MAP Forum

Why is "children" often considered interchangeable with "minors"? From a non-parental context, children are people below the age of puberty, while minors are people under the age of majority.

All children are minors but not all minors are children.

Child refers only to people under the age of puberty, at least traditionally and in the past there was an obvious clear differance between a child and an adolescent and attraction towards adolescence was not treated with the same stigma or seen on the same level as actual pedophilia.

However in recent decades, society has conflated minor and child and people now often incorrectly and ignorantly use child as a synonym for minor.

An adolescent is developmentally distinct from a child. Too many people are brainwashed to believe that a post-pubescent 17 year old is a child like a 7 year old that magically transforms into a fully grown adult on their 18th birthdays just because of an arbitrary legal status. Scientifically, people cease to be children through puberty and adolescence ends when one is fully developed in all ways.

It really annoys me when i see people referring to teenagers as children.

The fact is that "childhood" as a period of life has been growing in length due to the complexification of life and the associated requirements of education, in addition to the ageing of society implying that ever-older decision-makers are more prone to infantilizing those much younger than them. What is a "child" has become detached from biological and developmental realities and has become defined by social status, obligations, and "rights".

The primary driver of this change has been the institution of compulsory schooling: thus, a "child" is redefined as a young human who is obligated to attend school before a certain age. This also instituted a clear separation between the "world of children" and the "world of adults", reducing considerably the opportunities for unfettered interactions between children and adults outside of their family.

According to that new definition, there is no longer any real difference between a prepubescent child (attending elementary school) and a teenager (attending high school). A 17-year-old high school senior is still a "child" due to the fact that he or she hasn't entered the "adult world".

Of course, this is an artificial and arbitrary distinction. However, by virtue of the way society constructs itself, this new concept of the "child" has become deeply embedded in the social imaginary.

Yeah I fucking hate this.

“Pubescent children” is an oxymoron. Childhood ends (basically) when puberty begins.

Fragment wrote: Thu Apr 10, 2025 3:01 am “Pubescent children” is an oxymoron. Childhood ends (basically) when puberty begins.

A major issue with that definition is the fairly common occurrence of precocious puberty, which can occur in children as young as 5 or 6. My mother started puberty at 8, which is common in CSA victims. Are we to say they become "adults" at that age? Such cases constitute a strong argument in favour of a definition of "adulthood" that's instead grounded in psychoemotional development, at least insofar as the definition is relevant to our laws and social institutions (medical issues are a different matter).

Not to mention that girls have in recent decades been going through puberty earlier in developed countries. Should we be saying they stop being children sooner?

I don't support an adult-child binary model in general. I support a ternary spectrum model where child-adolescent-adult are seen as existing on a continuum, but that there are three reasonably clear phases within that continuum. Puberty is the typical market of adolescence, but not the only one. Most western societies have already decided that at the age of 12 you finish elementary education and start secondary education. Your core knowledge base is assumed to have properly developed. That's another reason. According to Piaget's 4 stage model, 12 year olds have reached the Formal Operational Stage (the highest). That's another reason.

I think that adolescents have all the mental capabilities of adults. They just lack experience and knowledge.

Fragment wrote: Thu Apr 10, 2025 4:07 am I don't support an adult-child binary model in general. I support a ternary spectrum model where child-adolescent-adult are seen as existing on a continuum, but that there are three reasonably clear phases within that continuum. Puberty is the typical market of adolescence, but not the only one. Most western societies have already decided that at the age of 12 you finish elementary education and start secondary education. Your core knowledge base is assumed to have properly developed. That's another reason. According to Piaget's 4 stage model, 12 year olds have reached the Formal Operational Stage (the highest). That's another reason.

I think that adolescents have all the mental capabilities of adults. They just lack experience and knowledge.

I agree that a three-stage model is more representative of reality, although I still don't think puberty is an adequate marker for the transition from childhood to adolescence. Nor do I agree that the end of elementary school is a good marker, if only because I'm mostly anti-school (that's something for a proper essay). I do like Piaget's model, and developmental psychology in general (there are some better contemporary models, I'll have to find them again). Those are the theories and frameworks I believe are actually relevant for our laws and institutions.

And yes, I also agree that adolescents have all the mental faculties of adults. I was already effectively acting as a substitute father to my two sisters at age 10, and I started "voting" (through my mother) at 11.

In my opinion, it's about controlling them and taking away their freedoms.

Sadly, I think many people want to limit the freedoms of others just for the pleasure of it. To feel superior, to have power over them.

In our society, being a child is basically characterized by having almost no freedoms. A child can't do anything; they have to obey adults. They can only follow orders and, if anything, play, but under the supervision of an adult who ensures that they play within very strict limits.

So, to control and deprive the greatest number of people of their freedoms, there must be as many children as possible. Therefore, it's advisable to turn teenagers into children. Plus, aside from controlling and limiting the lives of children, you can also control and limit the lives of adults to "protect children"... so it's a double win! I think this is the reason, even though people look for excuses. I think many people who think this way probably aren't even aware of it; they're deluding themselves into not recognizing that all they're seeking is to take away others' freedoms.

But the truth comes out when it comes to punishment. Look at the age of criminal responsibility in any country, or the comments in any news story about teenagers committing crimes (especially if they're serious). "They know exactly what they're doing," "they're not children anymore," "if they behave like adults, let them be judged like adults"... When it comes to locking them up in a cell, suddenly, everyone understands that teenagers aren't children. Because that's the only context in which treating them like children wouldn't serve to take away their freedoms, and what they want is to take away freedoms.

aeterna91 wrote: Sat Apr 12, 2025 6:57 pm In my opinion, it's about controlling them and taking away their freedoms.

Sadly, I think many people want to limit the freedoms of others just for the pleasure of it. To feel superior, to have power over them.

You make many excellent points. I find especially compelling the way you seamlessly integrate into your argument how authoritarian excesses are enabled by the excuse of "protecting children", and how people generally react to teenage criminals as if they were already very much adults.

However, I'm always wary of ascribing complex social phenomena to a single cause. I believe your explanation glosses over the underlying societal changes that made possible such a far-reaching erosion of youths' freedoms, as stated in my first post in this thread.

I'd also add that the motivations for limiting the freedoms of children aren't purely a love of power, they also involve a fear of what freedom entails. The truest of all freedoms is that of the mind, but having free thoughts will nigh inevitably lead to doubting one's core beliefs. The greatest fear of the antis regarding sexuality is that their children will end up questioning their values and their dreams... that they'll desire a different way of life, a different society, a different world. For people who are afraid of change and novelty, especially those that rely on religious faith for their happiness, that's a terrifying prospect.

aeterna91 wrote: Sat Apr 12, 2025 6:57 pm In our society, being a child is basically characterized by having almost no freedoms. A child can't do anything; they have to obey adults. They can only follow orders and, if anything, play, but under the supervision of an adult who ensures that they play within very strict limits.

Exactly. The more I think about AMSC, the more I'm led to think that the crux of the issue lies in the way "children" (including teenagers in this definition) are raised, and incidentally how children and adults interact. The fact that young people are taught to "respect and obey" adults, are forced to attend school and follow its often absurd rules, and live in a "world" that is quite separate from that of adults, are the fundamental causes of the problematic nature of AMSC. No matter how much we educate children regarding sexuality, relationships, and consent, it will never suffice without a more general transformation.

As long as "children" are expected to be "obedient" on a societal level, including toward their parents, AMSC will remain fundamentally problematic to at least some extent. In fact, it may well be that the institution of school as we know it today is incompatible with a genuinely sexually liberated world. Young people of all ages, but especially adolescents, ought to have a lot more opportunities for unfettered, de-institutionalized interactions with adults outside of their family. Adults ought to treat young people of all ages as autonomous beings, and act toward them with a presumption of competence rather than of incompetence. Most importantly, adults ought to teach young people, especially adolescents, that it's appropriate to disobey them, and that they should think freely and act autonomously.

WavesInEternity wrote: Thu Apr 10, 2025 4:43 amNor do I agree that the end of elementary school is a good marker, if only because I'm mostly anti-school (that's something for a proper essay).

I, for one, would love to read such an essay.

I hate it so much frl like, yeah I'm the children of my parents but if someone calls me a children or a kid I'm like « fuck off I'm not 10 ! I'm a teen » bruh I have a job and a scooter so go play in the traffic