Why are we not all talking about a change in the age of consent? Why are we not shouting louder about it? Aside from the fact that I was actually quite enjoying watching the general public squirm at the idea of our precious 16-year-olds copulating all over the place, I also think this debate is absolutely crucial. Really, I sometimes wonder what exactly all the naysayers think is going to happen if the age of consent is changed from 18 to 16 - a plague of locusts, the rapture, a typhoon of adolescent sexual interaction, perhaps?

I'd like us to err not on the side of caution for a moment.

Everything You Always Wanted to Know About Sex *(But Were Afraid to Ask)

When I was 16 I was madly in love. He was a boy then, not a man, and I was a girl, not a woman. But we were getting there, climbing the ladder of adolescence together, one precarious rung at a time. I remember first dipping my toes in the previously unchartered waters of sexuality - discovering a new world with intrigue and excitement. I also remember shuffling around strange places to find contraception. We were ashamed that we had these forbidden urges. We were afraid of what 'they', the pharmacist or, the person watching us by the dispenser in the public toilet, would think or say about us. We were not alone, although we didn't know it then. Apparently, a third of those engaging in sexual activity for the first time do not use contraception - 41 per cent of those fall in the 16-18 age bracket. This is particularly worrying.

I was lucky enough to have had a fairly decent sexual education, but perhaps it happened a little too late for it to be engrained in my psyche that sex is not actually a criminal act. Rather than gradually meted out, sex-ed was abrupt. And it ceased to be part of our curriculum just as abruptly as it belatedly came into it, as if all the tools we needed for our psycho-sexual development had been downloaded and we were now able to go on our merry ways totally clued up about what to do and how to do it.

In reality, it was just as difficult as a 17-18 year old (and to be honest, even after) to seek advice on how to take care of our sexual health. Our needs were still met with a raised eyebrow. Short of turning to our parents to talk about 'it-that-must-not-be-named' (which never happened), we had no choice but to remain in the hinterland of our desires. This was a form of Russian roulette for many reasons, the risk of contracting STDs being one of them. Most overlooked, though, was the fact that our shame was psychologically destructive. It made what we were doing feel dirty, instead of perfectly natural. More than that, it informed the way I, at least, felt about sex well into my early twenties. Sex was not normal it was something extraordinary. Going to a gynaecologist or a family doctor to talk about sex was not necessary, it was superfluous and embarrassing. I still get that niggling jitter in my tummy at the thought of asking for a packet of condoms at a sex clinic.

A dose of realism

I proceeded to awkwardly ask my 16-year old sister what she thought of the age of consent debate:

"Jien naf, Jen," she replied, usefully.

"I mean, isn't it obvious that it should be 16?"

Well, no, apparently, it isn't. Why? I'll level two reasons but they are not exhaustive.

Values - The noun is used like Polyfilla in Malta whenever a debate of any supposed moral weight is brought up. These seemingly rigid set of values are the consistent monolith at the foundation of our culture. They imply that having sex or, for example, being homosexual is a direct threat to the moral code that forms our identity. They aren't. Our identity is far more complex and multi-faceted than that.  And ignoring this fact undermines the strength of that same identity 'conservatives' seem to be hell-bent on protecting. We are not defiling these values by entering this debate; we are making them more robust, more inclusive and less alienating. These are not outlandish perversities of modern society; these are its normal realities.

A teenager does not look into a socially derived moral code when s/he first feels the stirrings of sexuality and this is how it should be. What the imposition of our 'value-system' on the younger generation achieves is the beating down of the right to have those feelings and to express them in a healthy manner. Worse still, it absolutely quashes any dialogue about it.

The Catholic Church - The Church is not an obstacle. We have seen on talk shows and articles by notable members of the clergy demonstrating this. We cannot continue pointing fingers at the Church because ultimately, it is up to us to see that what our religion can offer us is consultative, is guidance, as to how to come to our own conclusions. This is not a compulsory consultation. And under no circumstances should it act as the prescriptive basis of our legal system. I do not wish to warble on about secularisation, I merely want to express the wish that we should crack on consistently with it.

Defining boundaries

Although there is an argument to be made that you can be a 40-year old with a highly underdeveloped understanding of your own sexuality and conversely a particularly sexually aware 16-year-old, the line has to be drawn somewhere. The law is also there to protect the vulnerable, and, younger individuals are more vulnerable to abuse and it is imperative to think about how the law can safeguard from those abuses both ways. But the law must reflect social changes. The argument that changing the age of consent will lead to a higher propensity of abuse is tenuous at best. Abusers will abuse regardless of what the law stipulates. It is the system itself that should be made more robust to stop child abuse.

The benefits of potentially utilising a tier-system that clearly and comprehensively defines the legal parameters of consent are evident. An example is the one used in Germany, which states that an individual can have sex from the age of 14 as long as it is with someone who is under the age of 21, and those over the age of 16 are taken to fully consent to sex without restriction. Note that in the German case there are exceptions for when such individuals are under a person's care or in a position of care (e.g. a teacher). A system like this one would present a flexible solution that takes into account the need to protect the vulnerable and at the same prevents the needless condemnation of the innocent. It may not serve as a catch-all solution, but no law ever will.

Penis. Vagina.

The level of immaturity in the debate is as palpable as my awkwardness in asking my little sister what she thought about it. My mistake is thinking that by not talking about it I will be preserving her innocence, whatever that means. Truth is I won't. Talking about sex openly and without shame, taking ownership of the wonderful adventure that is your body, and doing so in a healthy and safe manner, is a right to be advocated for and protected. We can only encourage responsible behaviour by refusing to shut sex out of public discourse.

Finally, much as I hate it when we compare Malta to elsewhere (as if we ourselves are not capable of coming to these conclusions without European guidance), I cannot help but say that it is lamentable that we have continuously been laggards in this regard. We should not ask ourselves which countries in the EU have 16 (or lower) as the age of consent - this is inconsequential. Rather we should ask why Malta is one of the last countries to have this debate in Europe.

It is we who have chosen to load the debate with unfounded and supposedly insurmountable moral gravity. It is we who persist with this shaming culture. And it has to stop.

Because, ultimately, sure changing the law will send out a message, but it will not automatically reverse public perception on the subject. That is why the importance of this debate cannot be understated.