My Thoughts, at the End!

Hey everyone,

Thanks so much for reading our blog.  We've really tried to do our research and present the topic of Age of Consent in an anti-oppressive way, that was also fun and entertaining.

I really enjoyed posting entries, and having some fun with them!! I hope you enjoyed them too.

This project was a tough one, and I'm glad I got the chance to be a part of it.

Thanks for the great comments - they've really been stimulating and have really made me think.  I know my peers feel the same way.

Thanks for contributing to my education!! ;)

All the best,

- A

Sex Ed-YOU-cation (Con no. 2)

Sex Education courses have been contested since first introduced into the education system.  Some individuals promote and encourage sexual education, while others have attempted to hinder it.  These two schools of thought have brought about Comprehensive Sexual Education, and Abstinence-only Education.   

Comprehensive sex ed encourages a holistic approach to sexual education, including: building healthy relationships, learning about sexual abuse, LGBTQ issues, abstinence, and being aware of varying birth control methods such as oral contraceptives, condoms, and the morning after pill.  Comprehensive Sex Ed encourages individuals to become knowledgeable about their sexuality and the choices they can make to protect themselves.

Abstinence-only education promotes abstinence (obviously!) and has often relied on inaccurate information that does not aid in the healthy sexual development of youth. Abstinence-only education is based on a belief that abstinence is A MUST until marriage in order to avoid the perils of STIs and 'psychological difficulties' related to sex.

Although it is true that abstinence is the only 100% way to protect against STIs, pregnancy, and HIV, it i has a success rate of 76%.  If 100 students were to say they were abstinent, only 76 would stay abstinent - so we should be educating all students on safe sex!  Also, MANY studies show that teaching youth about sex DOES NOT mean that they will leave the classroom sex-crazed and ready to hump the closest thing that moves.  It is merely education.  Youth will make up their own mind about whether they have sex or not, their sex education will help them make a safe choice.

I encourage you to watch the following 3 minute clip re: Comprehensive vs. Abstinence-only Sexual Education. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oTGEOrZ3MCs

With two extremely controversial methods of providing sexual education, it is no wonder that the Age of Consent policy is so difficult to enforce.  It will be difficult to promote the policy, if people still believe that if youth are educated about sex that they will run off and have a lot of it.  The Age of Consent policy would act as a measure for a better understanding of the legal rights of youth.

If 40 million dollars a year is spent promoting Abstinence-only education (Bush administration in the USA), how are youth to become knowledgeable about their rights, liberties, and means of protecting themselves from exploitative individuals? 

When sex education becomes more about safety and responsibility, than fear of sex, we will be able to promote the Age of Consent policy in a light of protection.

- A

Pro – Clarity

An obvious pro, one that we have stressed throughout this blog, is that our recommendations would clarify the policy. With clarifications it is hoped that the law will reach more people, especially youth. With more people aware, better protection can be provided to those that may be vulnerable to predators. Further than having protection, young people would be better armed if they are aware of the law and can take measures to protect themselves.

The clarifications to definitions, especially in regards to the meaning of "sex" are also a pro of our recommendations. Making this clearer will help people to better understand what kind of sexual activity is "allowable" at what age and with whom.

It is our hope through our recommendations that the policy would be better understood by those that are most affected by it.

L.L.

A con of the new policy...

I feel that our recommendations for a new age of consent policy bring many improvements to the current policy, especially in terms of its degree of inclusivity. At the same time however, calling our policy "inclusive" raises some important questions.

First, as discussed in previous posts, we feel that we are walking a fine line between providing necessary protection to individuals who are vulnerable to sexual exploitation while at the same time recognizing and respecting an individual's right to make their own decisions to participate in desired and consensual sexual activity. Thus, I ask, is our policy truly inclusive in the sense that individuals in legitimate relationships who happen to fall outside of the stipulations of the policy (i.e. age) cannot lawfully give consent to participate in sexual activity with each other?

A second inclusivity related issue continued in the new policy involves problems associated with setting one (arguably arbitrary) age of consent, which fails to recognize individual differences in terms of timing of developmental milestones and thus "readiness" to engage in sexual activity. I believe that in our striving for inclusivity, the new policy still does not provide flexibility for existing individual differences in physical, psychological, and emotional development during adolescence.


Inclusivity then, to me, seems to be an elusive target or goal, one that needs to be continually worked towards and yet may never be completely attainable in an absolute sense. Though I believe that our recommendations for changes to the policy are a step in the right direction, I feel as though there are more exceptions to the rules we set (and in some cases impose on others) than can properly be accounted for in most social policies, particularly those rooted in cultural norms and socially constructed ideas of what is "right".


- L.T.

One of the Pros of the new policy...

With this new policy in mind, we realize that there will be some pros and cons, as with most policies. However our attempt is to minimize the cons and ensure the pros. One of the biggest positives that our new policy would have is the fact that it would be more inclusive to everyone. As previously discussed in this blog, inclusivity is a huge issue with the current policy. As a result, we have discussed better ways in which to address the issue in the new policy.

By having a more inclusive policy, the policy will be more specific and clear about who all of the rules and regulations apply to in the general public. Therefore, hopefully, court proceedings on related issues will be more clearly defined.

As well, there is the hope that most minority groups will feel that the policy applies to them. For example, people who are involved in more taboo forms of sex (excluding what is classified as illegal), will be able to feel that the policy can apply to them, without being segregated or punished for engaging in a form of sex that is not considered appropriate by the government.

P.

Monitor what now?

Now that we understand the goals and objectives we believe would benefit the current Age of Consent policy, how would we monitor and evaluate the goals that we hope to implement? 

Assuming that as of now (figuratively speaking of course) that the Age of Consent policy is more inclusive, is more easily understood by the general public, and is more easily accessible to teens, how do we know if these recommendations have made an impact?

Since the Age of Consent policy refers to a very intimate and private act between two (or more!) individuals, it would be hard to monitor the direct impact it has on consenting adolescents. 
There are a number of ways we could gather information in order to better understand if the education and awareness has had an impact on individual sexual choices and actions. 

One way that we could get sensitive information could be through anonymous qualitative and quantative research asking teens whether their knowledge (or lack thereof) of the Age of Consent laws have impacted their sexual decision making in any way implementation of this could be tricky, depending on how it could be distributed but this could provide valuable information in future improvements to the policy.

We could monitor and evaluate inclusion by asking people to participate in writing the Age of Consent policy itself. We would hope to ask groups of people who have historically been excluded from this process, to participate in order to help develop an overall anti-oppressive policy. We would encourage a community approach to writing the policy, and this would include making the language accessible to the general public. If the language is understood, the policy itself becomes accessible to greater society.

When attempting to monitor and evaluate the awareness and education efforts set forth by the policy, we could send out questionnaires or surveys to adolescents within the education system seeking confidential responses as to when first contact with the policy occurred, how often, or if it had never occurred. We could request feedback from adolescents in sex ed classes whether or not discussion surrounding the Age of Consent is sufficient and/or whether or not the Age of Consent is even discussed at all.

- A and L.L.

Implementation of Policy at the Level of Government

Apart from individuals and groups and organizations, policies may be implemented at a governmental level. There are multiple avenues available through various levels of government staff and officials in which a new policy may be implemented. The beginnings of a new policy and its implementation may begin anywhere from MPs (local representatives), to public servants, to Ministers and their staff.

Members of Parliament (MPs) represent one of 301 constituencies in Canada, and allow members of their constituency to have somewhat of an indirect role in policy proposals, developments, and implementation when voting in the House of Commons. The downside of course is that MPs receive overwhelming amounts of diverse views from their constituents, and also each political party tends to vote uniformly on policy issues, leaving constituents feeling as if their views were not heard.

Another means of implementing policy at the governmental level is through Public Servants. The Canadian Public Service is "the staff or bureaucracy of the federal government". The public service has a responsibility to support Ministers by providing "loyal, professional, and non-partisan support to the government of the day". The Public Service "functions through departments, agencies, commissions, crow corporations, and other federal organizations". Public servants enact the “will of the government” through providing advice, implementing the priorities of the government, and delivering services that support Canadians.

Therefore, Ministers may be contacted directly or indirectly about inputs on policies. Ministers are "collectively and individually responsible to the House of Commons for the policies, programs, and activities of the government". Ministers look at issues from many points of view, and a letter or email is a good way for members of the public to contact Ministers. Ministers expect to hear from people in their electorate, from their departmental chief executives, policy advisors, lobby groups, media, coalition partners, and sections of the public of interest to them. Ministers are also "the cabinet’s eyes and ears about trends in the community". Ministers prepare policy briefs, and communicate with their staff, who will be analyzing the brief and advising the Minister.

Thus, in order to obtain a diverse opinions and incorporate views from members of the public and government, the implementation of policy at the level of government is a responsibility of countless individuals in general public and governmental positions with unique responsibilities at many different levels. Whether or not a new development or new policy is implemented altogether depends upon the direction and views of the current government, its staff and officials, and members of the public who have a special interest in the issue.

- L.T.