The law recognises the emotional and physical dangers of under-age sex (which is why it has drawn the line of consent in the sand) and often upholds it, although the circumstances in which it takes action are unpredictable, and vary in different parts of Britain. The health services recognise, equally, that teenagers will often ignore the law, and provide practical help and advice to prevent them from the worst consequences of their choices, such as pregnancy or disease. Of course, the coexistence of these two approaches involves some element of doublethink, but sometimes a little of this is necessary to minimise damage.
There is a point, however, at which doublethink actually becomes so extreme as to become part of the problem: that is where we are now, as the state colludes in pumping young teenagers full of hormones while keeping their parents in ignorance of the fact. When the Conservative MP Nadine Dorries proposed running compulsory abstinence lessons for 13- to 16-year-old girls, in tandem with practical sex education ”“ which would suggest that, in line with the law, it would be good to hold off for a bit ”“ she was howled down and caricatured as a religious reactionary. Should a 13-year-old who is having consensual sex with her 18-year-old boyfriend seek a contraceptive implant, she can be piously congratulated for taking “adult decisions on her sexuality” ”“ in preparation for an act deemed so potentially damaging to her that it could land him in jail. Confused? I am. Is it any wonder they are?
13 years old… consensual… From this side of the pond the question is clear. But the fog is begining to roll in here, too.
Actually that varies by state here in the US. Some states, 13 is consenual always, some states it’s still higher. In some states it depends on the age difference (I think CT is an example).