Musing on Sydney's news
10 May 2003
Consenting to the age of consent
Hands up all those who had their first sexual experience before it was legal.
Ok ok, maybe I should ask who didn't have their first sexual experience before it was legal.
Everyone can play up at age 16, unless you're a gale male. Then you have to be 18. Does anyone else find this kinda weird?
A conscience vote is coming up in State Parliament to lower the gay male age of consent to 16 to bring them in line with everyone else. Should a 19 year old gay guy be charged with pedophilia for having sex with a 17 year old guy? Personally, I don't think so, especially given that most gays are well aware of their sexuality by then, but more about that later.
I've been trying to work out why gay guys are singled out. I can see a logical argument there in that, as a rule, guys mature mentally more slowly than girls do. But if that's the case, how come 16 year old guys are allowed to get it on with 16 year old girls? Where's the protection for the girls? Nope, there's more to it than that and it can be summed up very easily.
One word: repulsion. Most law makers are men. Many straight men are repulsed by the idea of guys going with other guys, and usually the first thing they talk about is anal sex, even though there are plenty of things people of all persuasions can do apart from penetrative sex. Never mind that heaps of straight men have had anal sex with women at some time in their lives.
The other thing that freaks straight blokes out is the thought of guys kissing and being tender with each other. By contrast, how do they feel about two girls getting it on? Hey, that's horny, man! Whoa, I just downloaded some great pics of hot lesbos from the web the other night, man! You know what I'm saying.
Let's look closer at this paradox. Guys getting together is revolting and women doing the same together is horny. Ironically, this is indirectly a feminist issue. How would I come to such a contrary conclusion, you may ask?
Well, the stereotypical woman in the eyes of men is this soft, sensual creature, made for tenderness and loving (and having babies and washing up). The equivalent male is a rough, tough, rootin' tootin' fightin' man. The hunter, the warrior, the stud. Think John Wayne. Think Russell Crowe's Gladiator. Think James Bond.
So guys, when you see males tenderly kissing each other it jars you, doesn't it? It freaks you right out. Effin' faggots! They're not real men. They're imposters. Freaks. Degenerates. It's unnatural. It flies in the face of Dueteronomy or whatever that book of the Bible is that says women should be stoned to death if they commit adultery. But hey, but get a load of this cool dyke pic - they're suckin' each others' tits man! Get a load of them hooters! Whhrrrooooaaarrr!
Of course not all men think like that but I'd be prepared to wager that enough do to make this conscience vote either close or lost. So young guys will be "protected" while the male law makers will ensue that young girls stay available for their mates to fuck. Sorry, to make love to. Ahem.
The Church suggested that we should raise all ages of consent to 18. That makes sense except that even fewer kids would comply than they do now. It would be a bad law. A good law is one that people naturally comply with. A bad law is one that a huge proportion of the population cannot help but to treat with contempt.
Does anyone remember how, a few years ago, the state government passed a weird law about roundabouts? It went like this: when you approach a roundabout you're supposed to put on your left blinker even if you're going straight ahead. I'm yet to see anyone do it. And I don't, myself, which I guess makes me a minor league outlaw and the invitation is there for some handsome and burly officer to slap a pair of handcuffs on me and lead me to his domain ...
My problem with that law was it didn't come naturally. I use my blinkers so the driver behind me knows my intentions and doesn't run into me. So we continue to use our left blinkers to turn left, the right to turn right, and none to go straight ahead, roundabout or no roundabout. It goes against the grain for us to do anything else.
Many 16 year old teenagers are swamped with raging hormones and are exposed daily to explicit sexual references on the telly, not to mention the intense peer pressure on them to "do it". So for 16 year old teenagers to abstain until it's legal often goes equally against the grain. The law is impossible for many to comply with.
It's common knowledge that plenty of us were deflowered before age 16 so why make that the cutoff point? The logic here is that the law acts as a deferrent. It's a line in the sand that defines just how naughty an early sexual act is. Kids, while happy to break rules, mostly try not to break them too badly. Just enough to remind themselves that they have free will and aren't really little robots who blindly comply with boring old grownups. So most will happily break the law by one or two years, but most won't dare to be naughtier than that.
So 16 is probably a fair enough age of consent, all things considered. You have to draw a line somewhere and, all being well, they'll have the rest of their lives to do whatever they like in later life. Besides, the taboo can make it all so much sweeter.
Which brings us to the serious stuff. Pedophiles. It was argued that lowering the age of consent for gay fellas will mean more rock spiders will play havoc with our young men. An it's a hard point to argue. You'd expect that pedophiles would aim for slightly younger "chicken" if given the chance. But what about a 19 year old boy who can potentially be charged with being a molester for the "crime" of having a sexual relationship with a boyfriend aged 17? How can we keep the rock spiders at bay and not ludicrously criminalise young people?
Bear in mind that "straight" pedophiles have been aiming at young girls for a long time too. No-one has yet explained to me why young girls are any less worthy of protection.
The sensible solution to all this is to not draw just one line in the sand, but two. I know this is terribly complicated, but if we apply our minds to it we can work with two age limits. Sesame Street can count to two and so presumably, can adults.
So what I'm proposing is that neither males nor females can legally have sex with anyone under 16. And no-one aged 25 or over can have sex with anyone under 18.
Let's summarise that for those who may be struggling.
1) Under 16, no go.
2) If you're 25 or over you must not have sex with anyone under 18.
3) When both parties are 18 or over, anything goes.
Either that or we can adopt the Church's teachings and wait till we're married. But the average age of marriage is around 28 these days, isn't it? I can't see that one catching on in a hurry.
This site and all material on it is copyright © Grea Korting 2003