The principle of age-appropriateness is widespread throughout government policy and nongovernment practice guidelines, but the exact meaning of the term is rarely defined. It is commonly assumed to mean activities and approaches commensurate with an individual's chronological age. Dress, furnishing, object selection, and the style of interactions, are all supposed to be age-appropriate, according to many policies. However, when this principle is applied to people with profound intellectual and multiple disabilities (PIMD), the author argues that instead of promoting a good life (Reinders, 2002), the principle contributes to practices that compromise individuals' health, well-being, quality of life, and their human rights. The author believes that consistent with the principles of person-centredness, policies and practice guidelines affecting the lives of people with disability should be built on the needs and priorities of the target people, and in doing so the interests of individuals with PIMD should be seen as more important than creating acceptable facades of age-appropriateness. Forcing people to do meaningless activities in the name of passing for "normal" is not dignifying for the person, and can be construed as demeaning and tokenistic. Adults with PIMD should not have their life experiences limited or be "talked to just like babies," but each individual should be supported and spoken to in a way that is meaningful to him or her.