> Maymay asked that discussion of minors at KFA be moved to a different
> thread.
Actually, there's a thread for this issue already because, as I
mentioned, this concern has already been raised before. Have you read
and are familiar with the discussions on this list about this issue
already? If not, I would encourage you to read them. Here is that
thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/kinkforall/browse_thread/thread/abfbaf13d9d11b09
> I very strongly urge you to consult with an attorney, especially if
> you are making decisions concerning this or any future KFA-anywhere
> based on your reading that "age discrimination" means not only that
> minors are allowed to participate but that they must be allowed to
> participate.
I do not think an attorney is required to make a choice about whether
or not people aged under 18 are folks we should consider part of "the
public" and a part of the "all" in KinkForAll.
As I mentioned earlier, I think it is somewhat capricious and very
disingenuous to actively exclude a group of people from an event that
considers accessibility one of its principles.
Philip, would you kindly respond to the questions that I asked in the
aforementioned thread as to why minors should be banned from
participating in KinkForAll events, if that is your position?
Thanks,
-maymay
Blog: http://maybemaimed.com
Community: http://KinkForAll.org
Volunteering: http://ConversioVirium.org/author/maymay
First of all, there is a huge difference between "not banning minors" and "actively recruiting minors".
I am willing to accept the former. I am actually very very uncomfortable with the latter.
Certainly I think a child who is 17 is more than able to choose to come and participate. I do not think KfA is an appropriate venue for a child of 9, however.
In something like KfA, it's up to anyone who comes to decide what's right to present to children.
Are we all responsible for what happens? Is no one responsible except for the presenter?
I definitely think that as an unorganizer I would bear some responsibility. I do not think it's responsible to create an environment where inappropriate things can happen and then just throw up my hands and say "well, it was that person, I just helped make the conference happen, it's not my problem". I cannot promise that inappropriate things *won't* happen, but I can take reasonable precautions.
If we are going to actively recruit minors, I think that necessarily changes the focus of KfA.
I do not think sexual education for minors is exactly the same as sexual education for adults. Not just because of legal and societal implications, but also because there is a power differential between a 30 year old and a 15 year old, which can be abused. That is an issue which *must* be addressed.
Finally, there *are* going to be issues where we disagree. I would like to think that the voices of those who want to participate would be heard, but if the answer to "I don't agree with this direction" is "well you can leave; we don't want you anyway", I'm not sure how we can actually productively proceed. I *want* to be involved, and I *have* been involved in KfA, and I would like to continue to be. It would be nice to hear that people are willing to compromise, but if push comes to shove, yes, I will vote with my feet.
-ironrose
First of all, there is a huge difference between "not banning minors" and "actively recruiting minors". I am willing to accept the former. I am actually very very uncomfortable with the latter.
I am very uncomfortable with the lack of the former (i.e., with the idea that any KinkForAll anywhere at any time will ban minors), and believe that the latter ("actively recruiting minors") is no more appropriate than actively recruiting people of any other distinguishing characteristic, such as race or sexual orientation. I put just as much personal importance on the thread I started on creating a diversity of age[0] as I do on the thread Emma started on creating other forms of diversity.
I strongly disagree with any move to make anything, including any age, a barrier that prevents anyone from choosing for themselves whether or not they want information such as that shared at a KinkForAll event. I especially think that barring such information based on one's own fears is cowardly, disingenuous, and something I hope we can all get over very soon.
In something like KfA, it's up to anyone who comes to decide what's right to present to children.Why is it not okay for the minor, whether aged 17 or 9, be allowed to choose for themselves, or at least have that person's guardian choose? Granted, children in our society are not often granted rights that adults have, which is unfortunate. Who are we to impose even more restrictions on them? Who are we to say that some information is not okay for someone else?
Agreed, again. Do you think that banning anyone of any age, whether 17 or 9 is an exercise of this power you have just identified? In my view, banning information from those who want it—regardless of the information they want or who they happen to be—is abusive. Let's not abuse children more than they already, tragically, often are.
I agree wholeheartedly. I sincerely hope that no one on this thread or who is a part of the KinkForAll community will take the action of trying to eject from the community or bar from entering the community someone who wishes to be here, for any reason whatsoever. Having hashed this over a number of times, I am continuously surprised to see many people challenging the idea that minors have not got the same fundamental human right to seek out and obtain information about anything they want to have some knowledge about, for that is what people are saying if they believe imposing arbitrary limits on who can attend a KinkForAll event is in any way appropriate.
6. Limitations of Use.
A. The User must:
...
7. .not discriminate on the basis of race, color, creed, religion, ancestry, national origin, age, sex, marital status, disability, or sexual orientation.
B. The Activity must not:
...
6. attract large numbers of unsupervised minors.
"I strongly disagree with any move to make anything, including any
age, a barrier that prevents anyone from choosing for themselves
whether or not they want information such as that shared at a
KinkForAll event. I especially think that barring such information
based on one's own fears is cowardly, disingenuous, and something I
hope we can all get over very soon.
Maymay, please allow me to be frank here. This is something I do only
because I feel it necessary. This previous statement is insulting to
the people on this list who have voiced their own fears and concerns
regarding this issue. Dismissing concerns in this way is patronizing,
and does nothing to further a polite, productive conversation.
Regardless of whether you consider these concerns to be legitimate,
the fact remains that others on this list believe their concerns on
this matter to be justified and worth hearing."
In short, inviting minors to KFA events is asking for trouble.
PLEASE talk to a lawyer. PLEASE talk to someone at the NCSF.
You need to protect not only yourself, but everyone who attends.
First: every activity that occurs at KinkForAll *must* be legal. What
this means is that KinkForAll events must fully comply with the
contracts that it signs with a venue *and* it must also comply with
all municipal, state, and federal laws.
Second: the KinkForAll model itself, and the BarCamp model it is based
off of, are designed to remove as many external rules as possible. By
creating new ones, we undermine the success that KinkForAll has had,
will have, or can achieve.
Third: KinkForAll's success to date has been the direct result of
people's risk-taking, whether that be a personal risk to stand up in
front a group of people and give a presentation even if you're
nervous, or because the very idea was founded on a principle of
personal autonomy that countless people in our own communities told us
would never work. Those risks, and risk-taking for forward motion, are
vital. Please don't lose sight of them.
In the rest of this email I will attempt to clarify specific points
that I feel people might be confused about and relate them back to
these three pillars of understanding. I respond to many e-mails here,
so the result is long, but I think worthwhile.
On Oct 9, 2009, at 11:10 PM, Sara Eileen wrote:
> Within that thread I believe it was generally made clear that while
> the model of KinkForAll will never explicitly include an
> exclusionary guideline, individual events may choose to create rules
> that take into consideration their respective venues and local
> communities.
Sara, respectfully, I do not believe it is acceptable for *any*
KinkForAll to impose upon itself or its participants exclusionary
guidelines. This has always been codified in the model's principles
from the get go. I don't consider an event that adopts exclusionary
guidelines to be a KinkFor*All* event.
That does not mean that no one will ever be excluded from a KinkForAll
event, but those exclusions must be based on forces external to
KinkForAll, such as venue contract restrictions, rather than
restrictions imposed by our event itself or the participants
ourselves. For example, what if a KinkForAll were held in a large
nightclub that serves alcoholic beverages? Aside from the fact that I
think this is a poor choice for a venue, it comes with the
understanding that people under the age of 21 (not just minors, by the
way), will not be permitted to enter the premises.
> I would respectfully suggest that perhaps our energy could be spent
> making sure that our participants feel comfortable and are aware of
> their potential audience.
I strongly agree. This is precisely what I have been consistently
trying to do in other threads on this list. See, in particular:
http://groups.google.com/group/kinkforall/browse_thread/thread/f1477c76b54a4ba1#msg_48e4823bb9a5a8f9
where I wrote: "Let's reach out to Planned Parenthood and ask them to
involve their peer educators […] These peer educators sound like great
people, ones that can make other high schoolers feel comfortable."
However, trying to focus on exactly what you rightfully suggest we
focus our energies on is (evidently) a tricky thing. It seems to me
that when people are worried or fearful about the type of people who
*might* participate, they focus on their fear and risk undermining
their stated principles by confusing the practicalities with those
fears. I suppose this is understandable, but it is exceptionally
frustrating to me, so I apologize for those places where my e-mails
have expressed my frustration rather than thoughts on the issues at
hand.
> Acknowledging that KinkForAll may have attendees who are under 18 is
> a necessary conversation. May has made some good points as to what
> can be done in these cases, for example: It is possible *today* for
> a person who wishes to present at a KinkForAll to stand up and say,
> "Are there any minors in the room? If so, please leave, or I will
> not do this presentation."
>
> To be clear, it is *illegal* to distribute or show pornographic
> material to minors. That means that anyone intending to do a KFA
> presentation which contains pornographic material should be made
> aware of the possible presence of minors, and be given the option to
> not present based upon this information.
Sara, a clarifying point needs to be made here.
It is illegal to distribute or show pornographic material in public
*regardless* of the presence of minors. If you want to talk about
practicalities, the fact that the issue of whether or not pornography
should be permitted at a KinkForAll at all has never arisen because,
to the best of my knowledge, no one has ever shown pornographic
material at a KinkForAll. But this whole discussion of pornography is
besides the point anyway.
The fact is, as KinkForAll Washington DC is a public school venue, the
display or creation of pornography is not permitted, just as it is
illegal at every other public venue, *due to United States law*, and
expressly NOT due to someone at KinkForAll making the (arbitrary)
decision about what is or is not pornography or what to allow or ban
at the event itself.
This comes back to my first point: KinkForAll events must comply with
the legal requirements of their venues. KFADC has a *public* venue. It
is the first KFA event where we have a public venue. KFANYC1 and
KFANYC2 were both on private property in a LGBT center. This means
that the legalities of the event were different. In KFA Boston, again,
we were situated in private property owned by Boston University. The
laws were different.
At KFADC, the venue is a federally mandated "public" space. This is
fantastic. It means that public organizations are willing to allow
sexuality events to use public resources. It also means there are
other laws in place. Only *one* such law is the prohibition against
pornographic material. Another such law is that discrimination based
on any characteristic, including age, is not permissible. These are
two separate laws that we must be careful to distinguish, or we risk
spreading exactly the sort of misinformation and confusion regarding
the kinds of personal responsibility that Nikolas is working so hard
to make sure people accurately understand.
Furthermore, it should be noted that there is a legal distinction
between pornographic material and sexual information. If a
presentation can be said to have "artistic" or societal value, then it
can be legally argued to not be porn. I fully intend to prepare my
KFADC presentation, as I have prepared *every* one of my KinkForAll
presentaitons, with a careful consideration towards providing serious,
non-erotic value to the participants who choose to see my talks. In so
doing, I am both doing my
due diligence as a citizen of the United States *and* a KinkForAll
participant.
I hope other participants will hold themselves up to the same
standard, because as you, Sara, and I both verbally emphasized at
KinkForAll NYC 1's opening communications (of which there is
thankfully a recording)[0] KFA is a public space where individuals are
personally responsible for themselves and for being the kind of change
they want to see in the world.
So I don't feel frightened, and I see no reason to ever consider the
exclusion of any group of people from choosing to be present to
witness a talk that I give or slides that I show that contain
artistic, societal, intellectual, or other such non-erotic value. In
fact, restricting that possibility in a public venue is a direct
violation of my first amendment rights.
> Maymay, […] This previous statement is insulting to the people on
> this list who have voiced their own fears and concerns regarding
> this issue.
I apologize for I called people voicing what I believe to be
unjustified fears on this list cowards.
> I believe that the people of this list do not wish to actively
> further the censorship of sexuality education for people under 18.
> However, I also believe that they wish to protect themselves from
> the possibility of *going to jail.*
People can go to jail for many reasons. It is up to individuals in our
society to be aware of the law and not to break it. If you believe you
risk doing something at a KinkForAll that might cause you to be
arrested and go to jail, then it is your responsibility to either 1)
make the choice to do so anyway and take the risk or 2) not to do it.
It is not, actually, a complex issue.
> I agree with you that in principle KinkForAll should not have an age
> limit. In the case of KFA DC, it does not.
Sara, let me be frank this time. It is *crucial* that KinkForAll
*itself,* or anything that purports to be a KinkForAll event, does not
ever adopt an age limit. Period. This is not a matter of individual
events. This is not up for negotiation in my opinion.
If you believe that accessibility and access to KinkForAll events is
important for every human being and if you believe that the principles
*you wrote*[1] for KinkForAll must include these freedoms, then by
sweeping an age limit under the rug for *any* KinkForAll event is
undermining your own principles.
This does not mean that a specific event might, in some as-yet-
hypothetical circumstance, find itself in a position where "banning"
minors by creating an age limit is the only way to make their local
unconference happen. In some situations, that I emphasize we have
never faced, I believe holding an event that might not be open to
everyone who might want to be there is okay. But the choice now and at
all previous events has *never been* "age limit or no event."
KinkForAll itself must always remain available to everyone. This is
why so much attention has been placed on venue choices. This is why we
choose venues with public transit access. This is why we choose venues
that are community-neutral. This is why we make use of public
facilities. This is why it is so important to do everything humanly
possible to avoid a situation wherein we find ourselves with an event
that is actively discouraging for people not-like-us (whoever "us"
happens to be).
Again, it's KinkForAll, isn't it?
> Finally, I would like to include this portion of the venue contract
> for KFA DC[…]
>
>> 6. Limitations of Use.
>> A. The User must:
>> ...
>> 7. .not discriminate on the basis of race, color,
>> creed, religion, ancestry, national origin, age, sex, marital
>> status, disability, or sexual orientation.
>> B. The Activity must not:
>> ...
>> 6. attract large numbers of unsupervised minors.
This is a very important clause in our agreement and I do sincerely
hope that if minors choose to be present, they will bring their
guardians along. Having brought this to our attention, Sara, do you
have any constructive suggestions with regards to how to make it more
likely that large numbers of minors do not go unsupervised? Please, I
invite you and everyone else to actually discuss the issue on the
"Broadening Diversity of Age at KinkForAll" thread, created to
brainstorm exactly this sort of important point.
That thread is here:
http://groups.google.com/group/kinkforall/browse_thread/thread/f1477c76b54a4ba1
On Oct 10, 2009, at 12:12 AM, Paul wrote:
> Thank you Sara, the coward comment stung for me. I've been fighting
> the good fight for the 18-21 crowd for a loooong time.
Paul, I didn't know that you advocated for young adults in the 18-21
age ranges who are also barred from many sexuality events and
informational resources. I'm happy to hear that you do and would love
to see the great work you're doing for these people be extended to
people beyond that age range, including minors as this thread is
discussing, such as the 16 or 17 year olds who don't feel they should
be barred from receiving whatever benefits you might be able to
provide for their lives.
On Oct 10, 2009, at 12:37 AM, Gordon Olmstead-Dean wrote:
> I think that the very simple fact is that an event that includes
> BDSM information or presentations is inappropriate for the vast
> majority of minors.
And yet others feel differently. This highlights my point about how
important it is to be *removing* external rules from KinkForAll
unconferences. Any external rule you imagine will be deemed
inappropriate by some people for some people some of the time.
I am not arguing my point in order to convince anyone that I am right
and they are wrong, I am arguing my point so that we don't lose the
part of KinkForAll that makes it possible for us to disagree on these
issues and yet still have an event that is *available "ForAll".* The
only way we can have an environment in which people actually assume
personal responsibility for what they do is by giving them the
opportunity to choose for themselves what they will do, not by
imposing one set of people's beliefs on others.
It is vitally important not to create arbitrary rules based on
anyone's opinions of what is or is not "appropriate." We have legal
systems in place that do this already. We must* obey them and *should*
use them. It is not appropriate for anyone in this community to tell
anyone else what information is or is not appropriate for them to have
because this community is founded on the principle that information
should be free *for all.*
> It is my personal feeling that exposing most minors to BDSM
> information is inappropriate.
If anyone, like Gordon has stated he thinks, does not believe that
some kind of information should be available to some kind of person,
then they should not themselves make that information available.
However, it is outright censorship to say that because *any number of
people* believes one way about the availability of information that
*any other person* should be disallowed from providing that
information to someone who desires and makes a clear intent (such as
participating in a KinkForAll event) to receive it.
Gordon, if you don't think it is right for people to speak on certain
topics to certain people, then you should not do so. Others will make
that call for themselves, and I challenge you not to support the
imposition of that restriction on someone who thinks differently than
you do.
> I think many presenters would consider that presenting most BDSM
> information to most minors would violate their personal ethics.
>
> it seems that Kinkforall has somewhat of a dual personality, and I
> think that needs to be sorted out before it can go further.
I do not believe that BDSM should be excluded from any events that
wish to provide knowledge about human sexuality to participants who
participate in that event. In my opinion, there is no conflict between
KinkForAll's "personality" and the presence of people who wish to
discuss BDSM.
> The suggestion of "what we can learn from minors" makes perfect
> sense in terms of GLBT, poly, and many other family-friendly
> elements of the Alt-lifestyles community. Whatever social
> conservatives may think, people in Alt-lifestyles have children and
> children are a part of those lifestyles.
>
> It makes no sense whatsoever in terms of Sado-Masochism, and I think
> that is one reason "crossover events" of the sort that the founder
> of Kinkforall seems to have had in mind are uncommon.
I respectfully disagree with you. What makes you believe that you are
unable to learn something from someone younger than you about any
topic, or about a particular one? How does one person's age make them
inherently unable to know something that you do not? What makes minors
who have some interest in BDSM but who are not gay, polyamorous, or
otherwise interested in different "alt-lifestyles" unable to share
what they know and feel than some of the same age but are gay, or poly
and not interested in BDSM?
Many people are not ever of the opinion that GLBT, polyamory, or
indeed any element of "alt-lifestyles" are family friendly. By saying
that these things are appropriate for minors but BDSM is not, you seem
to me to be drawing the same arbitrary line in a different place, a
line that the support of which is antithetical to the principles of
accessibility and free availability of information on which KinkForAll
has been, and I sincerely hope remains, based on.
Respectfully,
-maymay
Blog: http://maybemaimed.com
Community: http://KinkForAll.org
Volunteering: http://ConversioVirium.org/author/maymay
EXTERNAL REFERENCES:
[0] http://maymay.net/maymay/sm/KFANYC-Opening%20Essential%20Communications.mp3
[1] http://kinkforall.pbworks.com/ThePrinciplesOfKinkForAll.2009-08-20-05-25-26
I apologize for I called people voicing what I believe to be
unjustified fears on this list cowards.
> KfA currently is, and has been in all cases in the past, a
> conference run by adults expecting an adult audience.
Actually, the whole concept of KinkForAll has always been that there
is no pre-defined audience. We even warn sponsors of that, as quoted
on the Sponsors page:
> KinkForAll […] never guarantees an audience to anyone, including
> sponsors.
So, while it's true that all KinkForAll unorganizers to date have been
legal adults, and very likely that most KinkForAll participants
expected an exclusively adult audience, that has never been guaranteed
to them. No one has ever been guaranteed that any group of people will
or will not make up the participants of KinkForAll.
> In such an environment, I do not think it's appropriate to involve
> more minors(*). I think that providing a safe space for sexual
> education of minors is *not* compatible with providing a safe space
> for sexual education of adults.
It seems we disagree on this point.
KinkForAll is unique in that it's a place where we can actually
disagree and yet not restrict one another's freedoms. It's extremely
important that KinkForAll remains a place where it is possible for
people who disagree with one another to participate, not just on
contentious issues like this, but on contentious issues about
*anything*.
Which is to say, I acknowledge you believe differently than I do, and
I think that very fact is the core of the importance of KinkForAll's
rejection of restrictions on age.
It is wonderful that we can disagree and yet not confuse the issue by
claiming that because one of us believes a certain thing, KinkForAll
has any reason to restrict the participation of anybody whose presence
would make the other uncomfortable, regardless of who they are.
> I do, in fact, strongly agree with you that creating a safe space
> for minors to learn about sexuality at their pace and understanding
> is very important. As you wrote in the other thread, withholding
> such information can also be traumatic and harmful. However, I
> personally believe that such a space would have to be:
>
> * A space run by adults, specifically focusing on the needs of
> minors instead of the needs of adults.
> * A space run by minors, for other minors (with supervision by
> adults).
I encourage you to watch this fantastic video about how young people
can teach themselves without the presence of adults.
http://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_shows_how_kids_teach_themselves.html
Perhaps this video will explain why adults are not necessary for young
people to learn things, which might be interesting to you.
> I have some suggestions to make, going forward:
>
> 1. In some of what you write, you seem open to the possibility of
> involving the legal guardians of minors in KfA. What do you think
> of adding a restriction to the attendance of minors, that they must
> either attend with the supervision of their legal guardians or with
> the permission of their legal guardians?
I think it would be wonderful if a minor's legal guardian was brought
to a KinkForAll by said minor.
That said, I don't think it's a good thing for the access of minors to
be restricted to those who bring their legal guardians, as indeed I
don't think adding any restrictions on who can participate in
KinkForAll is a good thing, as I've been saying.
Remember, KinkForAll is "free as in libre and free as in beer." This
is the libre part: we cannot restrict people based on religion, we
cannot restrict anyone based on sexual orientation, we can't restrict
anyone based on age. No one has to pay money to participate, because
doing so creates an unnecessary restriction. KinkForAll must not cost
money to participate in, or it is not an even that is free as in beer.
By the same token, KinkForAll must not create other barriers to
participation, such as an age restriction, or it is not an event that
is free as in libre.
> We can easily draft a consent form for parents/guardians to sign,
> which minors can hand over in order to enter.
I also think any age-based restriction is unenforceable due to the
nature of KinkForAll events. Specifically, the walk-in/walk-out, open
to the public, free participation style make requiring consent forms
from participants impractical.
In fact, because we simply welcome everyone who comes to a KinkForAll,
we don't know how many minors have been at the events so far. At KFA
Boston at BU, for instance, there might have been quite a few, since
many people enter college at 17.
> 2. We can change KfA to focus on minors instead of its current focus
> which is on adults.
KinkForAll does not have a focus on adults, it has a focus on
spreading sexuality information for free to all people. If you have a
focus on adults, you are welcome to bring that focus to KinkForAll,
but do not lose sight of the important distinction that it is your
focus, not necessarily anyone else's.
> 3. We can fork off a version of KfA specifically focused on minors,
> rather than adults[…]
This is a fantastic idea. I would be thrilled to see this happen.
Perhaps a "KinkForYouth" concept? A KFY wiki can be created instantly
from the current content in the KFA wiki and then it's just a matter
of someone going through and making edits so the concept is more
targeted to the intention of that forked project. If someone wants to
do that, feel free to ping me for technical help.
I see no reason why an additional project should in any way restrict
the attendance of minors to a KinkForAll. My focus will remain in
KinkForAll and in keeping it free of restrictions, not on getting the
ball rolling on a new forked project.
> 4. We can fork off a version of KfA run by minors, for minors.
Again, this is a fantastic idea and I encourage everyone who is
inspired by this idea to run with it! As before, I see no reason why
the existence of such a project should restrict the participation of
minors at a KinkForAll.
> I do think that a 10-year-old is very different from an 18-year-old,
> however. So, for me, the gray area between "minors" and "adults" is
> somewhere in the 16-18 range - if we want to just talk about 16 and
> up, many more things are appropriate than if we insist on talking
> about all minors of any age. However, my impression from your
> emails is that we are talking about all ages.
I totally agree that a 10 year old is very different from an 18 year
old. I am not crazy; I understand age appropriateness. However, I also
believe that it is not my place to tell anyone of any age that what
*they believe* to be age-appropriate for them is not. That is why I
reject the notion of an age restriction, and why I am so happy that
KinkForAll cannot remain KinkForAll with the addition of one.
Does anyone on this list really believe that if I saw a 9 year old boy
walking around at KFADC I would walk to him and say, "What would you
like to present on?"
I would walk to that boy and say, "Hi. My name is May. What are you
looking for?" My next action would depend on the boy's response. If
that boy said something like, "I'm looking for the KFADC schedule grid
so I can put my presentation up," I would help him find the schedule
grid. If that boy said, "I'm looking for my mom. What's going on
here?" I would say, "This is a conference where people teach things to
one another without designated teachers, but let me help you find your
mother now," and then I would escort the boy out of the event space
and help reunite him with his parent.
My point is that I think it is prejudiced to tell any human that they
are not permitted to be in a KinkForAll based on what you believe
about them as opposed to their reasons for being there, just as it is
prejudiced to do that to *anyone* in any situation. And how amazing
would it be for that possibly one-in-a-million 9 year old, who
actually knows why he's there and wants to talk about things? What I
want is a good place for exceptional people to be exceptional.
KinkForAll could have done that for me, and it should remain available
to do that for others.
As Syd rightfully noted, if people on this thread who are deeply
concerned can set aside their worry of what *might* happen and deal
with the reality of things that are *likely* to happen, I believe they
will be able to calm down, and that we will find ourselves more
productive.
On Oct 13, 2009, at 2:21 PM, Syd Gottfried wrote:
> to suggest that anyone actually wants to invite a 9 year old child,
> who can't even leave the house without adult supervsion, to an event
> where complex issues are being discussed without the use of tinker-
> toys as illustration, much less show them porn, is pretty
> disengenuous and insulting.
Yes, exactly. Thanks, Syd. Some 9 year olds are incapable of all but
the simplest things, and others are capable of amazing feats. Treating
every 9 year old as though they are all helpless and incapable merely
because some are is unfair, and perfectly describes adultism.[0]
On Oct 13, 2009, at 2:32 PM, Daniel C wrote:
> Our system with respect to sexual content is not quite so cut and dry.
>
> The movie rating system is a case in point. Movies can be G, PG,
> PG-13, R, or NC-17
That's a good point. A further point is that the age of consent and
the age of majority vary by region and time, nor are they always the
same in the same place. Here's a map showing a small portion of the
variety:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Age_of_Consent.png
It is totally out of scope for KinkForAll to presume to accurately
encode in its definitions a specific age of appropriateness.
Cheers,
-maymay
Blog: http://maybemaimed.com
Community: http://KinkForAll.org
Volunteering: http://ConversioVirium.org/author/maymay
EXTERNAL REFERENCES:
> I encourage you to watch this fantastic video about how young people
> can teach themselves without the presence of adults.
>
> http://www.ted.com/talks/sugata_mitra_shows_how_kids_teach_themselves.html
>
> Perhaps this video will explain why adults are not necessary for
> young people to learn things, which might be interesting to you.
I just came across this additional video from Alison Gopnik, Ph.D. in
developmental psychology, which might also be interesting to anyone
following this thread.
http://www.colbertnation.com/the-colbert-report-videos/251996/october-07-2009/alison-gopnik
An excerpt:
"You don't need to be able to do the things that are really important
to us as grown ups…to be a great creative learner, to actually figure
out everything that's going on in the world around you. And what we've
discovered in the last 30 years through the science of developmental
psychology is that even the youngest babies already know more, learn
more, are more conscious, are even more moral than we ever would have
thought.
[…]
"What all of us grown ups have forgotten is just how much there is to
find out and learn about the world. So we think that babies…can
imagine more new possibilities. One of the things that I say: it's
like caterpillars and butterflies, except [youth are] the butterflies,
they're the ones who're exploring the whole world, and we're the
caterpillars who are just restricted to the narrow things we need to
do to get through the day."
(Skip to 57 seconds into the video for the first part, 4 minutes and
13 seconds for the second part.)
I thought this was interesting food for thought and wanted to share.
----- Original Message -----From: at...@atrus.orgSent: Tuesday, October 13, 2009 11:40 PMSubject: [KinkForAll] Re: Minors at KFA
I just want to say "Thank you!" for taking the steps necessary to make
sure we are, as per our charter, complying with all applicable laws. It
saddens me that people might have to avoid descriptions (because, well,
that might be part of their kink, and, look, on one hand opening, and on
the other closing) or limit their talks, but ... what is necessary to
be, needs to be.
Lord Percival