Don't criminalise young sex

Like it or not, people under the age of 16 have sex – the current law of consent doesn't protect them, it persecutes them
    • Jump to comments ()

Law professor John Spencer of Cambridge University has created a huge controversy by suggesting a reduction in the current age of consent of 16. His proposals, broadcast on BBC Radio 4's Iconoclasts programme, with my support as a co-advocate, have been savaged by the Sun and the Daily Mail. Much of the criticism has been sensationalist and has misrepresented the case for a lower age of consent.




Having a single, inflexible age of consent is problematic, since different young people mature at different ages. One alternative option might be to introduce a tiered age of consent, where sex involving under-16s would cease to be prosecuted, providing both partners consent and there is no more than two or three years' difference in their ages.

I suspect that many parents will oppose any change. They do not want their children to have sex at an early age. I sympathise with their concerns. But if their children do have sex before the age of 16, surely most loving, responsible parents would not want them to be dragged to court, given a criminal conviction and put on the sex offender's register, alongside child sex abusers. This is what can, and sometimes does, happen under the present law.


The age of consent does not stop young people having sex. It does not stop peer pressure to have sex. It does not stop child sex abuse. It is next to useless. All it does is criminalise tens of thousands of consenting underage partners. This is not protection; it's persecution.

If we want to protect young people, and I do, the way to do it is not by threatening them with arrest, but by giving them frank, good quality sex and relationship education. This should start from the first year of primary school onwards, with age-appropriate information about love, emotions, relationships and the physical changes they will experience at puberty.

In secondary school, this information should become more explicit, giving pupils the knowledge, skills and confidence to make wise sexual and emotional decisions. This should include assertiveness training, to help them say no to unwanted sexual advances and to report sex abusers.

Youngsters need to be advised how to negotiate safer sex, deal with sex pests and cope with relationship problems and break-ups. They also need to know what to do if their partner refuses to use a condom, and the ABC of sustaining fulfilling relationships based on mutual consent and respect.

This strategy is a much more effective way to encourage less risky sexual behaviour and to protect young people from peer pressure and paedophiles.

As a general rule, I think it is probably best for young people to delay sex. I would not encourage early sexual relations. However, the issue is not whether the under-16s should have sex, but whether they should be criminalised for victimless sex.

There is no scientific or medical evidence that shows that 16 is the magic age at which people become mature enough to have sex. Sixteen is arbitary. So why stick with it?

In 20 European nations, the age of consent is lower than 16. The minimum age (with some qualifications) is 13 in Spain, 15 in France and Poland and 14 in Germany, Portugal and Italy. There is no evidence that these lower ages of consent result in more teen pregnancies, sexual infections or child abuse.

These countries, most of them staunchly Catholic, would not have low age limits if they thought young people were being put at risk. They realise that the laws against rape and indecent assault provide adequate protection against sexual violence and exploitation.

By restricting young people's sexual rights, this limit actually makes abuse more likely. It reinforces the idea that young people under the age of 16 do not have the right to control their own bodies. This sexual disempowerment plays into the hands of adults who want to abuse them.

Guilt and shame about sex also increase the likelihood of molestation by encouraging the furtiveness and secrecy on which abuse thrives. One way to protect young people against unwanted sexual advances is by promoting sex-affirmative attitudes that challenge the idea that sex is something sordid, and by empowering teenagers to stand up for their sexual rights. Sexually informed, unabashed and confident youngsters are more likely to resist sexual pressure and manipulation, and more likely to report abusers.

Criminalisation is dangerous because it can inhibit young people from seeking safer sex advice, condoms and the morning after pill. It can also make them afraid to report abusive relationships. They may fear getting into trouble, so they stay silent.

The age of consent of 16 inhibits some teachers and youth workers from giving explicit sexual information to the under-16s. They fear being prosecuted by the police, or sued by disgruntled parents, for aiding and abetting unlawful sexual acts. This can make them reticent to provide explicit advice to underage young people.

It is true that sex can sometimes be dangerous and harmful, but not always. At puberty, as hormones kick in, youngsters develop sexual feelings. This is entirely natural and healthy. Some teens, and even young children, innocently and spontaneously explore and experiment at an early age. It most cases this causes them no harm at all. If there is harm caused, it is usually not as a result of sex per se, but because of emotional abuse within relationships and unsafe sex that causes infections and makes young girls pregnant when they are not ready for motherhood.

Providing it is safe and with consent, sex is good. It is not dirty, shameful or damaging. It is an immensely pleasurable and profound human bond, which involves intense shared fulfilment and happiness. Consensual sex should not be stigmatised or criminalised, not for young people, not for adults, not for anyone.

Latest posts

Today's best video

Today in pictures