Madam, - Re the debate on the age of consent for sexual activity I was involved in the introduction of biology as a secondary school subject in the late 1960s and 1970s. For the first time in this State, our children were taught the biological facts about human reproduction. As a teacher, and author of books on biology, I took every care to emphasise the social aspects of human reproduction.
Leaving aside moral and/or religious considerations with regard to the debate on lowering the age of consent for sexual activity, it is very important to discuss the reproductive health of our young people. Early sexual activity, and even a number of sexual partners? What are the consequences? Yes, with the attainment of puberty human beings arrive at their reproductive age. However, physical and reproductive maturity are reached far sooner than emotional and intellectual maturity. Unlike most other mammals, children depend on their parents for a long period in their lives - they need love, care, guidance, and other favourable conditions for healthy growth, emotional development and maturity.
I realise and appreciate that we live in changed and changing times where certain things that we valued once and waited to get, have now become commodities to be gotten in a hurry. Alas, sex and reproduction are responsible, and no doubt, pleasurable human activities, and should not be treated as another commodity in our cash-rich society. Are we afraid to set boundaries for our children? Can we not encourage a modicum of self-control, an abundance of romance and friendship as pre-requisites for healthy, happy and responsible sexual activity among our young people? The question is, are our children emotionally and intellectually mature at the age of 16 to embark on responsible sexual activity? From my biological knowledge and experience as an educator, and more importantly as a mother, the answer is no. - Yours etc,
MARY TOOMEY,
Blackrock,
Co Dublin.
Madam, - Senator McDowell (December 12th) tells us about the "uncomfortable fact" that teenagers do not know the age of consent. I agree. Politicians, amongst others, whose responsibility it has been to educate our children and safeguard and promote our rights, should be squirming in their seats with embarrassment. Yet they are not. Rather they recommend we reduce the protection they have so utterly failed to promote. - Is mise,
CLÍONA SAIDLÉAR,
Policy and Communications Coordinator,
Rape Crisis Network Ireland
(RCNI), Galway.
Madam, - There is much ill-informed hysteria in relation to proposals to change the age of consent for certain sexual activity from 17 to 16 and on the supposed necessity of removing the constitutionally mandated defence of honest mistake for sexual activity with under-age children, notwithstanding the fact that for many years 15 was the age of consent for boys engaging in sexual intercourse with women and girls and that the defence of honest mistake applied in relation to persons (male or female) having sex with underage boys - without a word on the subject from any of those now rushing to judgment.
One very salient fact has been lost in this debate - the age of criminal repsonsibility for children has recently been raised from seven to 12, but an exception is made for some offences, including rape and certain other sexual assaults, where the age is ten (the common law rule that boys under the age of 14 could not be guilty of rape having been abolished some time ago).
Would any of those who have commented so trenchantly on the age of consent care to explain how a sexually active child can be sufficiently morally culpable to be criminalised at the age of ten (or even 12), but insufficiently morally responsible to consent to sexual activity for a further seven (or five, or six or four) years? - Yours, etc,
SÉ D'ALTON,
Palmerston Road,
Dublin 6.
Madam, - The would-be age of consent of 16 years is symptomatic of a society devoid of any real leadership. The message to the young ones - can't buy alcohol, can't buy cigarettes, can't even go into a pub to access the condom vending machine. But you can have sex and we don't mind where. The conventional wisdom goes "sure they're all at it anyway" so just liberalise it. This is reminiscent of a previous government's approach to the number of provisional licence holders - legalise them. We're still paying for that pearl of wisdom in the number of deaths on the road.
The fear of criminalising teenagers by not lowering the age of consent is indicative of a society spiralling out of control. Government strategy echoes a previous mantra about the rising tide lifting all boats, only this one is bringing us all down to a new low on the liberal agenda, legalised consensual sex for our 16-year-old children. And they required a committee to figure that one out? - Yours, etc,
JOHN FOX,
Quarry Rd,
Greystones,
Co Wicklow.
Madam, - The debate on lowering the age of consent is coloured by a concern that the law will be seen as sending a signal that sex at 16 is quite acceptable to society.
The reality is that this law is about statutory rape, words which transmit quite a different signal.
Perhaps if, in future debate, the topic was referred to as "The rape age law" rather than "The age of consent", it might allow for a little more light and a little less heat. - Yours, etc,
PETER MOLLOY,
Glenageary,
Co Dublin.