The age of consent and Coalition 'family values'

Researchers the world over have documented the impediments imposed by unequal age of consent legislation on such essential services [public health, welfare and educational practice]. They also note that such impediments are especially problematic in the light of the fact that for young males the mid teens form a developmental stage at which information, education and support care are of the utmost importance.

NSW health, welfare, and counselling professionals interviewed in this study all reported significant difficulties with providing information and support around sexuality issues to young gay males by virtue of the fact that this could be viewed under NSW law as aiding and abetting a criminal activity - leaving them potentially open to prosecution and de-funding.

As a former telephone counsellor with the NSW Gay and Lesbian Counselling Service (GLCS NSW), I can relate these difficulties. Young male callers who identified themselves as 16-years-old placed GLCS NSW volunteers in awkward situations. We had to be very careful in making referrals. For example, if we directed a lonely young gay man to an interactive website in order to chat to other men we could potentially be in legal hot water if the website contained the smallest amount of sexually explicit material.

What possible justifications could there be to maintain an unequal age of consent given that an equal age of consent in states other than WA had already been established? In Victoria and the ACT the age of consent is 16 years for heterosexual and homosexual sex. The same applies to New Zealand, Britain and Belgium. Is there any evidence young males in these places are more vulnerable to sexual abusers than anywhere else?

Are young gay men really safer from HIV/AIDS in places where the age of consent for homosexual sex is higher than heterosexual sex? I have seen no proof in this regard. In fact, in countries where homosexual sex is illegal altogether the HIV/AIDS epidemic has not been prevented and the sex abuse of young men, women and children goes on unabated. Some of the countries of Sub-Saharan Africa are the most tragic examples. The only reason, if it is indeed a “reason”, seems to be blind prejudice.

It is also amazing how proponents of an unequal age of consent have been so dismissive of the interests of women. The protection of young men’s sexuality appears to take precedence over young women’s. Family’s First: Defining the Difference refers to concerns around “predatory and exploitative behaviour by older males” only in regard to males younger than 18 years. Does that mean it is okay to subject 16-year-old females to “exploitative behaviour” but not 16-year-old males? Nowhere in the document does it say the age of consent should be 18 years for all as some conservative commentators such as Miranda Devine appeared to support in NSW (when the debate was raging there in 2003). That at least would be consistent and would demonstrate a concern (no matter how misguided) for young women’s sexual development. But the WA Liberals’ document doesn’t and feminist groups, indeed women generally, should be outraged by this policy statement.

The feminist academic Sheila Jeffreys, in her book The Spinster and Her Enemies, recounts the feminist campaign to increase the age of consent in late 19th Century Britain when it was as low as 13 years for females. There was debate as to how far to raise it. However, the point is that feminist campaigners aimed to protect younger women and were not going to tolerate double standards. Gay rights activists today likewise will not tolerate one rule for heterosexuals and another for homosexuals.