This week the Government announced plans to consult teenagers about the age of consent and other sexual matters following the recent controversy over statutory rape legislation. Róisín Ingle asks a cross-section of Irish teenagers for their views
'Sex education is all a bit haphazard' - Dermot O'Sullivan, 17, Dublin
I think it is a good idea that the Government wants to talk to us about these issues. The laws around sex are about teenagers specifically so it would be great to think we could have an input. I think the success of the consultation depends on the individuals who are the researchers, the people who will be sent out to talk to the teenagers.
Most teenagers are not embarrassed talking about sex among themselves but it can be more difficult with adults. It might also be worth asking us our opinion about sex education in schools. In my experience it's all a bit haphazard, with some schools covering more ground than others. Adults also need to know that we are more educated than perhaps they give us credit for. We learn about stuff like sexually transmitted diseases from the media, from television and from newspapers. We probably know much more than they think so it's definitely worth consulting us.
'I think at 18 you are more responsible' - Maria Fallon, 16, Co Meath
I don't think the age of consent should be any younger than 17. People aren't responsible enough at that age. If I was making the law, I'd put the age of consent at 18. I think at 18 you are more responsible. Any younger and you are too young. A 16-year-old might not know the implications of what they are doing, they are not old enough to cope if anything went wrong or they became pregnant.
I think the politicians should be careful who they ask in this consultation. Some teenagers are so immature it wouldn't be worth asking them while some others would have opinions that are worth listening to. It's good that the politicians want to talk to us because we are young enough to know about these things and they are not.
'Education and information is the way' - Sean McGovern, 17, Longford
The recent reform of the law was aimed at protecting young girls. If a man of 20, 30 or 40 knowingly preys on a young girl then he is indeed a rapist. But how could we possibly prosecute a boy aged 16 for "raping" his girlfriend of the same age? How can it be statutory rape, if both involved were more than willing to have sex in the first place?
The downside of this law change is that so many more Irish teenagers will be committing rape. When a mother finds out what her 16-year-old daughter has been consensually doing, suddenly we see the unfortunate boyfriend labelled a rapist on the technicality that he is a few months too early to be having sex with her. This is not only unfortunate, but a prejudiced judgment.
In my opinion, the age of consent should be lowered to 16 for all sexual activity, both heterosexual and homosexual. While my views may seem rather liberal, at 16 most teenagers know that they can either choose to have sex or not. At that age we are in control of our own bodies and should know how to protect them. But parents do have to exercise control over their children, both boys and girls, and not let them be subjected to the consequences of sex at a young age.
Education and information is the way to go, so that the level of sexually transmitted infections and teenage pregnancies can all be reduced. Sex can damage those who are not mature enough to handle the effects. The teenagers of Ireland should grow up to be open-minded and sexually mature but let's not grow up too fast.
'Adults seem to think we are all at it like rabbits' - Ash Bulger, 17, Co Cork
Not talking to us about these things would be like making a law for pensioners and not taking the pensioners' views into account. Adults seem to think we are all at it like rabbits but this is just not true. Until recently I thought the age of consent was 16 for both boys and girls. Then I did some research for a debate and was disgusted to find out that if two 16-year-olds have consensual sex - a boy and a girl - the boy can be prosecuted.
There is a huge difference between two teenagers having sex and a rape being committed. I also think it's ridiculous this idea about protecting the teenage mothers. What about the teenage fathers? It's not all the guys' fault when these things happen - the girl was there too, remember. And we all know that girls these days look much older than they really are. I have to say I sympathise with a guy who is told a girl is 18 but it turns out she is 15. I have friends who are younger than me who look way older. My main point is that at this age teenagers are going to experiment; it's just natural and they shouldn't be prosecuted for it. I don't have a lot of faith in our Government anyway. They might want to listen to our views but will they really take action if they don't like what they hear?
'The law discriminates against young fathers' - Edwina Egan, 18, Co Meath
Teenagers and politics don't mix. As a general rule we don't want them to mix.
We're not particularly interested in tax rates and the majority of us don't vote so it stands to reason that politicians aren't particularly interested in us either. Given this mutual apathy I support the Minister's proposal to find out what we the teenagers really think. The hotly debated issue of the age of consent concerns us, not a gaggle of ageing politicians. I mean if you asked our parents to decide the age of consent it would probably be about 24.
Presuming they mean it when they say they are going to listen, here is my two cents: I believe that the age of 16 is the ideal legal age of consent, but considering I'm 18 - and have vowed to maintain my purity until I'm happily married (ha!) - I'll accept the age of 17 as proposed and I won't object too much. What I do object to, however, is the blatant sexual discrimination our Government is introducing into our Constitution. The new law treats boys and girls differently by exempting girls under 17 from criminal prosecution to avoid stigmatising young teenage mothers. Yet boys under 17 can still face legal prosecution. So it seems it's still okay to legally discriminate against young fathers.
This hypocrisy is pathetic and goes completely against Article 2 of the UN Declaration of Human Rights which affords equal rights regardless of gender. To give the child of young parents the best chance in life it needs the support of both parents. How can a young father provide to his full potential if he has a criminal conviction for statutory rape? No fair-minded person can really agree with this medieval proposal that completely discriminates against the males of our species.