Peter Espeut | Are we driven by logic?

I have written here before that I wish that the science of logic would be taught in every high school in Jamaica. As a start, it should improve student performance in mathematics, which is a refined form of pure logic; reasoned essays would be argued more rationally; and the electorate would more easily differentiate between sense and nonsense during election campaigns. Maybe that is why it will never happen!

So, tell me what is wrong with this expression: “decriminalise consensual sex between two teenagers, at least one of whom is below the age of consent”.

Answer: the statement is contradictory, and therefore nonsense.

The foundation of logical argument is the precise definition of words, in our case, in the English language. The “age of consent” is the age below which a person is legally unable to give consent to sexual intercourse: a “yes” by such a person is null, void, and has no legal effect.

If the definition of the word “consensual” means “having given consent”, then a person under the “age of consent” cannot have consensual sex, and to say so is a logical nonsense.

If you “decriminalise consensual sex between two teenagers, at least one of whom is below the age of consent” then you have abolished the age of consent, for you are saying that a person under the age of consent can give consent, and can have consensual sex.

If you agree to decriminalise sex between “consenting” minors, then you will have walked into the logical trap; I can hear the lawyers now, arguing before the court: if a 14-year-old can have “consensual sex” with a 16-year-old, then why not with a 36-year-old? Why does a 20-year difference in age negate consent? A “yes” is a “yes” is consent, whether with a 16-year-old, or a 36-year-old or a 66-year-old!

The hidden agenda here is the old “manufactured rights” libertarian strategy. Nothing is wrong in itself. People have the “right” to do whatever they wish, whether it is sex with underage girls, or underage boys, or with persons of the same sex, or with animals.

FAKE RIGHTS

And so fake rights are invented: “gay rights”, “abortion rights”, and here. I suppose, it is “underage rights”. Underage girls have the “right” to have sexual intercourse with young boys close in age to themselves. And if so, why not which much older men? Where does it end?

Anything goes!

It certainly is unfair that if two young people have what some call “consensual sex”, that only the boy faces the courts. That is a clear bias against males.

But do not expect the “gender activists” (they were more honest when they called themselves “feminist activists”) to lobby for equity and equality: that would mean that the girls would also have to face the courts. No! They will never argue that!

The recommendation is that none should face the courts. That, I suppose, is the gender equity they seek. Girls – of whatever age – must be free to exercise their “right” to have sex, and to avoid the consequences of their free choice in how they use their bodies, by being able to terminate the life of the other body growing inside them. This is the logical progression of the so-called “sexual revolution”.

My first degree is in chemistry and zoology, and in the latter we learned that species for which mechanism to guarantee reproduction have not been evolved, have gone extinct. The trouble with the human species is that we are rational beings, and without some special mechanism, the female of Homo sapiens would never have children; they are too smart to choose nine months of discomfort and 18 years of child-rearing! Our brains can override instinct which drives lower animals to reproduce.

Humans are the only species on the planet where the females have orgasms, sensations so intensely pleasurable that otherwise intelligent people will throw caution to the wind. Without the female orgasm, the human species would have gone extinct long ago!

CHANNELLED

Intelligence should drive humanity to recognise that sexuality driven by intense pleasure needs to be channelled such that society can reproduce itself in an orderly fashion. The sciences tell us that for healthy psychological development, the offspring of humans need both parents over many years for proper socialisation. The society that does not have effective institutions to reproduce itself by forming productive members, will descend into dysfunction, crime and violence.

Right and wrong may be deduced from what supports the common good, and what results in chaos and societal breakdown!

But intelligence still tries to short-circuit the path of orderly human development, and animal urges die hard. Many just seek the pleasure for its own sake, at any cost to themselves or to society.

A society which fails to socialise its young in the ways of self-control may well end up with world-class rates of obesity, illiteracy, irresponsible parenthood, and violent crime like murder. Maybe we are there already!

Social engineering is a delicate balancing act. Sexual intercourse between juveniles is a social problem which needs to be properly addressed; but decriminalising sexual intercourse between the young without establishing mechanisms to teach self-control is not a rational response to the problem. Do those who are pushing a libertarian agenda, expect to end up with an orderly, disciplined society?

There is a logical tension between rational behaviour and hedonism; if we pursue the latter and eschew the former we will end up with a society of perpetual adolescents, unable to settle down to the serious business of nation-building.

Peter Espeut is a sociologist and development scientist. Send feedback to columns@gleanerjm.com