Nov 27, 2009
Sex and teenagers: Morals change and differ across space and time
<!-- by line --><!-- end by line -->
<!-- end left side bar --><!-- story content : start -->
I REFER to Mr Marcus Foo's letter on Monday, ' 'Consent' shouldn't trump what society deems morally bad'.
The morals of any society are everchanging, and differ between various geographical regions. Taking the age of consent as an example, it differs vastly from Asia to Europe to Africa. Search the Internet under 'age of consent' and you will be surprised what the thresholds are in some conservative Asian countries where certain morals are perceived to be strict.
There are also significant changes over time within a society. Twenty years before Lord Devlin was born, the age of consent for girls in Victorian England was 13; now it is 16.
Using the law as the benchmark for one's morality is not necessarily the right way either. In Singapore, it took the Women's Charter of 1961 to change the age of consent to 16 years from the 14 years allowed by the Straits Settlement Penal Code of 1871 (a rehash of the Indian Penal Code).
I have no wish to reduce the age of consent for sexual intercourse in Singapore, but it is foolhardy to base any argument on morality on the standards of society and the laws of the land.
After all, who will change the views of society and the law? Us, the people, to whom Mr Vikram Ranjan Ramasamy appeals in his letter, 'Decriminalise consensual underage sex' (Nov 13).
Goh Shyan Lii
Sex and teenagers: Morals change and differ across space and time
<!-- by line --><!-- end by line -->
<!-- end left side bar --><!-- story content : start -->
I REFER to Mr Marcus Foo's letter on Monday, ' 'Consent' shouldn't trump what society deems morally bad'.
The morals of any society are everchanging, and differ between various geographical regions. Taking the age of consent as an example, it differs vastly from Asia to Europe to Africa. Search the Internet under 'age of consent' and you will be surprised what the thresholds are in some conservative Asian countries where certain morals are perceived to be strict.
There are also significant changes over time within a society. Twenty years before Lord Devlin was born, the age of consent for girls in Victorian England was 13; now it is 16.
Using the law as the benchmark for one's morality is not necessarily the right way either. In Singapore, it took the Women's Charter of 1961 to change the age of consent to 16 years from the 14 years allowed by the Straits Settlement Penal Code of 1871 (a rehash of the Indian Penal Code).
I have no wish to reduce the age of consent for sexual intercourse in Singapore, but it is foolhardy to base any argument on morality on the standards of society and the laws of the land.
After all, who will change the views of society and the law? Us, the people, to whom Mr Vikram Ranjan Ramasamy appeals in his letter, 'Decriminalise consensual underage sex' (Nov 13).
Goh Shyan Lii
