Following a consultation session organised by the KSU Social Policy Office, the new Parliament building hosted a national youth debate last Thursday regarding the current hot topic of sexual health and the age of consent. If there’s one thing a shockingly large portion of our country still needs to learn, it’s that ’sex’ is not a dirty word. The open event attracted a number of youths eager to put in their two cents and it is in this exchange that a number of interesting points were made, albeit juxtaposed with ones prone to criticism.
To start with the positive, the panel opened with the question ’who are we protecting when we change and apply these consent laws?’ If we choose to modify legislation in any way, we must ensure that it is for the benefit of the minor who is meant to be protected, and not to eliminate the few barriers keeping predatory adults from taking advantage of vulnerable children and adolescents. We cannot overlook the power imbalance in such a relationship. If we are to accept sexual expression among minors, should it only take place within the peer group where everyone is experiencing the same wants and needs? Or should this not be allowed at all?
An audience member contributed with a psychological point of view, stating that psychologists have found that children are sexual beings from a very young age, and that rather than forbidding it, parents should be taught to put aside their embarrassment and seek to educate their children on the subject in an age appropriate manner. The panel stressed the importance of the role of behavioural science in the decision-making process, claiming that the legal aspect is “there just to amend what we need in our changing society trends.” Our law needs to acknowledge the reality of today instead of clinging to old hat mentalities, and therefore needs to be modified accordingly.
At the start of the debate, however, a panellist announced that he could speak for everyone present when he said that “we are completely against casual sex”. Not only did this seem awfully one-sided, but also anyone in the audience could have been gravely offended by that comment. Nowadays, there is such a wide spectrum of issues people could be dealing with that we cannot possibly presume to judge. Perhaps they had been pressured into having sex, or maybe sex is being used as a coping mechanism. Maybe they made some choices when they were younger which they’ve come to regret now. Or it is very possible that they are not ashamed of it at all as they harbour different views from the panellists, having come from different backgrounds. Whether or not sexual intercourse takes place within a relationship, the issues of sexual health and consent still apply. This comment was therefore not only potentially insensitive and uncalled for but also for the most part unnecessary.
Some also took issue with the fact that one of the panelists in Parliament was present for the sole purpose of representing the Catholic church. Had he attended the debate as an individual to express his own personal opinion, even if it coincided with that of the church, it would have been perfectly acceptable. The issue of sexuality ultimately touches upon human rights and therefore applies to human beings, something which the church as an institution, incidentally, is not. Yes, the church is composed of human beings, but nobody is depriving them of the right to voice their own opinion as citizens who will be affected by national legislation. It seems rather counterproductive to have people represent the ideology of an institution rather than the other way around, especially when that institution harbours religious beliefs which are not representative of the whole Maltese population (or the Catholic one at that, since many Christians still hold differing views on various topics). How can we then claim to be a secularised state when we allow a religion to enter into a parliamentary debate with the aim of affecting national legislation?
That said, the panel reassured the audience that much deliberation was involved regarding the age of consent for queer people and the general consensus was that it should not be any different from that of heterosexual relationships. When asked about the recent issue involving the rejection of material educating children about queer relationships, the panel was of the opinion that parents should have been consulted beforehand. As valid as this view may be, one may question whether the rights of LGBT+ children and adolescents are being given any importance. While teaching tolerance is a key stepping stone, it is also important to teach queer children to accept themselves and not focus solely on the sexual health of heterosexual people.
WHO defines sexual health as “a state of physical, mental and social well-being in relation to sexuality. It requires a positive and respectful approach to sexuality and sexual relationships, as well as the possibility of having pleasurable and safe sexual experiences, free of coercion, discrimination and violence.” As was discussed during the debate, it is imperative that a taboo approach towards sexuality must be abandoned and that youths are taught the all-encompassing truth about sexual health, including the mental and emotional aspect as well as methods of contraception other than just abstinence. This need for an improvement in our sexual education system is becoming ever more apparent especially if the age of consent is to be lowered. We cannot keep children in the dark in a futile attempt to shelter them from their surroundings and then expect them to adopt a healthy approach towards sexuality later in life.
