Ask Lemmy

This reply is meant to generate discussion. It is not sarcasm or meant to be taken negatively at all:

What is the purpose of any rules? Why have them? Is it possible to make a "perfect" rule or policy or public intervention whereby all affected persons are serviced fairly? Probably not. If you conclude we need rules, how do we balance their benefits with the disenfranchisement of some of the persons affected negatively?

In your specific case, how do you make the rules minimize negative outcomes without excessively sacrificing the potential positive outcomes?

I'm genuinely interested in your perspective from your age and place in time.

These are good and valid questions. If you're passionate about them, you may consider studying political science and/or law in the future. One day, if you're still passionate about this topic, you may be in a position to change the rules.

YTA

That is not a matter for a society to address. It needs parents, especially the father.

If you haven't already, you should read John Caldwell Holt. "Escape From Childhood," especially, addresses exactly what you're talking about here.

Honestly it was like a spiritual awakening for me when I read it, just realizing I wasn't the only one seeing the injustice.

There are things kids cannot consent to, but if you are asking about a utopian society where children were not at risk of abuse of any sort? I would say not an age based system but a competence based system. So prove you are able to do the things you want to do, and be allowed to do them. I'd still mandate education, but again, less age segregation, take classes as you are ready for them, move at your pace.

The concept of graduated-licensing is the right general idea,

remapping that idea from drivers'-licenses to citizenship makes sense,

but it must be evidence-based/responsibility-based, not arbitrary,

and there must be more than 1 punctuation between equilibriums,

like maybe 0-7, 7-14, 14-21, and within that 14-21, several levels of graduation that are nature/behavior based.

A human's brain isn't finished wiring-up until; about 21 years old, which is why the places which have NO-drinking-until-21 have MUCH lower road-deaths rates.

anyways, no region has the intellectual integrity to do anything that way, so there's no point in working it out more completely.

_ /\ _

If it HAD to be changed the most I'd agree with is something like the Half Your Age Plus Seven Rounded Up rule with the additional caveat that both parties have to actually be capable of arousal to avoid young teens getting it on with near peers who are still prepubescent.

Plus it avoids abuse prone age gaps in adult relationships too. Someone hitting 40 probably shouldn't be allowed to rob the cradle at college bars.

We have to draw the age of consent somewhere, and better err on the side of "slightly older than it needs to be".

The purpose of hard age limits isn't just to restrict the autonomy of minors.

It's also to allow adults to know where they stand, with respect to the law, and eliminate ambiguities that could be used for selective enforcement.

As an adult, I can't decide whether to sell alcohol to a minor, or have sex with a minor, etc. based on some concept of "real world maturity". And if you give prosecutors flexibility in charging adults with crimes based on some mushy concept of maturity, you can probably guess who will get the shaft: poor folks, and black & brown & red folks.

I don't know that hard age limits are "fair" to minors, I suppose I would probably agree that they are not. But we have to consider what is fair to the person who might be accused of a crime.

There are some things that aren't all or nothing the day someone turns 18 in many jurisdictions, and more of that kind of thinking would probably be wise. Some examples:

• Driver's licenses often have restrictions when people first start driving, such as limits on time of day or number of passengers
• In many jurisdictions, consensual sex between a young adult and a minor some small number of years younger (three, for example) is not criminal
• In many jurisdictions, teenagers under 18 are allowed to work, but there are stricter rules about working hours and hazardous conditions than for adults
• In many jurisdictions, school is mandatory for children, but becomes optional before the age of 18
• Minors in some jurisdictions may petition a court to be emancipated from their guardians and be treated as legal adults before they're 18 if they can demonstrate self-sufficiency

That's largely independent of conditions in schools being unfair to students or not especially conducive to learning.

I think easier access to emancipation would be incredible, when I was a teen in a bad situation I didn't even know it was an option.

Perhaps the frontal lobes aren't developed, but is that really a reasonable argument against freedom of action? Are we saying people who have less intelligence should not be given freedom? Why is the age 18 instead of 25? I think that's a bad argument.

well, we for sure know one of the worst ways and the result of that: the last 25 years of the US public school system

the systematic identification and obliteration of individuality and agency? the US public school system sees that as something to be immediately sought out, shunned, punished, and destroyed at all costs.

see this ongoing ordeal

follow-up link

Peter pan laws help with slight age gaps, beyond that, in till the frontal lobe is more developed it would be irresponsible to allow children to do as they please it would also be cruel as some adults pray on children as they are much easier to manipulate.

Also the frontal lobe often isn't fully developed till the age of 25. Laws must be concrete hense 18 being the hard limit in some country's otherwise all we'd hear about is how 'she/he acted so much more mature"

I personally am thankful for these laws as I come from an abusive childhood and while the law didn't fix my problems I know that it did end those problems. Children lack a voice