Do Young Adolescents Need the Protection of Age-of-Consent Laws?

Age-of-consent laws presume that adolescents lack the maturity to make healthy decisions when it comes to sex.

I had lunch yesterday with an economist friend of mine who was lamenting the fact that when a market fails to operate efficiently we sometimes advocate for policy intervention without stopping to see if that policy actually improves the outcome.  He was talking about his own work that looks at the adult outcomes of boys who spend time during their teen years in foster care, which is itself an extremely interesting topic. I thought we would look at a different topic for which a similar argument could be made: laws that limit the age at which an individual can consent to having sex, and the protection they provide.


Age-of-consent laws presume that adolescents lack the maturity to make healthy decisions when it comes to sex. Most countries have age-of-consent laws, but the age at which an individual can consent to sex varies from age nine in some countries all the way to age 20 in others. For a long time (in fact, for over 100 years) my country, Canada, had an age of consent of 14. Two years ago, the laws were changed under the assumption that younger adolescents (14-15) were less capable of making healthy choices about sexuality than older adolescents (16-17). Policies like these are costly—and not just in terms of enforcement. They also create hardship for those caught up in that enforcement. So there must be pretty good evidence that the benefits outweigh those costs, right?

Well, there is some mixed evidence that individuals who make an early "debut" into the world of sex have poorer educational outcomes later on, but the problem is that it is difficult to determine cause and effect—are those who have sex early more likely to under-achieve or are under-achievers more likely to have sex early?

There is new research on this topic, just released last week and using data from over 26,000 adolescents surveyed in high schools in British Columbia, which suggests that when it comes to making choices about sexuality the decisions of 14- and 15-year-olds seem no worse than that of 16- and 17-year-olds. The evidence also suggests that the children who are most exposed to risk are actually much younger than 14, in fact they more likely to be less than 12. The new laws, with an age of consent of 16, don’t protect these kids any better than the old laws with an age of consent of 14. So the new laws provide protection to adolescents who don’t need and leave the more vulnerable children equally unprotected.

Three percent of students in the study who had sexual intercourse had that experience the first time before the age of 12. Of those having sex at that early age, 40% report that first experience was with an adult over the age of 20. Compare this to students who had their first sexual experience at the age of 14, of those students only 1.3% report that their sexual partner was over the age of 20. In fact, only just over 3% report having had a partner over the age of 18. If we look at those who had their first sexual experience at age 15, this number increases to fewer than 6%.

The age group that lost their ability to consent to sex under the new laws are overwhelmingly have sex with people who are within their own age group; less than 2% of boys and 3-5% of girls had their first sexual experience with an adult who was more than 5 years older than themselves.  They were equally likely as the older (16-17) group to have sex under the influence of drugs or alcohol (which one quarter of them did with their most recent sexual experience). Males in the younger group were significantly more likely to report having used a condom in their last intercourse (83% compared to 74%) and younger females who were using a hormone contraceptive method were significantly more likely than the older group to use a condom as well. About 5% of both groups were involved in a pregnancy with no statistically significant difference between the age groups. There is likewise no statistically difference in the reporting of STIs.

The argument behind that law is that participating in sexual behavior has some potentially very serious adult consequences. It is tempting to argue that younger adolescents are less capable in assessing the risks take when they have sex. But, this evidence, at least, does not support this idea. There is some evidence that the 14-15 group experiences more forced sex, but this law is about consent and rape is a different issue. When it comes to consensual sex, the younger youth appear to make equally healthy decisions as older adolescents.

LinkedIn meets Tinder in this mindful networking app

Swipe right to make the connections that could change your career.

Getty Images
Sponsored
Swipe right. Match. Meet over coffee or set up a call.

No, we aren't talking about Tinder. Introducing Shapr, a free app that helps people with synergistic professional goals and skill sets easily meet and collaborate.

Keep reading Show less

4 reasons Martin Luther King, Jr. fought for universal basic income

In his final years, Martin Luther King, Jr. become increasingly focused on the problem of poverty in America.

(Photo by J. Wilds/Keystone/Getty Images)
Politics & Current Affairs
  • Despite being widely known for his leadership role in the American civil rights movement, Martin Luther King, Jr. also played a central role in organizing the Poor People's Campaign of 1968.
  • The campaign was one of the first to demand a guaranteed income for all poor families in America.
  • Today, the idea of a universal basic income is increasingly popular, and King's arguments in support of the policy still make a good case some 50 years later.
Keep reading Show less

Why avoiding logical fallacies is an everyday superpower

10 of the most sandbagging, red-herring, and effective logical fallacies.

Photo credit: Miguel Henriques on Unsplash
Personal Growth
  • Many an otherwise-worthwhile argument has been derailed by logical fallacies.
  • Sometimes these fallacies are deliberate tricks, and sometimes just bad reasoning.
  • Avoiding these traps makes disgreeing so much better.
Keep reading Show less

Why I wear my life on my skin

For Damien Echols, tattoos are part of his existential armor.

Videos
  • In prison Damien Echols was known by his number SK931, not his name, and had his hair sheared off. Stripped of his identity, the only thing he had left was his skin.
  • This is why he began tattooing things that are meaningful to him — to carry a "suit of armor" made up the images of the people and objects that have significance to him, from his friends to talismans.
  • Echols believes that all places are imbued with divinity: "If you interact with New York City as if there's an intelligence behind... then it will behave towards you the same way."
Keep reading Show less