There should not be an age of consent
[Cool Teen Sites]
Stonewall recently launched 'Equality 2000', a campaign to gain equality in the
age of
consent for sex between men and that between men and women. They have backed Chris Morris
in his fight with the government in the European Court of Human Rights, where they argue
that the unequal age of consent interferes with an individual's right to a private life
compared to their contemparies, a discrepancy highlighted in the case of bisexuals. Here
we examine some different standpoints on the debate.
Consent - necessary and sufficient?
I once argued against an age of consent as a young naive idealist. But since then I've been through the experience of a young (6) friend of mine being abused by an old (70ish) man, and an older (50ish) man trying to take advantage of another young (15) friend and her friends. Hence I feel that I can no longer be accused of being naive - although I still take pride in the label 'idealist'.
I do not think there should be an age of consent, primarily because I do not think that the length of time since a person emerged from the womb is a useful indicator of anything. Having an age of consent is too often seen as to be saying 'people under this age should not have sex'. Which makes sex a forbidden area for those under the age. Which denies them the right to learn about this important area of life as they learn other things. In these enlightened days of safer sex, when we realise that 'sex' means lots of fun and games together with another person(s), not merely 'penetrative intercourse'; we need to let very young people explore their bodies, explore the feelings of attraction to another, explore each others' bodies - in short, to explore sex. An age of 'consent' implies that those younger than this age cannot consent to sex with each other, and thus I disagree with the concept.
Sexual maturity is both physical and mental. For me, puberty would be a good defining point, and the nearest I might come to agreeing to an age of anything is to say that people past puberty should have sex with each other, not with those who have not yet reached puberty (allowing for the indefinability of the process!). But even this is challenged by those who define themselves as paedophiles, in the true meaning of the word ('child-lover', not child abuser). And if I self-define as bisexual without hurting anyone, who am I to judge those who self-define as paedophiles and don't hurt anyone?
A legal age of consent is presumably there as a protection, because adults have greater power in this world, and can force children to do thing they don't necessarily want to, or persuade them that they do when they don't, so children need protection. But the incidence of rape and sexual abuse by one adult to another shows that this power imbalance is not unique to the adult/child relationship. For instance, men have for quite a while tended to have power over women, and bosses have power over their employees. Thus we need laws to protect against abuses of power hierarchies, and we do - sexual harassment laws.
In both the cases I mentioned at the start, the abuser was caught, found guilty of a crime, and sentenced. And even though the age of consent was brought into the proceedings, I maintain that the laws against non-consensual acts and harassment would have sufficed.
The age of consent law seems to me to fall into a family of unneeded laws which criminalise victimless acts. Other examples are the laws used against the Spanner defendants, who were criminalised for consensual SM sex, and the laws against cannabis use, which criminalises users of a natural substance with no anti-social effects.
It is an unspecific law which should be replaced by better laws protecting us all from those who may abuse us.
Krayg
Age of responsibility
I have a gut reaction against the idea of lowering the age of consent. My heart says: if we need equality let's raise the heterosexual age of consent to 18. I do not want to prevent teenagers being sexual but I do want to prevent older men abusing them. I want to be open about where I'm coming from - because I'm not sure that I'm right - I just know hold part of the truth.
Lest we forget: some men are oppressive. Some of them act less than gallantly when they've had a few. I'm not condemning all men. But we're talking about consent - an issue which involves complex two-way communication skills, and research suggests that some men are lacking in this area (remember Mike Tyson). All sexual relationships reflect power relationships. Relationships between peers are much more likely to be equal and consenting. Age difference is a key dynamic. I am not against 15- to 17-year-old gay and bisexual boys having sex with each other. I had one of my most fulfilling sexual relationships when I was 14-16. He was six months younger than me. Things progressed at our own pace, with mutual respect. We always practiced safer sex (this was 1979 and the term hadn't been invented).
British teenagers are allowed to do different things at different ages because of the developmental theory of taking on responsibilities. If nothing was allowed until an age when everything was suddenly OK then excessive behaviour would be likely.
British heterosexual teenagers assume fucking is illegal before sixteen. They often relate sexually much younger. The age of consent can help them to explore other forms of sex before taking on society's obsession with 'real sex'. Is all sex between men illegal before 18? Could a staggered age of responsibility be brought in here so that everything except penetration is legal at 16? The police act on a policy of not prosecuting consenting 15-year-old heterosexuals. A similar policy could be adopted with gay men so that men over 20 were required to find boyfriends of 18 or older and 16- and 17-year-olds were free to fuck each other without fear.
Which reminds me: why are we all so het up about changing this law? Surely the laws about sex in private affect all gay men much more? Yes, it is illegal for homosexual sex to take place in hotel bedrooms.
The law does not prevent illegal behaviour. (I was drinking cider at 13 and fucking at 15.). The law gives a message and a form of seeking redress, for the individual, or society. The message given to men is that any girl over 16 is legally available. Will the law change just extend that to boys?
At 16 I began a relationship with a 23-year-old. At 17 I met a man of 36; we had sex the first night. At 171/2 I was sexually assaulted by someone who began the encounter with that well known sexist 'Give us a smile' comment. Another man tried to have anal sex without asking. My teacher age 26 got drunk several times and we did things he couldn't talk to me about afterwards. These episodes involved complex issues of consent and power.
My anger now is because as a teenager I was emotionally vulnerable. It was their responsiblity as mature adults to consider consent. The vulnerability of young men gives the gay community and society a responsiblity to protect them. Currently we are failing - young rent boys and homeless gay teenagers evidence that.
What difference has lowering the age of consent from 21 to 18 (which I supported wholeheartedly) made to young men in Britain? Shouldn't we do some research and have a few searching discussions? Has it given anyone an excuse to fuck 16-year-olds with the handy 'I thought he was 18' line. Would anyone use that with 14-year-olds? Our cultural myths about beautiful young virgins need to be explored and exploded.
Young people's best defence against exploitation is probably information coupled with safe spaces for discussion. The gay community has led the way in providing such environments. Will 'equality' reduce or strengthen such resources?
Changing laws can solve and create problems. Effects are often unforseen and mistakes are often made. Let's talk before we do it and let's carry on talking afterwards!
Lisa Lovely
Children only have to wait...
Welcome to the stickiest subject, guaranteed to send reasonable people into apoplexy.
This article reflects my own personal current feelings on the matter, and does not represent the views of any of the organisations I belong to. I say this not because I am at loggerheads with the groups I work with, but rather because they are so vulnerable on this specific issue. In particular, the Sexual Freedom Coalition learnt early on that paedophilia is a minefield. Be warned. False accusations from the authorities, or just jealous individuals (who knows which is which?), can be used to undermine the most innocent sexual rights group, instigating personal storms and threatening the livelihood of supporters. The SFC had to make the stand that it was an organisation defending the rights of consenting adults with no comment on anything outside that sphere. The hysteria surrounding the topic in this country is quite recent and I hope it will soon go away. Not just so that sexual campaigners won't live in fear of being brought down by false accusations, but to keep debates open and calm, and paedophiles safe to seek help, both for themselves and the children they may have approached.
Having been a child who craved sex, I used to think that everyone should be free to have sex at any age. I gained a reputation as a liberal who would list paedophile self-help groups in The Sex Maniac's Diary. I even met Mr P.I.E. (Paedophile Information Exchange) himself, accepting him as a person with inconvenient sexual tastes which would probably never be satisfied. I remember him as an upright, sorted individual with respect for other people, and this formed the grounding for my views on the age of consent.
It is not possible to pre-determine our sexual desires. If we can't talk about our feelings, dreams and fantasies, however bizarre and potentially dangerous they are, then there is something wrong with the society we live in. However, there is a distinction between fantasy and reality. The reality of adults having sex with children is that it can cause irreparable physical and psychological damage.
I don't deny that many children are flirtatious and horny, desperate for sexual experiences, hungry for physical closeness and craving intimate contact with adults. But an immature vagina may easily get punctured at the top when penetrated by an erect cock. As well as the physical damage which may be caused, I know men and women who once willingly had sex with adults when they were children (usually people they had seen as authoritative figures), who subsequently found difficulty in achieving fulfilling sexual relationships. Even more far-reaching problems result when the child's sexual experiences were incestuous or violent.
However dangerous they may appear, people who commit, or feel tempted to commit, sexual assault on children, and those whose sexual urges are confined to what they perceive as mutual sexual love with children, must be free to seek professional help, and get release with porn (drawings or innocent nudes) because otherwise they are more likely to abduct and cause damage.
Ideally, there would be no need for age of consent laws. People would be sensitive to the situation with regards children, and deterred from forcing sex on anybody, or engaging in inter-generational incest, by the laws relating to those specific things. Sadly, we do not live in an ideal world, where everyone is open and responsible about their sexuality. The bigots who moralise are usually the very people found to be meddling with children - a prime example of hypocrisy, and foul misuse of power.
So, in a way, I'm pleased that the Sexual Freedom Coalition was forced to not take on the issue of age of consent. Of course we advocate equality for gays and bisexuals. I think the best argument for this is when a bisexual male 17-year-old cannot have sex with a boy his age, although he can with a girl. It's girls who our 'State Nannies' feel they need to protect, so what's happening here?
Yes, the law is an ass, and until the time (if ever?) there is no more hypocritical bigotry, and people understand that sexual freedom cannot exist until we all take responsibility for our actions, society is not ready to consider whether the age of consent should be 12, 14 or 16, or based on other things, like Rites of Passage.
It's always very difficult to make rules about who may, and who may not, have sex. People with learning difficulties and mental problems who are considered 'unable to give informed consent' are legally denied sex with others because of the dangers of exploitation. This is incredibly hard on them (millions of adults in this country alone). Children only have to wait. I personally don't feel my mother was ever mature enough to have sex but, if she'd been banned, you wouldn't be reading this! We've all met wise youngsters, and vulnerable adults.
A conundrum is that one of the best things about having sex is throwing caution to the wind, and being totally vulnerable.