In recent weeks the issue of the age of consent for sexual
activity has twice come up in different guises.

First it was the Irish Times lending its weight to proposals
by the Law Reform Commission to reduce the age at which minors can access the
Pill without parental knowledge or consent to 14. Now it is Minister for Children
Barry Andrews proposing that the age of consent be lowered from 17 to 16.

A running theme in these discussions is the suggestion that
teenagers are incapable of self-control, and that it is “inevitable” that
teenagers will have sex prior to the current age of consent.

Minister Andrews, for example is quoted by the Irish Times
as saying that “times had moved on”. He said that the current age of consent
was out of touch with the modern reality of sexual relations between young
people.

There are two problems with this analysis. One is that
teenagers here are not quite the sexual athletes that our pundits and
policymakers seem to think. In fact, the average age of first sex for most
teens is still 17. So perhaps the onset of earlier and earlier sexual activity
for our teens is not so inevitable.

But the second point is that, even if it were inevitable
that teenagers were going to have sex at earlier and earlier ages, it is not
clear why that should mean we accept it without trying to arrest or slow down
such a trend.

We have laws against speeding, drink driving and many other
activities, and yet they continue to happen. Many financial analysts believe
that the Euro is doomed to fail, and yet the leading European economies strive
to keep it afloat. The point is whether such developments are positive or not.
Plenty of things in this life are inevitable. That doesn’t stop us from trying
to prevent them.

There is quite a lot of evidence to suggest that early
sexual activity is not good for teenagers emotionally. On that basis, a couple
of questions present themselves: 1) would changing the law lead to increased
levels of earlier sexual activity amongst teenagers, or would it make no
difference? 2) if it would lead to increased levels of early teenage sexual
activity, is this something we welcome, or is it something we regret?

It seems reasonable to suggest that there must at least be a
strong possibility that lowering of the age of consent would lead to increased
levels of premature sexual activity.

As mentioned, the average age of first sexual intercourse is
now 17. Obviously a certain number are having sex earlier than this, while
others are having sex for the first time later. The  Andrews’ logic is that the law should reflect
that behaviour of the more sexually precocious teenagers. Why is that?

His logic defines the acceptable age for teen sex down. If
teens are told they can have sex at 17, many are inclined to have sex at 15 or
16. Lower it to 16, and you will have more teens having sex at 13 and 14, when
they are even less ready to have it. (And yes, there are those having sex at 13
or 14 already; what I’m suggesting is that the number having sex at this age is
likely to go up.)

As for question 2, research suggests there are very real
problems with early sex. Nearly a third of teenage girls have come under
pressure to have sex before they are ready.

Research by Prof Hannah McGee of the Royal College of
Surgeons has shown that young people who had sex at an early age were also more
likely to express regret and to say that they wished they waited longer. We
worry about teen drinking, teen smoking and teen obesity because there are
health problems associated with these phenomena. But there are health (STIs)
and emotional problems associated with teenage sexuality, and yet it is
something our Government seems to blithely accept, and arguably encourage.

It seems to me that we are not obliged to follow this path,
and that instead we should be looking at ways to lower the number of teenagers
who feel pressured into having early sexual encounters.