Where is the limit set (if it is set at all)?

[Not Forever]

I’ve only been on the forum for a short time, but I’ve formed some ideas about the environment and I think I share a lot of the frustration regarding this phobia—whether genuine or performative—that surrounds these issues.

However, I haven’t seen a post that explicitly talks about limits; the discussion is about sexual liberalization and flexibility from this perspective, but that’s not the only right an adult has with respect to a minor.

One could talk about the issue of soft drugs, the transgender issue, and alcohol. (I find the latter the most extreme of the three, as it causes permanent harm and there is no context—except to liven up social interactions—in which its use is “justified.”) Or, furthermore, should a minor have the right to assisted suicide?

Of course, these discussions are only relevant if you believe these things should be legal for adults; if you think they should always be illegal, then there is no disparity in treatment.

So I want to ask: Do you draw a line? And if you do, where exactly?
Most of the comments I read are about lightening the weight given to sex, and I agree with that, but somehow it seems to me that this is a way of removing it from the discussion of youth rights. The young person isn’t being given an additional right; sex is being removed as an issue.

I should warn you that my English is terrible, as I’m using a translator, so some points might sound odd. I also hope I posted in the right section; I was tempted to put it in off-topic.

As for my position, I would like to consider adolescents as adults, capable of judgment and self-determination. The state should, by virtue of their youth, accustom them to the exercise of their rights and provide safeguards while they learn to manage those rights, so that by the time they reach working age they are fully autonomous. A sort of adaptation period, in other words.

And I believe this should be done in the most “natural” way possible; not through predetermined ages but through individual action. That’s why I like to think of entering the workforce as the line of demarcation, since from that moment on one can potentially be considered independent from one’s family and social context.

My position might be a bit extreme, but I like to try to approach these issues in a consistent way: If it applies to one thing, it should apply to everything. Or at least follow a coherent line of thought without obvious exceptions.

[Bookshelf]

To put it plainly, I think if something is legal for adults, then it should be legal for children too. Exactly what is illegal for everyone can be discussed, but at that point for me it just becomes looking at it by its own standards and applying it to all ages regardless.

Most things that you'd typically ban children from doing because they're underdeveloped or inexperienced is already something that adults are banned from doing if they don't meet certain criteria (e.g., driving— if an adult fails a driving test, they cannot legally drive; if a child is too physically small to drive, they will similarly not be able to pass a test and therefore cannot legally drive). Everything we expect to impose reasonable limits on should disregard age and consider people's qualities on an individual, case by case basis.

[Curson]

I’ve only been on the forum for a short time, but I’ve formed some ideas about the environment and I think I share a lot of the frustration regarding this phobia—whether genuine or performative—that surrounds these issues.

However, I haven’t seen a post that explicitly talks about limits; the discussion is about sexual liberalization and flexibility from this perspective, but that’s not the only right an adult has with respect to a minor.

One could talk about the issue of soft drugs, the transgender issue, and alcohol. (I find the latter the most extreme of the three, as it causes permanent harm and there is no context—except to liven up social interactions—in which its use is “justified.”) Or, furthermore, should a minor have the right to assisted suicide?

Of course, these discussions are only relevant if you believe these things should be legal for adults; if you think they should always be illegal, then there is no disparity in treatment.

So I want to ask: Do you draw a line? And if you do, where exactly?
Most of the comments I read are about lightening the weight given to sex, and I agree with that, but somehow it seems to me that this is a way of removing it from the discussion of youth rights. The young person isn’t being given an additional right; sex is being removed as an issue.

I should warn you that my English is terrible, as I’m using a translator, so some points might sound odd. I also hope I posted in the right section; I was tempted to put it in off-topic.

As for my position, I would like to consider adolescents as adults, capable of judgment and self-determination. The state should, by virtue of their youth, accustom them to the exercise of their rights and provide safeguards while they learn to manage those rights, so that by the time they reach working age they are fully autonomous. A sort of adaptation period, in other words.

And I believe this should be done in the most “natural” way possible; not through predetermined ages but through individual action. That’s why I like to think of entering the workforce as the line of demarcation, since from that moment on one can potentially be considered independent from one’s family and social context.

My position might be a bit extreme, but I like to try to approach these issues in a consistent way: If it applies to one thing, it should apply to everything. Or at least follow a coherent line of thought without obvious exceptions.

Honestly, I think this is right. But I would say that if we were to go back and look at children and adolescents that lied about their ages, they should just be considered emancipated adults and reap the consequences. I feel like after puberty is a good line to draw it at.

Age really shouldn't be a determining factor in things like sexual consent, but anything involving sexual assault or rape should have weight equally at any age as a crime is a crime, and should be taken seriously.

[Not Forever]

Age really shouldn't be a determining factor in things like sexual consent, but anything involving sexual assault or rape should have weight equally at any age as a crime is a crime, and should be taken seriously.

I admit that I have overlooked the punitive aspect, but since I myself don’t have very clear ideas on the matter, I tend to be more libertarian when it comes to rights and less so when it comes to duties.
But I think my problem does not lie in punishment itself, but rather in the poor opinion I usually have of prisons. If the prison system were generally better—rehabilitative in nature rather than a form of sadistic punishment—then I would agree with imprisonment at a young age, with a lighter approach.

But this negative view might just be my own perception: I don’t know what juvenile detention is like, and I’ve never been to prison myself — I only know that in my country they are overcrowded.

[Curson]

Another thing to be explored is lowering the age of majority which in turn also drives the age of consent. How or if this is possible, or what it may look like. I'm not really sure. But an example that has been cited in the past have been with Anti-Vietnam protestors lowering the age of majority from 21 to 18.