theunitofcaring:

I think we probably shouldn’t primarily be using a discrete legal category of ‘adult’, and should try to transfer each right to people at the point where the coercion made possible by denying them that right is worse than the harm they can do with it. So the voting age should be a lot younger, the driving age probably shouldn’t be, teenagers should be allowed to sign a lease or check into a hotel, you should absolutely never get charged with sex crimes for taking naked pictures of yourself. 

And then in other areas we’re wading into some serious competing access needs. I’m one of those kids who really benefitted from having to interact with zero sexual content until I was 18, and I actually found sex-ed in middle school and high school mildly traumatic because it was giving me information about sex which I did not want to know and wasn’t allowed to opt out of knowing. But sex ed is still really important. I suspect lots of rights-and-access-for-teenagers runs into stuff like that, where some kids genuinely do benefit from being prohibited because they wouldn’t be good at opting out on their own, while other kids really need it. I don’t know exactly how to navigate those. I suspect in general we’re currently erring too far on the paternalistic side.

Here in Ontario, we have a little more progress towards having a staggered adulthood, though I’m sure we have a long ways to go and some of the unlocks might not be in the right places.

That one news story that was all over the place a few years ago, a 17-year-old who tried to refuse cancer treatment and the hospital forced her to take it anyway, is *extra* horrifying if you live in a jurisdiction where the age of medical consent is 16.

(it is a little weird that you can legally consent to *prescription* mind-altering drugs three years before you can consent to *recreational* mind-altering drugs†, though I am aware there exist ethical frameworks in which that makes sense)

I’m not very clear on what exactly legally happens at 17, but I do know my 17th birthday was when our bank started bugging me to take control of the investments my father held on my behalf. (I was, however, allowed to keep my youth bank account until my *19th* birthday (at which point it was transmuted into an adult chequing account).)

(Other banking note: when I first signed up for that youth account at 13, I was immediately offered a debit card, albeit with a pretty low withdrawal limit (a maximum of $100 in purchases and $20 in ATM withdrawals per day, IIRC). I just went and looked at the fine print on youth accounts, and there is no mention of a minimum age for debit cards. It seems doubtful that they would actually give a debit card to, say, a five-year-old if the parents said no, and presumably there’s *some* age before which you need parental permission and after which you don’t. (my parents said yes to the card at 13, so I did not test it then)

The youth account I had at an American bank from age ~6 – 13 did not give me a debit card, though now I wonder if they would have if I had thought to request one and my parents had signed off on it.)

I’d never really thought about it before, but I find that the idea of having a minimum age to check into a hotel feels intuitively nonsensical when I consider it. (I mean, we probably do have one, and I never tried to test it, and maybe there’s some non-obvious reason why it’s a good idea, but) My brain just goes “We serve unattended children at work all the time; why should a hotel clerk respond differently from a fast-food maker? If you’re capable of showing up, communicating your request for purchase, and giving the cashier enough money, and you would be legally allowed to have the thing if somebody else had gifted it to you, then you are old enough to buy the thing.”

P.S. Okay, I went and Googled it and apparently hotel rooms are a little like sex, in that it’s kind of 16 and kind of 18 depending mostly on who you can talk into what. [http://hotelassociation.ca/pdf/Renting%20Hotel%20Rooms%20to%20Minors.pdf] Note, however, that it appears to be *much* harder for a 16-year-old to talk the higher-ups into letting them have a hotel room than into letting them have a sexual partner. A 16-year-old is assumed capable of consenting to sex unless somebody can come up with a good enough reason why not [http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/faq-age-of-consent-law-canada-1.3851507], and assumed incapable of consenting to a hotel room unless they can come up with a good enough reason why. (and a 14- or even 12-year-old can sometimes be allowed to have sex under the right circumstances, and never allowed to get a hotel room)

(How much you want to bet that nobody involved in deciding what any of the ages in the above paragraph should be directly compared the two acts? made any attempt to ensure we didn’t end up with stricter standards for a smaller deal?)

—

†Alcohol, tobacco, and–soon–marijuana [https://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/pm-trudeau-says-cannabis-will-be-legal-in-canada-on-oct-17-1.3981228] are all at age 19 in Ontario.

---

Tags:

#reblogged from a person who’d reblogged it to avoid the first-degree-ask bug #reply via reblog #our home and cherished land #my childhood #medical abuse mention #nsfw text?

---

{{next post in sequence}}