This House believes the age of consent laws should be made more liberal (lowered).

The freedom of sexual expression (and exploration) is not only a matter of choice which is fundamental to the individual – it is also particularly important to young people as they proceed through the stage of adolescence into young adulthood. Age of consent laws place artificial limits on this freedom. Sex is entirely natural and should be celebrated in the context of loving relationships, not criminalised and put under the prying eye of an authoritarian state. Violence, coercion and exploitation in sexual relationships should still be punished, but not consensual activity. Such restrictions go against the human rights to privacy and of freedom of expression.

The concept that young people do not know what they are doing is flawed, because every person who has gone through sexual development has learnt by doing. There is no process of suddenly coming into full knowledge without acting and exploration. Such exploration would be more safely done in an environment that doesn't criminalize it. Such criminalization can actaully lead to the very harm that the law ostensibly seeks to avoid, coercion and exploitation, for it is people who are naturally more inclined to coercion and exploitation that will disregard the law anyway. This feeds the lambs to the wolves.

Those who are underage are not 'expressing' themselves through sex. They are unlikely to fully know what they are doing so this is not an area where they are going to be expressing themselves. Children have freedom of expression in many other areas and through technology gaining more and more options. This is therefore a step that is unnecessary if all it is about is 'freedom of expression'.

Some countries have one age of consent for young females (say 16) and a different, higher age of consent for young males or for having anal sex (say 18). This means that a heterosexual adult male who wants to have sex with a 17-year-old female is free to do so, but a homosexual adult male cannot have intercourse with a young man who is 17.[1] Not only are such laws clearly discriminatory, they entrench and perpetuate the myths, stereotypes, and prejudices against homosexuals and homosexual sex. Age of consent laws, if we are to have them at all, should be equalised across the genders.

[1] HIV, AIDS and Young Gay Men, AVERT: Averting HIV & AIDS, http://www.avert.org/young-gay-men.htm, ‘Worldwide ages of Consent’, AVERT: averting HIV & AIDS, http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm, HIV, AIDS and Young Gay Men, AVERT: Averting HIV & AIDS, http://www.avert.org/young-gay-men.htm

The principle reason some countries have higher ages of consent for males compared to females[1] is simply because of the medical evidence that males reach sexual maturity at a later age than females.[2] This has nothing to do with discriminating against homosexual sex. However it is true that when it comes to children, some countries do view underage homosexual as slightly more dangerous than underage heterosexual sex. Largely because there is the higher risk of HIV infection in the case of the former.[3]

[1] Canadian Department of Justice, ‘Age of Consent to Sexual Activity’, justice.gc.ca, http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/clp/faq.html

[2] Neinstein, Lawrence S., ‘Puberty: Normal Growth and Development’, Adolescent Health Curriculum: University of Southern California, http://www.usc.edu/student-affairs/Health_Center/adolhealth/index.php

[3] HIV, AIDS and Young Gay Men, AVERT: Averting HIV & AIDS, http://www.avert.org/young-gay-men.htm

The idea that young people should not be having sex is a leftover relic from the past: its justifications are anachronistic and have little place in modern times. Age of consent laws were the product of a ‘purity campaign’ in Britain in the 1800s, when it was believed that sex was a ‘male privilege’, that it led to the sexual ruin of young women, that it meant the loss of their virtue, which was a fate worse than death, and that it contributed to women’s second class citizenship.[1] In the UK the age of 16 was chosen and set in 1885, more than 100 years ago, and has remained ever since.[2] Today these ideas would offend both men and women.

[1] Harman, Lillian, ‘Understanding the Age of Consent in the Context of the 1800’s’, Liberty No. 235, pp.3-4 from Age Of Consent, http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/numberten.htm

[2] Bullough, Vern L, ‘The Age of Consent’, Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality Volume 16, Issue 2-3, 2005

Liberals tend to assume that many young boys and girls would want to have sex if not for age of consent laws. In reality many boys and girls themselves actually do not want to have sex or sexual contact, but lack the social and emotional confidence to say ‘no’. Age of consent laws protect such children, by preventing others from putting them in such a difficult position and help them against peer pressure.

Age of consent laws are in fact dangerous because they drive underground the very people who should be, and are in most need of, receiving contraceptives, advice on safe sex, and access to health and other educational services. This is true both of the ‘statutory rapist’ as well as the under-16 consenting ‘victim’, who may worry about having assisted in the commission of a crime. Both parties then become real victims as they are put at greater risk of contracting STDs or unwanted pregnancies.

It seems important to note that the age of consent could be maintained – or raised- while allowing people who need advice on or access to contraceptives, or other services to access them. The idea would be that school students are still taught about sex, contraceptives and consequences, and doctors are to give free, impartial and –most importantly- confidential advice, and contraception to be readily available to all

The freedom of sexual expression (and exploration) is not only a matter of choice which is fundamental to the individual – it is also particularly important to young people as they proceed through the stage of adolescence into young adulthood. Age of consent laws place artificial limits on this freedom. Sex is entirely natural and should be celebrated in the context of loving relationships, not criminalised and put under the prying eye of an authoritarian state. Violence, coercion and exploitation in sexual relationships should still be punished, but not consensual activity. Such restrictions go against the human rights to privacy and of freedom of expression.

The concept that young people do not know what they are doing is flawed, because every person who has gone through sexual development has learnt by doing. There is no process of suddenly coming into full knowledge without acting and exploration. Such exploration would be more safely done in an environment that doesn't criminalize it. Such criminalization can actaully lead to the very harm that the law ostensibly seeks to avoid, coercion and exploitation, for it is people who are naturally more inclined to coercion and exploitation that will disregard the law anyway. This feeds the lambs to the wolves.

Those who are underage are not 'expressing' themselves through sex. They are unlikely to fully know what they are doing so this is not an area where they are going to be expressing themselves. Children have freedom of expression in many other areas and through technology gaining more and more options. This is therefore a step that is unnecessary if all it is about is 'freedom of expression'.

Some countries have one age of consent for young females (say 16) and a different, higher age of consent for young males or for having anal sex (say 18). This means that a heterosexual adult male who wants to have sex with a 17-year-old female is free to do so, but a homosexual adult male cannot have intercourse with a young man who is 17.[1] Not only are such laws clearly discriminatory, they entrench and perpetuate the myths, stereotypes, and prejudices against homosexuals and homosexual sex. Age of consent laws, if we are to have them at all, should be equalised across the genders.

[1] HIV, AIDS and Young Gay Men, AVERT: Averting HIV & AIDS, http://www.avert.org/young-gay-men.htm, ‘Worldwide ages of Consent’, AVERT: averting HIV & AIDS, http://www.avert.org/age-of-consent.htm, HIV, AIDS and Young Gay Men, AVERT: Averting HIV & AIDS, http://www.avert.org/young-gay-men.htm

The principle reason some countries have higher ages of consent for males compared to females[1] is simply because of the medical evidence that males reach sexual maturity at a later age than females.[2] This has nothing to do with discriminating against homosexual sex. However it is true that when it comes to children, some countries do view underage homosexual as slightly more dangerous than underage heterosexual sex. Largely because there is the higher risk of HIV infection in the case of the former.[3]

[1] Canadian Department of Justice, ‘Age of Consent to Sexual Activity’, justice.gc.ca, http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/dept-min/clp/faq.html

[2] Neinstein, Lawrence S., ‘Puberty: Normal Growth and Development’, Adolescent Health Curriculum: University of Southern California, http://www.usc.edu/student-affairs/Health_Center/adolhealth/index.php

[3] HIV, AIDS and Young Gay Men, AVERT: Averting HIV & AIDS, http://www.avert.org/young-gay-men.htm

The idea that young people should not be having sex is a leftover relic from the past: its justifications are anachronistic and have little place in modern times. Age of consent laws were the product of a ‘purity campaign’ in Britain in the 1800s, when it was believed that sex was a ‘male privilege’, that it led to the sexual ruin of young women, that it meant the loss of their virtue, which was a fate worse than death, and that it contributed to women’s second class citizenship.[1] In the UK the age of 16 was chosen and set in 1885, more than 100 years ago, and has remained ever since.[2] Today these ideas would offend both men and women.

[1] Harman, Lillian, ‘Understanding the Age of Consent in the Context of the 1800’s’, Liberty No. 235, pp.3-4 from Age Of Consent, http://www.ageofconsent.com/comments/numberten.htm

[2] Bullough, Vern L, ‘The Age of Consent’, Journal of Psychology & Human Sexuality Volume 16, Issue 2-3, 2005

Liberals tend to assume that many young boys and girls would want to have sex if not for age of consent laws. In reality many boys and girls themselves actually do not want to have sex or sexual contact, but lack the social and emotional confidence to say ‘no’. Age of consent laws protect such children, by preventing others from putting them in such a difficult position and help them against peer pressure.

Age of consent laws are in fact dangerous because they drive underground the very people who should be, and are in most need of, receiving contraceptives, advice on safe sex, and access to health and other educational services. This is true both of the ‘statutory rapist’ as well as the under-16 consenting ‘victim’, who may worry about having assisted in the commission of a crime. Both parties then become real victims as they are put at greater risk of contracting STDs or unwanted pregnancies.

It seems important to note that the age of consent could be maintained – or raised- while allowing people who need advice on or access to contraceptives, or other services to access them. The idea would be that school students are still taught about sex, contraceptives and consequences, and doctors are to give free, impartial and –most importantly- confidential advice, and contraception to be readily available to all

Even without resorting to a moralistic view of the criminal law (i.e. that its function is to stem moral disintegration and to uphold the ‘shared morality’ of society), there is adequate justification for age of consent laws. Society has a vital interest in ensuring that its naturally weaker members are protected from harm, and doing so is precisely the function of the persuasive and coercive powers of the criminal law. It is therefore legitimate for the law to aim to prevent sexual harm to children by criminalising sex with them. Indeed, age of consent sex laws are not the only laws dependent on age. In many countries it is also an offence, for example, to sell tobacco to children, or to employ children below a certain age in the entertainment industry, whether or not the child ‘consents’. Society must recognise the reality that the apparent expression of ‘consent’ by a child is often different from consent expressed an adult. In the case of the former, therefore, it is not always true that saying ‘yes’ is a true expression of human autonomy.

The argument that these laws may cause injustice to someone who truly thought his partner was above the legal age is also a poor one – many countries already provide a defence for such situations

Even if we can accept that children need protection from sex, is it right to use the full force of the criminal law – which includes the threat of criminal prosecution and the prospect of a criminal sentence – to do it? It is contrary to both justice and common sense for people who have merely had consensual sex with a teen who happens to be under-16 to be arrested, tried, branded with a criminal label (‘statutory rapist’, ‘sex offender’), thrown in prison, and thereby treated on the same footing as real (sometimes violent) rapists, arsonists and kidnappers.

The debate surrounding the age of consent raises the broader point of the role of the criminal law. The function of the criminal law is to preserve public order and decency, not to intervene in the lives of citizens, especially those who have mutually consented to taking part in a harmless activity in private. To accept otherwise would be to disregard the crucial notion of human autonomy and the free will of the individual, which are expressed, regardless of one’s age, each time a person presents his or her consent. This is why it is so important that the law recognises the sanctity of consent.

It is undeniable that young children form a special and vulnerable group in society. Nowhere is this truer than in the context of sex – so much so that we often need to protect them by placing limitations on what they do sexually. Below a certain minimum age, children are at risk of not having the physiological, biological and, most importantly, emotional development to cope with sex, and with the many possible consequences of having sex, which include teen pregnancy, illegal or legal abortion, childbirth, parental and societal disapproval, unsupported parenthood, legal consequences and increased risk of cervical cancer.[1]

Unfortunately everyone matures a different age. That does not mean that choosing an average, approximate age for consensual sex, such as 16, is arbitrary or wrong. There is no great harm in asking “early developers” to wait for a year or two before they begin to have sex. Especially young people are not always as mature as they believe they are.

[1] BBC News, ‘Cervical cancer link to early sex’, 21 December 2009, http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8420690.stm, 

Age of consent laws are also arbitrary as children become sexually and emotionally mature at very different rates, so any artificially imposed limit will be too high for many and too low for others.

Lowering the age of consent (or worse, getting rid of it entirely) legalises, legitimises and brings above ground the many problems that we are fighting underground. It will provide an opportunity for paedophile networks to expand, by allowing them to target even younger children – now lawfully. The problem of paedophilia is already a rapidly growing one, made worse by its expansion into ‘related’ avenues such as child pornography. In addition to the obvious problem of paedophilia, the problem of the sexual predation of young children also encompasses the problem of youth prostitution (since prostitution is itself already legal in many countries), and the international traffic in boys and girls.

Liberalising age of consent laws will not encourage paedophilia or make sexual exploitation any easier. That is simply a false nightmare scenario propagated by scaremongers. Many countries have lowered the basic age of consent while strengthening their ‘plus elements’. For example, by making ‘sexual grooming’ an offence (to stop rings of internet paedophiles); by making it an offence to have sex with a young child if you are above a certain age or if the age differential between the partners is above a certain limit (to target adult paedophiles while allowing teens their sexual freedom); and by making it an offence to have sex with someone who is in a relationship of trust of dependency with you (to stop sexual exploitation).