The Power of Dissent

A lot is made of consent. Society uses it as a golden criterion upon which to judge an individual as capable or incapable of participating in certain activities if they have not reached the line in the sand. Youth Rights advocates and CLs argue on behalf of it to almost religious extents. And yet, a child's consent is only half of the equation. The argument for maintaining the separation of a child from any activity is usually done on the basis that a child is not mature enough to participate in the activity. The child may consent to an activity all they want, but it has been denied on the basis that the child is not considered mature enough to give that consent. In the eyes of the law, consent is a mature behavior, reserved only for those in the so-called full maturation of their faculties.

The reason a child isn't considered mature enough to even make a stab at certain activities is that their knowledge of the consequences of consent is impaired by their age. In reality the number of times the earth has revolved around the sun during one's lifetime is in no way correlated with one's ability to comprehend. Experience is that which informs our judgments, not our age. Experience is dependent on internal biological and external social circumstances, it is not dependent on the movement of the planet, and certainly not dependent on the Gregorian calendar. If a child is incapable of consenting to an activity, it is because information about the possible consequences of the action has been kept from them by adults who, on their own, have decided that they are not capable of handling the information. Children's vulnerability to the effects of consent is culturally constructed. In this age of information, it is easier than ever for children to "inform" themselves about any topic or subject to a satisfactory degree.

As consent is something normally considered to be "given" to kids, it really has nothing to do with their ability to perform the action, and almost everything to do with the adult's willingness to extend them the authorization. It is often argued that because of this, if children were given certain rights (like the right to consent) that they would be totally free to exploit these rights to their own detriment and the downfall of society. For instance, how often do you hear that if we were to give children the right to consent to sex, that they would all suddenly turn into miniature prostitutes capable of picking up johns on the street? Or that if adults give them the right to drink, all the 5 year olds are going to go out and buy out the liquor stores, hop in their cars (that they have the right to drive) to go pick up prostitutes (that they have the right to have sex with) and max out credit cards (that they have the right to own)--or some other rather fanciful scenario? Are we supposed to take paranoid extremist arguments like this seriously?

What is often forgotten is that extending consent to children doesn't negate anybody's right to dissent to a child's request. In the above scenario, having the right to drive at 5 years old, for instance, wouldn't negate any registry of motor vehicles' right from denying a 5 year old's application because they failed the written test as required of anybody applying for a learner's permit (in the United States at least), or (seeing as a child doesn't have the resources to buy their own car) the parent's denial to let them drive the family car. Likewise, having the right to purchase alcohol at 5 years old wouldn't mean children would even have the mobility or the monetary resources to go "buy out" the store as predicted--the parent still has ability to dissent the child's request if the child isn't capable of buying the product themselves. Likewise, having the right to have sex at 5 years old wouldn't negate anybody's right deny the child's request.

Likewise, having the right to own a credit card doesn't negate a vender's right to create juvenile accounts specifically for children with drastically reduced spending limits or to just deny it to children all together (seeing as children would be horrible credit risks) ...nor the parent's ability to dissent to the child's ability to obtain one. So if children are not able to get a learner's permit to drive a car, or the resources to purchase alcohol themselves, or the attention of an adult for sexual favors (or the money resources in order to prostitute to begin with), or the ability to spend thousands from their credit accounts in single sittings, then we won't have 5 year olds maxing out un-payable credit amounts to drink and drive while picking up hookers.

What a child is incapable of doing is superfluous to keep them from doing. Having a right does not guarantee ability to exercise the right, nor does it mandate that it be utilized. That's true for anybody.

Dissent is a check to the power of consent. By recognizing a child's ability to make informed consent, we also extend them the right of dissent--the right to dissent unwanted sexual attention for instance--and the right of society to dissent to their requests. A child is currently incapable of dissenting to an adult's decisions over their life, whether those decisions are beneficial or harmful, simply because every decision they are faced with implies a legal definition of an automatic dissent or a decline. Because a child is incapable of consenting to actions they enjoy or are in need of, they are incapable of dissenting to actions that may be harmful or exploitative. Children aren't exploited because they consent, they are exploited when they dissent and that dissent isn't recognized. Society doesn't recognize a child's dissent, and thus, they are exploited. The big fish eat the small fish.