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.
No comments:
Post a Comment