A14-YEAR-OLD girl has sex with a 22-year-old man, and who does society vilify? Her mother, of course. Not the man who preyed on her; not the wayward teenager who ignored pleas to end the relationship; not the advertising industry for encouraging the
sexualisation of children. No, its ire is aimed at one beleaguered woman who – presented with a fait accompli – faced a difficult choice: to allow an illegal relationship to carry on under her roof or to risk alienating her daughter and have her taken into care.
Admittedly, the route the woman, from Eyemouth, took – allowing her daughter to continue having sex with her older boyfriend in the family home – was provocative. It may even have been misguided and irresponsible. But does that really mean – as some commentators have suggested – that she should have been standing alongside Daniel Balfour in the dock when he admitted underage sex at Duns Sheriff Court last week?
How dare we stand in judgment when we know nothing of this family's domestic circumstances or the personality of the girl involved? And how can any of us know for sure what outcome a more rigid approach would have wrought? Maybe, the girl would have calmed down and got back to her studies. Or maybe she would have run off to London where, dumped by her boyfriend, she would have fallen into a life of prostitution.
"This girl is in need of care and protection from her mother's values, which seem to be upside down," said South of Scotland MSP Christine Grahame. But what does she know of this woman's morality? It is quite possible that – far from condoning her daughter's behaviour – the mother was engaging in a damage limitation exercise.
Those who have first-hand experience of watching children drift into adolescence know these dilemmas aren't confined to the disengaged and the feckless, they touch us all. They are aware that puberty affects teenagers at different times and in different ways. While one 14-year-old girl may be content to watch High School Musical with her mates, another may be sneaking alcohol out of the house and lying about where they are spending the night. While one 15-year-old boy may be unable to do anything more than grunt at members of the opposite sex, another may be perfectly capable of dealing with a long-term relationship.
The way in which they respond to their changing hormone levels has nothing to do with their physique, their social background or the extent to which their parents have discussed sex with them.
In an ideal world, perhaps, parents would be able to persuade them all of the wisdom of waiting until they are of age before they have intercourse, but adolescents, who are programmed to believe their parents are idiots, can be a force to be reckoned with. Whether it's because they are convinced they are in love, want to keep up with their peers, or are simply curious to find out what the big deal is, those determined to lose their virginity are unlikely to be swayed by a chat with mum and dad.
Clearly, the eight-year age gap between Balfour and his girlfriend was inappropriate, and he has, quite rightly, been put on the sex offenders' register. But for all the moral outrage the case provoked, there is no consensus on how underage sex should be handled. The disparity in the maturity of different teenagers means even the age of consent is contentious, with 16 being seen by some as too old and politicians divided as to whether or not decriminalising sex between 13 to 15-year-old consenting children would place some of them at risk.
Although sex between an over-16 and an under-16 is illegal in Scotland, some even question whether or not such relationships are inevitably predatory. Is sex between a 15-year-old girl and a 16-year-old boy unacceptable, for instance? And what happens when the boy turns 17?
There is no consensus either among parents as to how to handle teenagers who hit puberty early. Where some adhere to the "not under our roof" maxim that governed their own adolescence, there are others who are quite happy to allow underage teenagers to have a member of the opposite sex sleep in their room on the grounds that if it's going to happen, it will happen anyway, and it might as well happen somewhere safe and warm. And – even if you don't agree with them – you can see their point. Remembering their own, or their friends', clumsy encounters in bike sheds and bus shelters, they will be all too aware that even those teenagers who are ready for a sexual relationship before they are 16 are unlikely to have the foresight to take precautions or to fully understand the consequences of getting pregnant so young.
By bringing their partners into the house, by getting to know them, by allowing them to sleep together in their bedroom, they may be able to nurture a sense of responsibility and encourage mature relationships over one-night stands.
It jars with everything we were taught as youngsters, but perhaps it is counter-productive to react to the prospect of our teenagers having intercourse by throwing our hands up in horror. Perhaps being able to treat their desires as legitimate would be a sign of our own maturity.
This situation may be lamentable, but to hold one individual responsible for it is like blaming a fish for the river's course. And while I am reasonably confident none of my children will ever find themselves in the position of the 14-year-old from Eyemouth, and that, if they do, I will handle it better than her mother, I am not so arrogant to as to believe their teenage years will pass without their own crises. I just pray that when they come, I'm judged a little less harshly than her.
