Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: 18+ versus 21+


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: 18+ versus 21+ Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: 18+ versus 21+ - 6/23/2006 3:54:36 AM   
ExistentialSteel


Posts: 676
Joined: 1/18/2005
Status: offline
GADomCpl, welcome to GA. There are actually 3 ages that are important legally. The first is age of consent which is 16 in GA. 18 is the legal age to vote and to enter into contracts, etc. and it is 21 to vote.

For me, it all comes down to maturity. Some 18 year olds are mature, but for the same reason the liquor laws say you have to be 21, there is a difference in maturity levels of  18 and 21 year olds. I, personally, would feel out of place with 18 year olds around.

_____________________________

For those who are like Roman Candles leaving bright trails in the night sky while the crowd watches until the dark blue center light bursts into magnificent colors and the crowd goes, ahhhhhhhhhh.

(in reply to GADomCpl)
Profile   Post #: 21
RE: 18+ versus 21+ - 6/23/2006 5:41:49 AM   
LuckyAlbatross


Posts: 19224
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ExistentialSteel
I, personally, would feel out of place with 18 year olds around.

I have to say I find this amusing knowing the maturity levels of so many who first get into the scene in their 30s-40s.

And trust me, most 18 yos feel out of place with people in their 30s-40s.  But if we want the scene to be about education, socialization and encouraging people to be who they are...age doesn't really come into the picture.

_____________________________

Find stable partners, not a stable of partners.

"Sometimes my whore logic gets all fuzzy"- Californication

(in reply to ExistentialSteel)
Profile   Post #: 22
RE: 18+ versus 21+ - 6/23/2006 7:49:56 AM   
Proprietrix


Posts: 756
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Ohio/West Virginia
Status: offline

Something I haven’t seen mentioned here…
Some groups make the age 21 instead of 18 to weed out the college crowd.
Not saying it’s wrong or right, but it is a valid reason. Especially in university towns.


_____________________________

IMO, IMHO, YMMV, AFAIK, to me, I see it as, from my perspective, it's been my experience, I only speak for myself, (and all other disclaimers here).

(in reply to LuckyAlbatross)
Profile   Post #: 23
RE: 18+ versus 21+ - 6/23/2006 9:13:11 AM   
LuckyAlbatross


Posts: 19224
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Proprietrix
Something I haven’t seen mentioned here…
Some groups make the age 21 instead of 18 to weed out the college crowd.
Not saying it’s wrong or right, but it is a valid reason. Especially in university towns.

But why would a group want to weed out the college crowd?  They are the educated, curious, ones with money and interest?

Not supporting the younger people is pretty much like saying "We only care about ourselves and getting what we want and won't have a reason to complain in 10 years when we want to talk about how "those kids today" are doing things all wrong"

Granted, a lot of people in the scene DO feel exactly this way.  But it won't stop them from complaining.

_____________________________

Find stable partners, not a stable of partners.

"Sometimes my whore logic gets all fuzzy"- Californication

(in reply to Proprietrix)
Profile   Post #: 24
RE: 18+ versus 21+ - 6/23/2006 11:07:11 AM   
Proprietrix


Posts: 756
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Ohio/West Virginia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross
But why would a group want to weed out the college crowd?  They are the educated, curious, ones with money and interest?
Not supporting the younger people is pretty much like saying "We only care about ourselves and getting what we want and won't have a reason to complain in 10 years when we want to talk about how "those kids today" are doing things all wrong"
Granted, a lot of people in the scene DO feel exactly this way.  But it won't stop them from complaining.

(And there are many, many people 30+ who are "educated, curious, ones with money and interest".)
Like I said, it's not a wrong or right thing. It just is.
It's the exact same coin as the TNG groups. TNG groups are established and one of the main reasons they are such a big hit is because younger people don't feel comfortable being around people their parents' age. They feel squicked out by seeing "old people" naked, or they can't relate to the older crowd.
The same is true for older folks. They simply sometimes feel uncomfortable being around people their children's age. They feel squicked out by seeing "young kids" naked, or they can't relate to the younger crowd.
I see no more of a problem with a group designed for 18-35 year olds than a group designed for 30+.
I think any specialized group is a good thing. It narrows the field and provides the participants more concentrated common interests in which they are more comfortable establishing intimate bonds. 
I have no problem with TNG groups. I wouldn't have a problem with teen groups. I also have no problem with groups that set a minimum age, regardless of what that age is.

No one is under obligation to "support the younger people". If I, as a 30something lady want to have a group of 30something friends get together to chit-chat about kinky sex, then more power to me.
There's also no obligation to support the old farts. If a 19 year old wants to start up a group for 18 - 30 year olds, then more power to them.
None of us are obligated to support, educate, include, and invite, anyone and everyone into our social circle.
As long as the age limit is being announced upfront, no harm, no foul.
BDSM isn't the ACLU.
It's just a bunch of people getting together to do or talk about kinky stuff.
It would be a cold day in hell when I would support any kind of dogma that stipulates that I don't have the right to choose my friends.

_____________________________

IMO, IMHO, YMMV, AFAIK, to me, I see it as, from my perspective, it's been my experience, I only speak for myself, (and all other disclaimers here).

(in reply to LuckyAlbatross)
Profile   Post #: 25
RE: 18+ versus 21+ - 6/23/2006 11:25:40 AM   
fullofgrace


Posts: 395
Joined: 3/24/2006
From: fl, usa
Status: offline
part of my problem with this group is that their reason for rejection is you're not an adult. okay, last i checked, 18 was the age of majority in florida. but i'm over it - i am going to try and start a discussion group here, 18+.

as for weeding out the college crowd, in tallahassee, the college crowd is 17-35, pretty much. sometimes older. so...that's a hell of a lot of weeding.

as far as "having the right to choose your friends," i wasn't aware that was what public groups were about. you see, i've had to work with some people whose very presence makes my skin crawl on the board of directors i was (am? they're trying to drag me back) on. community groups, in my opinion, shouldn't be about choosing friends. in my experience, it's more like family - you're stuck with who you're stuck with and you do your best to get along. groups with limits of some sort have just managed to come up with semi-logical reasons not to be stuck with certain people.

i suppose the reason i'd have a hard time setting a maximum age, if/when i do start a group, is that my Dominant is 53. the majority of my close friends are His age (though i didn't meet them through Him). i don't want to exclude a whole group of people - particularly people i've tended to click with better in the past, and who are more likely to have more knowledge about some things than people in my age group.

i don't have an issue with other groups excluding certain groups of people - if i can't find that resource somewhere else, i'll go build it myself - but "choosing your friends" is NOT the purpose of public groups.


_____________________________

i have the kind of beauty that moves...

(in reply to Proprietrix)
Profile   Post #: 26
RE: 18+ versus 21+ - 6/23/2006 11:41:40 AM   
Proprietrix


Posts: 756
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Ohio/West Virginia
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fullofgrace
as far as "having the right to choose your friends," i wasn't aware that was what public groups were about. you see, i've had to work with some people whose very presence makes my skin crawl on the board of directors i was (am? they're trying to drag me back) on. community groups, in my opinion, shouldn't be about choosing friends. in my experience, it's more like family - you're stuck with who you're stuck with and you do your best to get along. groups with limits of some sort have just managed to come up with semi-logical reasons not to be stuck with certain people.
<snip>
- but "choosing your friends" is NOT the purpose of public groups.


?
Of course it is.

The whole purpose of a bunch of people getting together to break bread and chit-chat about their private lives - is to build friendships.
If the purpose of social interaction is not friendship, what is it?
This isn't a job or a career. This isn't a city council meeting. This isn't a group of mixed volunteers that are trying to levy against XYZ corporation making a parking lot out of the kid's park.
It's a group of people who want to meet others with common interests, feel acceptance for their quirks, find mates, meet play partners, and establish themselves in a social group in which they can relax and have fun.
That *is* making friendships.
Honestly, why would I spend every 3rd Wednesday of the month going to a restaurant dining with a group of folks I can't relate to, I don't like, I don't want to have fun with...
What would be the point of a munch if not for camaraderie?
Why do you want to join a munch? Why would you want to join any particular social get-together? Why would you join the needlepoint club or the chess club or the SCA?
Why do you want to start a group? Because it gives a local focus point for people to come together.
The *whole point* of munch groups and play parties is to make friends with common interests.
I guess I simply don't understand why people would make, join, and attend groups if they didn't want social interaction.
Maybe you could explain a bit more about what you think the purpose of a public group is because I might be misunderstanding.

_____________________________

IMO, IMHO, YMMV, AFAIK, to me, I see it as, from my perspective, it's been my experience, I only speak for myself, (and all other disclaimers here).

(in reply to fullofgrace)
Profile   Post #: 27
RE: 18+ versus 21+ - 6/23/2006 11:49:38 AM   
LuckyAlbatross


Posts: 19224
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Proprietrix
If the purpose of social interaction is not friendship, what is it?

That might be why people ATTEND social functions, but it's rarely the reason a bdsm group is formed.

The reason most groups are formed is to provide a resource for the community- this includes for social interaction, but also for many other things..

One could say that by saying "Only over 30 allowed" means that they are limiting the friends you CAN have.  By saying "anyone over 18" they aren't telling you what friends you can and can't have, they are saying "everyone over 18 is welcome...do what you want with eachother after that."

And we agree- whatever the group decides as a whole they are comfortable with is the group that they will get.  And I also agree that no one should feel obligated to help the younger generation be educated or feel welcomed if they don't want to.

TNG groups are awesome, and almost always extensions of an existing group.  I fully support special interest groups so that everyone can find the fit that works best for them.

But preventing them from being part of the group (groups which almost always serve as the educational/social/support center of the community) as a whole just because it's kinda uncomfortable for you?  That's pretty selfish.



_____________________________

Find stable partners, not a stable of partners.

"Sometimes my whore logic gets all fuzzy"- Californication

(in reply to Proprietrix)
Profile   Post #: 28
RE: 18+ versus 21+ - 6/23/2006 11:53:39 AM   
fullofgrace


Posts: 395
Joined: 3/24/2006
From: fl, usa
Status: offline
i do think, in some ways, it's about building friendship. it's also about sharing information, etc. however, i still don't get how excluding certain people builds friendship, not really; i mean, you're going to find apples in every bunch that you don't get along with. so once you've excluded major age groups, do you start picking people off one by one? in the meantime, you've alienated people you might have managed to build amazing friendships with in the first place.

i think there has to be a balance. a group cannot call itself a public group if it is only interested in inviting who it wants to invite. public groups who restrict on age, i can somewhat see, if i don't agree with it. but in general, the idea of choosing  your friends means bringing in people you like and excluding people you don't. now you are not a public group anymore,  you are a clique. there is a big difference. a public group is still about building friendship, but in some ways it HAS to be open to the public, otherwise it's *gasp* not a public group. the phrase "choosing your friends" (not necessarily restricting groups based on major things, such as age) doesn't strike me as open to the public, it strikes me as being a clique. don't get me wrong - i've been part of a few "non-public" groups, so to speak, and i don't have a problem with that. but don't call yourself something you're not.


_____________________________

i have the kind of beauty that moves...

(in reply to Proprietrix)
Profile   Post #: 29
RE: 18+ versus 21+ - 6/23/2006 11:56:17 AM   
fullofgrace


Posts: 395
Joined: 3/24/2006
From: fl, usa
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: LuckyAlbatross

quote:

ORIGINAL: Proprietrix
If the purpose of social interaction is not friendship, what is it?

That might be why people ATTEND social functions, but it's rarely the reason a bdsm group is formed.

The reason most groups are formed is to provide a resource for the community- this includes for social interaction, but also for many other things..

One could say that by saying "Only over 30 allowed" means that they are limiting the friends you CAN have.  By saying "anyone over 18" they aren't telling you what friends you can and can't have, they are saying "everyone over 18 is welcome...do what you want with eachother after that."

But preventing them from being part of the group (groups which almost always serve as the educational/social/support center of the community) as a whole just because it's kinda uncomfortable for you?  That's pretty selfish.


amen.

and the public groups i am a part of that don't have age restrictions are often the best places, i've seen, for building friendship. the idea here is not that EVERYONE becomes friends, but that people do build friendship individually and everyone has a bdsm resource and support community.


_____________________________

i have the kind of beauty that moves...

(in reply to LuckyAlbatross)
Profile   Post #: 30
RE: 18+ versus 21+ - 6/23/2006 12:47:29 PM   
Proprietrix


Posts: 756
Joined: 7/15/2005
From: Ohio/West Virginia
Status: offline

I think we’re simply operating under two different umbrellas of thought.
I believe that someone who starts a group has absolutely no obligations other than the ones they choose.
You are operating under the belief that someone who starts a group has an obligation to the public at large.

Compare the scenario to any other social group. Not BDSM.
Take a Dungeons and Dragons role-play group.
A few friends decide they want to play D&D. They put up announcements (in public) that they’re looking for friends to play with. They invite people (often times strangers) to come and get involved. They post on a D&D website that they’re forming a group. In addition, they prefer to play with people 20-25 years old, so they include that tidbit in their ad as well.
Are they being selfish and denying people friendships?
Were they expected to be a resource and community for everyone who has an interest in D&D?
No. They were simply a few people looking for others with similar interests.
It’s ridiculous to delegate to them the responsibility of anything more than what they chose to set out to accomplish.
Perhaps they have families, and serve as a volunteer for XYZ, and have kids, and work 2 jobs, or (insert any other life obligation).
D&D is what they do for fun in their spare time. Why should they be expected to make it more than that?

Now, take a town that has ZERO BDSM groups.
One person who is kinky decides they want to have a social outlet for their kinks. They find a kinky friend. The two friends want more friends, so they decide "Let’s start a group."
They are basically operating on one single motive: friendships.
They aren’t operating under the obligation to serve as the educational/social/support center of the community. They are simply wanting to build a group of friends.
They do not have an obligation to educate everyone who has an interest.
They have no obligation to be a support group for folks who have hang-ups or are in the closet.
They have no obligation to network folks, or set up demos, or this that and the other.
If they want to do those things, and they choose to do those things, then great, have at, but their original purpose was to expand a social circle and make friends.

The people who start BDSM groups should have no more obligations than the people who start the D&D group. It’s what they do for fun in their spare time. Why should they be expected to make it more than that?

This was my point when I said:
quote:

If I, as a 30something lady want to have a group of 30something friends get together to chit-chat about kinky sex, then more power to me.
I don’t see many (if any?) other social clubs who take on this mentality that their social circles are there for any other purpose other than simply being social circles. There’s a prevailing thought in the BDSM community that everyone has this unspoken responsibility to take up the torch of a social cause. And I just don't get it.

My local Dungeons and Dragons club isn’t on a mission to "educate the newcomers to role-play with a d10." My local swing club isn’t the "central network referral for horny couples". The Tuesday night book-club isn’t "there to serve the greater needs of people who read."
I don’t think of them as selfish. I think of them as nice little groups of friends who get together to do things they enjoy.
They are social clubs, designed for social interaction, and friendship based around a common interest.
Why should a munch group be anything more than any other social group?

The more I think about this, the more I understand why munch groups are dwindling so quickly in my area. (And by "my area" I’m referring to about 6 states in the US.) Time and time again I see a simple group of people trying to get together to make some friends and have some conversation and fun. Next thing they know they’re being expected to write bylaws and have all inclusive policies, and network for state-wide events, and set up committees, and have sub-divisions, and charge dues, and educate the newcomers, and render themselves out to "the community" to serve as the educational/social/support center. And quickly, the group falls apart. Or there is so much politics and bickering that the turnover rate increases and it’s just a new group of people, with the old name, doing the same thing. Rinse. Repeat.

Please understand… I am not knocking groups who want and choose to be an educational group, or a resource for people, or a referral service, or whatever. I think they are very nice and they do nice things for people.
My problem here is in the assumption that BDSM groups have an obligation or responsibility to be anything more than what their founders wanted them to be in the first place, and many times all the founder was looking for was a place where like-minded people could make friends.

Most people in this lifestyle aren’t looking for a committee to serve on. They aren’t looking for a position as safety network coordinator, or to become a contributing paid member. They are simply folks who want to get their kink on with other folks who are getting their kink on.

I simply don’t understand the mentality that sets up expectations that a group of kinky people getting together to make friends, has an inherent obligation and responsibility to become anything more than a group of kinky people getting together to make friends.
We don’t do it in our other social circles. Why do it here?


_____________________________

IMO, IMHO, YMMV, AFAIK, to me, I see it as, from my perspective, it's been my experience, I only speak for myself, (and all other disclaimers here).

(in reply to LuckyAlbatross)
Profile   Post #: 31
RE: 18+ versus 21+ - 6/23/2006 12:53:07 PM   
LuckyAlbatross


Posts: 19224
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Proprietrix
Most people in this lifestyle aren’t looking for a committee to serve on.

Actually, after going through both BR and BESS elections for a few years, I can say I think TOO MANY people want to get onto committees when they shouldn't.

But that's just an aside.

I agree- if you're talking about solely a social group that was formed for no other reason than to hang out together and be friends, it makes perfect sense to keep things fairly private and exclusive.  Nor should they feel some need to become more open.  I certainly don't feel pressure to invite people into my space that I don't want around.

But if you're talking about the majority of bdsm public groups out there- then you're talking about a group that has many purposes beyond just socialization.  You're talking education, support, resources, history and other functions as well.  They set themselves up purposefully WITH obligations to the community at large. 

_____________________________

Find stable partners, not a stable of partners.

"Sometimes my whore logic gets all fuzzy"- Californication

(in reply to Proprietrix)
Profile   Post #: 32
RE: 18+ versus 21+ - 6/23/2006 1:21:57 PM   
ArtimisBlack


Posts: 154
Joined: 6/13/2006
Status: offline
Perhaps creating some sort of tiered system within a group might help resolve the age issue? Something like 18-21 is tier 1, 21-25 is tier 2, 25-30 is tier 3 etc. Of course you could make the spreads whatever ages you wanted. The different groups could get together as one big whole for events that aren’t restricted by age (for example 21 to drink) and I think that would promote communication between all the different age groups as well as help get away from any discomfort that might be generated by a drastic difference in age. Just because it is not an obligation to make a group fair or PC doesn’t mean the effort shouldn’t be made.

(in reply to LuckyAlbatross)
Profile   Post #: 33
RE: 18+ versus 21+ - 6/23/2006 1:38:47 PM   
LuckyAlbatross


Posts: 19224
Joined: 10/25/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: ArtimisBlack
Perhaps creating some sort of tiered system within a group might help resolve the age issue? Something like 18-21 is tier 1, 21-25 is tier 2, 25-30 is tier 3 etc. Of course you could make the spreads whatever ages you wanted. The different groups could get together as one big whole for events that aren’t restricted by age (for example 21 to drink) and I think that would promote communication between all the different age groups as well as help get away from any discomfort that might be generated by a drastic difference in age. Just because it is not an obligation to make a group fair or PC doesn’t mean the effort shouldn’t be made.

Most groups that have TNG SIGS do that actually.  Depending on the group, sometimes the TNG actually does not allow ANYONE over 35 or so to come to their social.  This actually tends to cause strift because there are so many age distance relationships.

More commonly though, a TNG is created as an extension of an existing group, and while age limits are promoted, rarely are they exclusionary of others.

_____________________________

Find stable partners, not a stable of partners.

"Sometimes my whore logic gets all fuzzy"- Californication

(in reply to ArtimisBlack)
Profile   Post #: 34
RE: 18+ versus 21+ - 6/23/2006 6:14:28 PM   
ExistentialSteel


Posts: 676
Joined: 1/18/2005
Status: offline
Actually, I didn't mean 21 is the age to vote. It is the age to drink. Damn, shows what I get for trying to explain age laws. LA, like I said it is my preference, but I always like it when I can make you smile.

_____________________________

For those who are like Roman Candles leaving bright trails in the night sky while the crowd watches until the dark blue center light bursts into magnificent colors and the crowd goes, ahhhhhhhhhh.

(in reply to LuckyAlbatross)
Profile   Post #: 35
RE: 18+ versus 21+ - 6/23/2006 6:47:38 PM   
Alumbrado


Posts: 5560
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: fullofgrace

part of my problem with this group is that their reason for rejection is you're not an adult. okay, last i checked, 18 was the age of majority in florida. but i'm over it - i am going to try and start a discussion group here, 18+....



Good for you... any sort of group would be an improvement over the scene in Tallahassee as I found it, and left it.
Getting back to Virginia was like being rescued from a desert island, so to speak.

(in reply to fullofgrace)
Profile   Post #: 36
RE: 18+ versus 21+ - 6/23/2006 6:52:26 PM   
fullofgrace


Posts: 395
Joined: 3/24/2006
From: fl, usa
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Alumbrado

quote:

ORIGINAL: fullofgrace

part of my problem with this group is that their reason for rejection is you're not an adult. okay, last i checked, 18 was the age of majority in florida. but i'm over it - i am going to try and start a discussion group here, 18+....



Good for you... any sort of group would be an improvement over the scene in Tallahassee as I found it, and left it.
Getting back to Virginia was like being rescued from a desert island, so to speak.



the scene in virginia is alive and kicking? that's good to know - He and i are planning to move there eventually :)


_____________________________

i have the kind of beauty that moves...

(in reply to Alumbrado)
Profile   Post #: 37
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> RE: 18+ versus 21+ Page: <<   < prev  1 [2]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094