The age of consent has been tinkered with throughout the ages; always supposedly aimed at protecting the vulnerable from abuse. The Codé Napoleon set it at 13! In my teenage years I cannot recall it being contested. But then it was a time when Apollo 11 was blasted to space with man setting foot on the moon! And I recall the iconic moment in rock 'n' roll's history with a picture of the Beatles strolling across a street that inspired the cover of their album Abbey Road. And let's not forget that homosexuality and adultery were then a crime punishable at law.
As for essential/sufficient life skills and their correlation in the context of consent to sex, be it casual or in a relationship, one can debate endlessly on the significance and relevance and contest the age used to determine legal competency. I say so mindful of the fact that there is a very fine line between physiological and cognitive maturity. Physically, most of us became mature as teenagers and some startlingly so. Teenagers today achieve greater and earlier levels of intelligence; however, cognitive maturity or the ability to make sound mature decisions still lags behind with some experts stating that this could even peak around mid-twenties. The moot point is, can adolescents reason out how their present behaviour will affect their future lives? And based on what I have just said, wouldn't lowering the age raise the risks at stake?
Professionals who provide their services to teenagers, which include counselling, medical care and guidance are stating that lowering the age would remove what they now sometimes perceive as an obstacle in the performance of their duties. And these could be the doctors, counsellors, guidance teachers, and why not also spiritual directors.
Then there's the legal fraternity. Today, some say the law can be abused when a minor who had consented to sex eventually takes criminal action against the other party. Others point out that it is manifestly evident that the current age limit does not constitute a deterrent. Teens who engage in sexual activity before the age of consent are committing a crime. There is also an anomaly when both parties are below the age of consent. Who is deemed to be the victim in these circumstances? One can obtain parental consent to marry at 16 but cannot consummate the marriage before 18.
Modern trends could mislead a detached layman into thinking that it's an antiquated law that, under the guise of progress, should be looked at and reviewed. On the other hand, I tend to understand those who have experienced a teenage pregnancy. They could give an overtly different emotional and considerate opinion, leveraged by the consequences and experiences that the unwanted pregnancy has had on them.
Puberty unleashes a myriad of emotions on teenagers; physical changes and transformation that are all nature's way of preparing them for adulthood. Puberty matures teenagers into adults capable of sexual reproduction. Teenagers do engage in sexual talk or activity at an age earlier than that deemed at law. But the fact remains that physiologically they are there but not necessarily psychologically.
Isn't it baffling that psychological and sexual maturity progress hand in hand, but not concomitantly? The latter seems to be a switch in a time window in our lives that is activated in us primarily via hormonal changes that promote physiological changes in our bodies. The former is more complex since in addition to family/social background, education, moral values and peer pressure, it also requires the benefit of personal experiences. I ask which of these two considerations should determine the age of consent.
But what's so dogmatically certain in setting the age of consent at 18, or lower or higher for that matter? Bereft of any significant scientific background, I feel I cannot offer a reasoned and logical opinion. From a contractual viewpoint, a teen is allowed to carry out commercial transactions under our law when s/he is 16 years of age. Adulthood is legally attained at 18 years of age and it must be that consent became linked to this age. It could have been higher; take voting for example, there was a time when the voting age was 21 and now it's going down to 16! Then look at problems posed by alcohol and binge drinking; there are some that appealed to raise the legal age for drinking.
The age of consent is lower in many countries - in Germany and Italy it is currently 14. A perceived consequence when lowering it was an increase in teenage pregnancies; in both countries this is one of the lowest in Europe, with a higher proportion of it experienced in low socio economic communities. But these statistics could be distorted by the fact that abortion is legal in these countries. And this is not so in Malta.
The overwhelming issue at stake here remains the protection of young people. It takes more than just a defined legal age limit to achieve this objective. How do we go about convincing teens of the overwhelming ramifications that sexual activity, if done before the age of consent would bring about? How can we ensure that no matter what age limit is set, a mature consent to sex is genuine? The ramifications; teenage pregnancies, derailed careers, early parenthood, distraught parents, finance, promiscuity, sexually transmitted disease.
If you tell me it's not the age of consent that needs lowering because it would be sending the wrong message that sex with a 16-year-old is acceptable when in fact it might not be. But I can see a rehashing of the penal law with tiered legal considerations and deliberations when adjudicating cases that may unfortunately require court action. And we must not lose track of the fact that there could be a number of cases involving sex with minors which are not reported. I am privy to a family whose 14-year-old daughter became pregnant by another older minor. They did not pursue legal action as they did not want to brand the father of their future grandchild a defiler and a criminal. Nonetheless, probationary care and counselling would have been beneficial and a must in this case.
And then it's also about communicating with teens what acceptance and consent to sex really signifies in their lives. Isn't this much better than legalising a perhaps one-off sexual encounter between a 14-year-old and say a 25-year-old? Because if lowered, how would we perceive situations involving a person who happens to hold a position of trust?
When writing this article, I intentionally avoided religious and objective moral values not wanting to detract from my contention that the age of consent should invariably be set at an age when one's mature consent is genuine.