hisannabelle
Posts: 1992
Joined: 12/3/2006 From: Tallahassee, FL, USA Status: offline
|
i ran into some ageism originally when contacting the local group here, as most of the members are in their thirties or older (i think i'm the youngest by far, very few in their twenties). i think that 35 and under groups exist to combat the prevalence of groups that only have older members, and the atmosphere that can be created by that. that said, i don't think that 35 and under groups, or that age-specific groups in general (other than what is legal), are a good idea. for example, if there were a 35 and under local group, that'd be awesome, as i'm 19. however, if it were only for people whose partners were 35 and under, that would suck, as my dominant is 54. likewise, when i was originally excluded from the local group, one of my biggest bitches was the fact that he would have been able to attend but i would not. to me, it's illogical to make snap judgments based on age - that all people older than 35 are old fogies, or all under 35 are immature, childish, and inexperienced. crotchety folks and immature folks can be found at all different ages...other than legality, it really bugs me when people get so hung up on age (maybe it's because i'm in an age gap relationship). anyway, i'm curious to hear from those who have been involved with these groups to see what happens with all the administrative stuff that you mentioned in your post (such as the founder's age, etc.). i'm also curious to see what other posters think about age and age minimums/maximums.
|