasting tax payers money?

4) Is there any men's rights groups that can take a stand against this to protect him?

**shaazam** · 2nd-November-2009

in the West all heterosexual relations of men with wimyn carries a risk of prosecution of the guy for something;

even having no sex but a claim of such by a malevolent wimyn
aka Duke Lacrosse and Hofstra is enough to threaten gaol some hapless patsy

I mentioned before that a guy wining and dining a gal and then bedding her with her consent can in my own state of NSW Australia, be charged with technical rape cause the gal can claim non legal assent to sex cause her judgement had been impaired by the devil drink - be it Dom Perignon or myfavourite Cabernet Sauvignon

I saw a transfer on the T - Shirt of a young new age gal aka

IT IS ALL ABOUT ME
young men should be mindful of the truth of this claptap

**Tahiri** · 3rd-November-2009

Then there was this supposed gang rape of a woman in a bathroom. She accused the men of rape. Turns out they all agreed to it, and she got caught by her boyfriend and said it was rape as an excuse. The only reason the men "got away with it" (that term is used lightly here, I'll explain why) is cause someone filmed it on their cell phone and proved it was consensual.

And by got away with it, I mean they were thrown in prison for a few days and had some people say they "got a well deserved scare"

**nivek** · 3rd-November-2009

Quote from Tahiri

Then there was this supposed gang rape of a woman in a bathroom. She accused the men of rape. Turns out they all agreed to it, and she got caught by her boyfriend and said it was rape as an excuse. The only reason the men "got away with it" (that term is used lightly here, I'll explain why) is cause someone filmed it on their cell phone and proved it was consensual.

And by got away with it, I mean they were thrown in prison for a few days and had some people say they "got a well deserved scare"

And most mainstream media commentators were only concerned that it would damage the credibility of “real”rape victims.
What really annoys the shit out of me about that is, there are already “real” victims in the falsely accused.

**SavageFenrir** · 9th-November-2009

What I can't stand is when a girl lies about her age when a man has sex with her even though he is deceived by the girl he is nonetheless charged with statutory rape.

**Male-Perspective** · 10th-November-2009

We are told that girls mature earlier than boys... and yet boys are expected to be more responsible and accountable for their actions!
To incarcerate a teenage boy for participating in consensual sex with a girl of his own age whilst viewing her as an innocent "victim" is pure discriminatory folly.

These laws are a mess and serve no purpose other than too criminalise young men.

From a female perspective, are these laws not in any way sexist or patronising?
Do they not imply that girls are more irresponsible and immature than boys of a similar age?
Do their authors assume girls to be weak and feeble minded?

At what age, exactly, DO women become responsible and accountable for their own actions?

**shaazam** · 10th-November-2009

Quote from Male-Perspective

We are told that girls mature earlier than boys... and yet boys are expected to be more responsible and accountable for their actions!
To incarcerate a teenage boy for participating in consensual sex with a girl of his own age whilst viewing her as an innocent "victim" is pure discriminatory folly.

These laws are a mess and serve no purpose other than too criminalise young men.

From a female perspective, are these laws not in any way sexist or patronising?
Do they not imply that girls are more irresponsible and immature than boys of a similar age?
Do their authors assume girls to be weak and feeble minded?

At what age, exactly, DO women become responsible and accountable for their own actions?

"At what age, exactly, DO women become responsible and accountable for their own actions?"

really accountability is not one the top planks for wimyns raft of reveries;

more about their "right to choose" and "no fault"

they delegate their invoices to butthead and he acts their proxy for gaol time through their creative facile propensity to lie wihout scruples

aka Duke lacrosse Hofstra

what is the typical wimyns' reaction when caught out lying

something like this