Why do some activities have different minimum ages?
Why do some activities have different minimum ages?
For instance: age of sexual consent, age for legally drinking alcohol, age for driving, age for voting, age for participating in pornography
Depending on the place, each of those requires a different minimum age. Why is that? Are some activities "more adult" than others? Using USA as an example: legal drinking age is 21, legal driving age is 16, age of consent varies between 16-18.
Not asking about different countries/states having different ages, but any single place having different ages for different adult activities
These sorts of decisions are the result of specific historic conflicts, and cannot really be understood without knowing about these conflicts. They aren't derived from first principles.
For instance, the US voting age was only lowered to 18 in 1971, partly in response to the Vietnam-War-era objection that 18-year-old men were being drafted to go kill or die overseas, but could not vote.
The idea that virtually nothing in life is actually derived from first principles, and is instead derived from sometimes very random history, would probably deserve to go near the top of any FAQ for life. Might be one of the most common misconceptions in the entire world, the idea that somehow, some way, someone had to have created things the way they are intentionally, for specific reasons.
Instead of things just working out this way because of a handful of barely-related decisions made by basically random people here and there through history, and everyone else just going along with it because they mainly just care about their own lives, who they're dating/marrying, what job they have and what's for dinner tonight, far more than they care about the voting age.
Our world is far more haphazard than planned, overall.
Yep. But also, fake first-principles explanations are commonly offered when people ask "Why is the rule thus-and-so?"
"Why can't I vote yet? (or: marry, buy a gun, etc.)?"
"You're not old enough."
"Why not?"
"Because 18-year-olds are just more mature than 15-year-olds."
"Why? Who says?"
"Um. The Constitution!"
"But it used to say something different."
"Yep. We know better now."
"Says who?"
"Democracy!"The 15-year-old correctly assesses that these are not real explanations, but rather rationalizations of a rule that was decided not from first principles, but rather through people in history arguing over it, sometimes protesting or even fighting, and changing the rules.
That thought hadn't crossed my mind, sounds like it's definitely worth taking a look, which should also give more glimpses about lawmaking in different countries
It's all arbitrary and most of it is based on nothing but cultural assumptions. Almost everything people think they know about teenagers, even the existence of "teenagers" as a group, can be traced to culture or marketing far more concretely than anything inherent or biological.
As others have said, there are no solid principles backing practically any of this. It's all junk science and looking for confirmation of assumptions.
I'd imagine history has a huge amount to do with this.
In Britain, the age of consent is 16. The age at which you can get married is also 16.
It's also illegal to sell alcohol to children under 18 (unless alongside a meal, with an adult accompanying them, in which case 16). It's not actually illegal to drink alcohol underage, and it's not uncommon in the slightest for parents to allow their kids to try their drinks at any age.
Britain is an old place though, so I guess things are this way because of centuries, possibly millennia of inertia.
The US is a young country, and as a result the laws are far most maliable - particularly by lobbyists. Puritans push the age limit of 'sinful' things up, capitalists keep the age limit of indulgences low.
as a result the laws are far most maliable
*malleable 😉
In addition to vague cultural expectations, the country's surrounding legalities, daily necessities and safety nets play a role.
E.g. in Norway, we have functional public transport and easy access by foot or bike to shops. Also our roads are - by standards of countries not consisting of fjords separated by mountains - extremely narrow, winding, and wildly varying. So we both need some more maturity in drivers, and people well into adult age can and do manage perfectly fine without cars. Our age limit is 18.
In the US, the roads are generally wider and even, buses "are for poor people", plus there are places you can't realistically even get to without a car, so it is both safer and more necessary with an age limit of 16.
Similarly for age of consent vs legalities around abortion, ease of access to prevention, and sexual education. In countries with good sex ed and unproblematic access to prevention, the age of consent tends to work well when lower.
I'd also like to add that there are areas in the US that simply don't have public transportation reasonably available.
Its about 35 minutes to drive into work. I've certainly had longer commutes. That being said, the nearest bus stop would be a 30 minute drive and its not like it has a well lit secure parking lot... I would have to park on the curb in front of someone's residence in an area that has historically had issues with poverty and crime, and not just property crime, violent crime as well. I worked in that area when I was younger, and I've had enough guns drawn on me that it doesn't seem to phase me anymore, at least in that context. They want the take from the till of a dollar store, they don't wanna kill someone.
Its just not reasonable to think public transportation is a valid option in the US. Its not necessarily about public transport being for the "poors," it just simply isn't accessible for some.
I'm guessing it's because different parts of us mature at different rates. Brain development continues into the early twenties, so mind-altering substances are generally regulated with that in mind. Physical maturity ends in the late teens, so things like military service eligibility start there. Other activities are based on more abstract measures like responsibility, emotional stability, etc.
The idea is that by those ages most people should be capable of doing those tasks responsibly. Not everyone is responsible enough to drive at 16, but most are.
To be fair, most first world countries seem to have settled on 18 for all of this. I think the wrong assumption is that the age limits are related to each-other, while they've been brought into law at different points in history and there hasn't been a need to change them. There are also the environmental factors, such as the driving age in the USA probably being lower as a consequence of a car-centric culture.
Of course the first example would be that. No, you can't screw kids. Internalize that as fact.
They were not questioning the fact that these limits exist though.
Nobody was saying they wanted to screw kids, sounds like you're projecting.
That is a fact. But they can screw each other, if they're old enough. But they'r still classified as kids. "Adolescent kid" is a subjective term, and I would even suggest raising the age higher than 16: until they're legally adults.
I think the question is coming from a "why is it different in different countries" point of view.
I'm not going to Google it and put myself on a watch list, but I think I recall hearing some back-asswards country where the age of "consent" was 14, or some even lower. Culturally that doesn't make any sense to me - but then i agree with you that kids shouldn't be screwer nor screwee.
The other ages are interesting too - in the UK we wait for our teens to grow up a bit before putting them behind the wheel of a car. The driving age is 18 - and forget even getting affordable insurance until you're 25 anyway.