Protection versus rights: age of marriage versus age of sexual consent.

As many governments worldwide have raised the legal age of marriage to 18 years, some are also considering raising the age of sexual consent. Without close-in-age exemptions, arguments to align the legal age of sexual consent with that of marriage would restrict the ability of adolescents to legally have sex. In contrast to international agreements that affirm 18 years as the minimum age for consent to marriage, international human-rights standards do not recommend specific age limits for sexual consent but urge recognition of adolescents as rights holders, including rights in relation to sexuality. The majority of the world's young people are having sex before the age of 18 years. Laws that increase the age of sexual consent can be harmful and are often used to curb adolescents' agency, including denial of adolescents' rights to make decisions about whether, when, and with whom to have sex. Such laws can also result in stigmatisation or criminalisation (or both) of individuals who have sex before marriage, and increase barriers to accessing sexual and reproductive health. By contrast, providing adolescents with appropriate information and services supports healthy development, agency, and empowerment around their rights, including the right to be informed about their bodies and the right to consent (or not) to sex. Raising the legal age of sexual consent risks restricting adolescents from accessing the health care they need to protect themselves, and there is no evidence that it prevents consensual sex or sexual coercion. Because the consideration to marry and to have sex are very different, the minimum ages need not be aligned.