Ageism/adultism just keeps on creeping up the age scale, it seems. So many ageist jerks insist that even 18-24 year olds are somehow "not real adults" or at least not as mature as previous generations were at that age, because reasons, and thus somehow not deserving of full adult rights, also because reasons. Or something. They often appeal to junk cargo-cult neuroscience to back up their specious arguments that are quite heavy on feelings but light on facts.
So here is a modest proposal for you ageist bigots. If you insist on treating 18-24 year olds as second-class citizens, and people under 18 as not even citizens, you need to be consistent since you really can't have it both ways. Go ahead, in every way. Raise the age of majority, the age to join the military, and the age to be tried and punished as an adult to 25, full stop. You read that right, especially that last bit. (Rampage time!) But wait, there's more. If 18-24 year olds are somehow not really adults in your view, then you should also raise the age of consent for sex to 25 as well. Yes, really. After all, adults should really not be having sex with those whom they consider to be non-adults, because we all know what that is called, and it isn't anything good. So go ahead and raise it then--what's stopping you? "Under 25 gets you 25 to life." But truly nothing says adulto-patriarchal dominance like a little droit du seigneur, right ageists?
The fact that the age of consent for sex (16 in most states, 17 or 18 in a few) is lower than age of majority (18), let alone the drinking age (21) and car rental age (25), really speaks volumes as to the rank hypocrisy of the ageists who wrote these laws. Meanwhile, many states don't even have close-in-age exemptions, so many of the young people such laws are supposed to protect get caught in the dragnet and go to prison or at least have to register as sex offenders for life for having otherwise consensual sex with each other (i.e. an 18 year old and a 16 year old, or even a 16 year old and a 15 year old in some states). And under federal law, even sending nudes of oneself can land a young person under 18 in adult prison for "child pornography"--of oneself. But a 30 or 40 year old can legally have sex with someone who is not allowed to drink alcohol, vote, get a credit card, enter contracts, be out after curfew, or even see an R-rated movie in some states. Let that sink in for a moment.
Or we could, you know, just accept and treat 18-24 year olds as the full adults that they are. In every way, full stop. And while there is currently a snowball's chance in hell of lowering the general age of majority below 18 in the near term, we should at least lower the voting age to 16, abolish curfews, refrain from raising any other age limits (such as the driving age) to 18, and also make the emancipation process much easier for people under 18 as well.
For the record, Twenty-One Debunked does not take a firm position on what the exact age of consent for sex should be, as the issue is far too fraught, nuanced, and beyond the scope of our organization. But we do not think it should be abolished or drastically lowered from current levels (in the 16-18 range) as that would do far more harm than good overall. Nor do we really think it should be raised any higher than 18. But we do think there needs to be a close-in-age exemption (when one OR both partners is below the age limit) of four or even five years, and there is really no problem with reasonable age of consent laws that cannot be solved by such exemptions to these laws.
One good article about age of consent issues can be found here, written by the ever-insightful Thomas Macaulay Miller of Yes Means Yes. As he notes, it really should not be seen as a particularly radical position that a 40 year old should not be having sex with a 13 year old, period, no matter how much the younger person appears to "invite" such conduct. Sometimes we really need a hard, bright line even if it seems a bit arbitrary. At the same time, not having a close-in-age exemption ends up hurting the very same young people that such laws are supposed to protect.
Food for thought.
The fact that the age of consent for sex (16 in most states, 17 or 18 in a few) is lower than age of majority (18), let alone the drinking age (21) and car rental age (25), really speaks volumes as to the rank hypocrisy of the ageists who wrote these laws. Meanwhile, many states don't even have close-in-age exemptions, so many of the young people such laws are supposed to protect get caught in the dragnet and go to prison or at least have to register as sex offenders for life for having otherwise consensual sex with each other (i.e. an 18 year old and a 16 year old, or even a 16 year old and a 15 year old in some states). And under federal law, even sending nudes of oneself can land a young person under 18 in adult prison for "child pornography"--of oneself. But a 30 or 40 year old can legally have sex with someone who is not allowed to drink alcohol, vote, get a credit card, enter contracts, be out after curfew, or even see an R-rated movie in some states. Let that sink in for a moment.
Or we could, you know, just accept and treat 18-24 year olds as the full adults that they are. In every way, full stop. And while there is currently a snowball's chance in hell of lowering the general age of majority below 18 in the near term, we should at least lower the voting age to 16, abolish curfews, refrain from raising any other age limits (such as the driving age) to 18, and also make the emancipation process much easier for people under 18 as well.
For the record, Twenty-One Debunked does not take a firm position on what the exact age of consent for sex should be, as the issue is far too fraught, nuanced, and beyond the scope of our organization. But we do not think it should be abolished or drastically lowered from current levels (in the 16-18 range) as that would do far more harm than good overall. Nor do we really think it should be raised any higher than 18. But we do think there needs to be a close-in-age exemption (when one OR both partners is below the age limit) of four or even five years, and there is really no problem with reasonable age of consent laws that cannot be solved by such exemptions to these laws.
One good article about age of consent issues can be found here, written by the ever-insightful Thomas Macaulay Miller of Yes Means Yes. As he notes, it really should not be seen as a particularly radical position that a 40 year old should not be having sex with a 13 year old, period, no matter how much the younger person appears to "invite" such conduct. Sometimes we really need a hard, bright line even if it seems a bit arbitrary. At the same time, not having a close-in-age exemption ends up hurting the very same young people that such laws are supposed to protect.
Food for thought.
The tendency of judging people who are 18-24 years old as less than adults is disturbing and it could only lead to further tolitharianism against young adults. I agree that older people should see how nonsensical it is for an age of majority to be 25. However, such a proposal shouldn't be proposed, even sarcaalstically because such a proposal could actually become law some day. There'a far too much ageism, young people are the most oppressed group in the country. Their rights need to be protected against ageism before their rights can be expanded.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, slopes are much, much slipperier than they appear.
ReplyDelete