I have a question about sexual ethics and "informed consent". Just what does it mean to be informed about sex such that you can give informed consent?? It seems that it shouldn't be a matter of age but a matter of information. A fifteen year old can take a health class and/or read materials about the consequences of sex, and it seems this 15 year old could be better informed than an 18 year old who grew up in, say, a very traditional society wherein sex was a taboo subject. Also, doesn't being informed about something as physical as sex depend on having had it? I can't imagine being truly informed if you've never experienced it, can you? But if one could, and the law considers it can be gained without actually experiencing it, then couldn't you just "inform" a minor about sex, then have sex with that person, then argue that they gave informed consent. I mean, why does the law harp so much on the age of the minor? Is the true motivation really that they're "informed", or is it something else?

Comments

You raise a good point about the rather arbitrary fixing of age limits for various activities. Of course there will always be those over the limit who do not really understand what they are doing, and those under who do, but that is inevitable in any rough and ready measure based on age. The answer is often that it is better to have an inaccurate cut off point than no cut off point at all, since we might reasonably expect that most under-sixteens, say, would not really know what was involved in getting married, even though some exceptionally mature sixteen year olds might. It is better to have some sort of rule like this than to have no rule at all, since if people were able to marry at any age the scope for exploitation would be increased. Similarly with voting, there are plenty of idiots of mature age who have the vote, while thoughtful and intelligent young people do not, but that seems fair, since unless everyone is going to be allowed to vote some restrictions are going to have to apply. And it is better to have them age-based than based on anything else. Some strange anomalies result, of course, such as that in many countries young people are able to join the armed services and kill people but not allowed to drink alcohol!

I don't know about informed consent, though, since you seem to think that you have to have experience of an activity before you can give informed consent. Suppose someone has never smoked, and refuses a cigarette, it seems strange to say that they don't really know what they are refusing. They don't know what a cigarette actually tastes like, but that is all. I don't know what pork tastes like, since I have never eaten it, but I think when I refuse it I am giving my informed consent since I know the sort of thing it is. It is difficult to argue that a young person in Western culture does not know what sort of activity sex is, even without participating in it directly, since it is all around us in one form or another. An individual minor could morally speaking be in a position to give informed consent to sex, but the law has to deal in generalities, and it is to the advantage of society as a whole that certain age ranges are used to differentiate the legality of sexual behavior. Proving that someone could really give informed consent is a difficult and lengthy business. Proving they are a certain age is quite quick and simple.

Read another response by Oliver Leaman

Read another response about Law, Sex