Undoubtedly, some of the moral panic over KinkForAll unconferences (and perhaps me by association) is the fact that the events, which are intentionally open to the public, welcome everyone’s participation. In numerous instances, because of this “anti-invite” and open-doors philosophy, people who would not otherwise have been able to access group discussions about sexuality-related issues have participated. Such participants have included people of color (who are dramatically under-represented in non-judgemental discussions of sexuality), straight people, and yes, “even” minors—who are also people, lest we forget that.
Since so much of the fearfulness bandied about has to do with minors, let me clarify my own opinions on the matter. Although I speak only for myself, I acknowledge that many people look to me for guidance, leadership, or simply information, perhaps because I helped originate the KinkForAll concept or perhaps merely because I am already vocal. I write this now as both an adult who was once a child and as a supporter of the principles of freedom and education for which KinkForAll unconferences stand and seek to promote.
Just as I hope every responsible citizen of humanity feels towards their fellows, I feel an obligation to promote the safety and well-being of the autonomous individuals, both young and old, who associate themselves with KinkForAll unconferences to the best of my ability. However, that feeling of responsibility does not give me the right to decree which people may or may not participate in any given community’s publicly accessible events. Especially in America, a country that defends its citizens’ right to free speech and to organize peacefully, I don’t believe anyone can claim such a right in good conscience.
So I decided to seek advice from many people—both those I was likely to agree with as well as others with whom I wasn’t, and I’ve even reached out to Donna M. Hughes and Margaret Brooks, who incited all this moral panic to begin with—regarding how I can best do this. I thank everyone who has shared their thoughts and opinions with me, publicly and privately, and I hope that those who have yet to join the conversation, particularly Donna M. Hughes and Margaret Brooks, will do so soon.
In light of these conversations, I’d like to make clear that I am of the opinion anyone under the age of consent should be requested to seek the permission of their parents or legal guardian before participating in a KinkForAll unconference. I remain convinced that it would be inappropriate and unnecessary for a specific age restriction to be imposed as a blanket rule for all KinkForAll unconferences. In part, this is because KinkForAll unconferences have already been held in multiple States where local laws vary and, moreover, everyone who has been to a KinkForAll unconference, including minors, has reported feeling safer there than in other spaces.
Further, recall that KinkForAll unconferences expressly disallow eroticized behavior, such as sex acts, because their aim is to inspire conversation about the intersection of sexuality with the rest of life. What they do feature are lectures or conversations that are about topics related to sexuality.
It is a fact that a 17-year-old teenager in the State of New York or Colorado, or a 16-year-old teenager in the States of Michigan, Alabama, Maine, Maryland, New Mexico, Mississippi, or the District of Columbia may legally consent to sex, but is nevertheless currently barred from many sexuality-related discussion groups until they turn 18 years old in some cases, 19 in others, and 21 in others still, depending on the group in question. It is deeply troubling to think that you would be allowed to do something, but not talk about it.
Young people who cannot legally consent should also have the right to converse in a public setting freely, provided they have their parents’ or legal guardians’ permission to be present. Personally, I do not think that participating in KinkForAll unconferences is appropriate for most younger adolescents, not because they would somehow be in more danger than they’d be hanging out at the mall, but rather because the verbal format as well as the often academic subject matter are unlikely to be meaningful or comprehensible to them. On the other hand, a young person who has the kind of relationship with their parents that’s necessary to ask for permission to participate in a public conference about the intersection of sexuality with the rest of life is arguably much more likely than their peers to be “ready” for and able to meaningfully participate in such an event in the first place.
Given this reality, it is deeply troubling to think that other people’s moral judgements would replace the rights of parents to be decision-makers in their own children’s lives. Obviously, fully-grown adults learn and present information differently than youth do, but this is not universally true. Who should know what is “best” for any individual young person other than that person’s parents, and so who better to be given the opportunity to restrict or permit their participation in public events? That decision should certainly not be mine, nor yours, but rather theirs.
Should I plan future KinkForAll unconferences myself, the above stance reflects the actions I will take. In order to create the safest environment for all involved, I encourage everyone else who wants to plan a KinkForAll unconference to consider adopting this stance, too. KinkForAll—and indeed, your life—is a “do-ocracy”: if you have an idea that promotes compassion, consideration, and our common humanity, then you can do it.
Some have already suggested that a new kind of unconference should be planned, one that is specifically age-appropriate for youth. I have always and will continue to always support efforts to provide venues for sexuality education, discussion, and learning. However, I’m an activist, not a “youth educator,” so I have no intention to organize a youth-focused unconference regarding the convergence of sexuality and other aspects of life. But I do think it’s a great idea, so as I said when this idea was first suggested, I would be thrilled to see someone make that happen.
The idea of BarCamp-like sexuality unconferences has already spread far beyond my co-founder and I. Of the 6 KinkForAll unconferences since March, 2009, I only lead the organization of 2. I’m immensely proud to have helped guide KinkForAll’s development in its first year, and I’m encouraged by the incredible speed with which others have taken it upon themselves to plan more events like the first. As with any good idea, KinkForAll does not belong to anyone because the idea no longer lives in my head, but rather in the world.
What you choose to do with this idea is up to you. If you like it, you can come to a KinkForAll unconference. If you don’t like it, you can choose not to participate. You can make something new of your own, copying what you like about KinkForAll and changing what you don’t. But as long as organizers produce conferences lawfully, respectfully, and in full compliance with whatever contractual obligations they have made, no one has the right to stop them from doing so, no one has the right to tell parents not to bring their families to public community events, and no one has the right to tell teenagers that they cannot speak freely, especially about the things they are legally permitted to do.
Those who wish to stop the spread of information they disagree with often choose to spread fear in its place. I think that’s an irresponsible and dangerous thing to do. It’s precisely because I am deeply invested in the safety, well-being, and education of everyone with whom I share this planet that I ardently support every individual’s fundamental human right to organize peacefully, to speak freely, and to access education that promotes peace and understanding among all people.
Even if you don’t agree with my opinion, I hope that at least now you understand it.
Update: Shortly after publishing this entry, a commenter on Twitter directed me to this short TEDTalk video, which is highly relevant and deserves your attention. Please lend an ear to this speaker.
This blog is my job. If it moves you, please help me keep doing this Work by sharing some of your food, shelter, or money. Thank you!
by Stilllearning
13 Apr 2010 at 21:58
DO-ocracy. Great!
Just to make it absolutely clear despite your well mannered way with words: those 2 women who slandered you and posed as defenders of youth in the name of moral, law and clearly good old religion, are the ones who should be judged for promoting youth endagerment. Plain and simple. Their typical stance as moralists and that of all the followers of similar moral doctrines, is infiuriating and while you estute invitations to them to begin a dialog, which you hope will promote your common declared goals, are admirable and inspirational, you may be failing to realize that they are unable to see through their fanatical and unyielding conviction and faith. I find it necessary to voice this opinion right here, especially where your patient and noble approach to those who are attacking your views and actions and go as far as to spread lies and slander, may be construed as a missionary attempt to be accepted. I really doubt that will ever happen. Yet your own stance of the matter is clear and you expressed it directly. I agree with you completely.
by dan
14 Apr 2010 at 05:24
“Obviously, fully-grown adults learn and present information differently than youth do, but this is not universally true. Who should know what is “best” for any individual young person other than that person’s parents, and so who better to be given the opportunity to restrict or permit their participation in public events?”
Leaving aside for the moment the strange notion that someone is ever “fully-grown”, as if we stopped changing as people when we reached a certain age, I would argue that the person who knows what is best for an individual IS that individual. Many youth are saddled with parents who refuse to accept their sexuality well into adulthood, or conservative parents who are morally opposed to the whole idea. Should this really deny someone’s ability to learn and explore ideas meaningful to them? As you say, “It is deeply troubling to think that you would be allowed to do something, but not talk about it”, but I assure you, people are having sex well before they are legally “allowed” and they should have the same access to information to ensure their safety and wellbeing. As for the concern that the format of the event would be of little interest to some young people (or to some adults, I’ll note), this is entirely possible. But if so, why would they attend something of no interest to them? So long as the nature of these unconferences is effectively advertised, this doesn’t seem like a significant problem.
by xMech
14 Apr 2010 at 08:50
Another insightful, powerful peice in response! I find it an interesting compromise that those below the age of consent should seek permission from their parents/guadians to attend KinkForAlls, and as an activist that makes a lot of sense.
Except, I do disagree. I think that any person capable of attending a KinkForAll, with the desire to do so, should be welcome. Especially as parents are far too frequently not the best judge of their child’s capabilities, or are blinded by their own prejudices and ignorance, that I hope future KFAs do not have any actual requirement, only the request/reccomendation for those under the age of consent for the area to ask their parents. I see the youth whose parents would say, “no” as often those most in need of this sort of education, as well as the ability to find a community. As KFA is designed to be educaitonal, to not have sex acts on the premise, and all the other reasons listed above, as well as the fact that I don’t think parents are necessarily the best judge of what is good for their children (and by no means do I claim this true for all, just far too many.)
On the other hand, I have the privelege of being a relatively unknown internet presence, and so am not at the same sort of risk as you from such public attacks. So, maybe that helps me consider things in a different light.
by A young person
16 Apr 2010 at 21:46
I appreciate the fact that you used the word ‘requested’ instead of ‘required’ when mentioning parental consent, but I do have some questions as to what that really means. As a teenager, I’m used to having to get my parents to sign everything, including permission slips to go to even youth-only LGBT events. But I’m extremely lucky. My parents are very supportive, and they generally trust my judgement about the places and events I go to. But this is rare. In our school system, you have to get parental permission to attend health class when they cover, in very basic and narrow terms, sexual health and sexuality. And some parents refuse. As the president of my high school GSA, I’ve had to deal several times with kids who want to go to an event, but end up not being able to because they are not out to their parents, or their parents will not sign a form allowing them to attend. As I’ve said before, I think attendance at KinkForAll events is fairly self-selecting. Because of the transparency and openness of the conferences, it’s very easy for computer-literate teens to figure out if they want to attend, or at least it was for me.
I think if KFA required parental permission slips for minors to attend, you’d find that even fewer would. But at the same time, having been to a KFA event, I definitely agree that the topics discussed are generally not things that younger people are quite ready to handle. But I simply don’t think that requiring parental permission would be helpful.
Something that I think could be useful to teens looking at coming to a KinkForAll event, and maybe this is what you meant, would be some sort of statement on the various websites and places where there’s information about it that encourages minors to talk with their parents before attending but makes it clear that the events are open to everyone. Before I came to KFADC, I spent some time looking at the available media – presentations at other KFAs, lists of topics, etc. and determined that I would find the event interesting. A more clearly articulated policy or statement on minors would help people make that decision, in my opinion.
For me, one of the best things about KFA is that it really is free. I felt empowered, respected, and valued, at the KFA event I went to in the fall, and I think that came from the fact that people didn’t have to necessarily know my age (until, of course, I chose to reveal it by presenting about my current high school experience). I hope that we don’t get scared into changing this policy.
by maymay
17 Apr 2010 at 18:12
Thanks for putting serious thought into your comments, Dan, xMech, and A young person:
I wrote “requested” instead of “required” because that’s exactly what I meant. Should I plan future KinkForAll unconferences, I will request that anyone under the age of consent get parental permission before participating (one sentence to this effect on the sign up table might be sufficient), because I believe that by getting permission from their parents to be there, a person under the age of consent who wants to participate in a KinkForAll unconference will be making it a safer place for everyone involved—both for themselves and for all the adults like me.
I agree with you, xMech, and Dan that parents are not necessarily better judges of their child’s capabilities than the young person themselves and that a parent’s opposition to a public conference shouldn’t necessarily deny someone’s ability to learn there, but I think those uncertainties are both sound reasons why encouraging young people to talk to their parents is a good idea. It’s possible that such conversations would even become teachable moments. While it is my sincere hope that any such younger people who want to participate in KinkForAll unconferences will agree to get permission before they do, in no way do I feel I have any right to impose my will on someone else’s children or mandate how they should move through public spaces.
I agree and, as you may have noticed, I never implied that requiring permission slips would be appropriate. Requiring unorganizers to in turn require permission slips from anyone before they are permitted attendance to public discourse is antithetical to the creation of a trusting environment, which is part of what provides participants with so much safety at KinkForAll unconferences. Permission slips provide no additional real protection for anyone involved but rather create obstacles to participation for some people and a false sense of security for certain others. A false sense of security is arguably one of the biggest dangers that could be introduced to public environments.
What do you mean by “some sort of statement”? One of the things that makes KinkForAll so inclusive and accessible to everyone is that an audience is never guaranteed to anyone (not even sponsors!) and that no assumptions about the makeup of the participants are made. Since you say it was very easy figuring out whether you wanted to participate using the material already available, none of which was intentionally directed to a particular group of people, why do you think it would be useful to add a statement intentionally directed at youth? This seems unnecessary and off-point to me.
In fact, I would say that the lack of a statement directed at youth is proof of the fact that KinkForAll is in no way more focused on attracting young people to the unconferences, just as the unconferences are intentionally designed to avoid privileging any specific group as much as possible. I would argue that privileging youth with a directed statement over, say, seniors is equally inappropriate for global KinkForAll content as it would be to privilege seniors or adults over youth. And isn’t being unbiased toward any given participant the whole point of a public event for all people?
Like you, I also hope that KinkForAll unorganizers don’t let themselves become frightened into changing the open and transparent nature of the unconferences which provide so much safety. Equally important, however, is my hope that we also don’t let ourselves get bullied into privileging any group of people over any other. If we start privileging one group over another, won’t we merely be repeating the cycle of oppression and “othering” that those who attack our principles of freedom and accessibility are trying to do to us?
Dan, you wrote:
You’re totally correct: the format and subject matter of KinkForAll unconferences is not of interest to many adults, and those adults don’t participate. The format is equally uninteresting to many young people, and they also choose not to participate. As far as I can tell, minors have included a fraction of a percentage of the total number of people who have participated in KinkForAll unconferences.
So moral panic over the presence of minors is indeed blown out of proportion and in reality it’s not a big concern, but it (supposedly) is a big concern for people like Donna M. Hughes and Margaret Brooks. As many people are suggesting, their “think of the children!” outcries increasingly appear to be disingenuous attempts to infringe on the rights of people like you and me–and other people like minors–to organize peacefully and speak freely, and it’s certainly worth pointing that hypocrisy out, so thank you for doing so.
by dullbrightness
17 Apr 2010 at 19:04
As usual, the mere mention of “minor” and “sexuality” in the same breath leads people to assume the worst. One wonders who is more fixated on the unhealthy extremes that can be brought about when young people and sexuality meet: people like you, or those who protest against you.
It seems fairly obvious to me that such events are self-selecting: they’re not going to attract young people who haven’t thought through what it would mean for them to be there. If such a person has the courage to overcome the stigma and selfconsciousness that surrounds attending an event to do with *gasp* sex, they’re already more mature than a lot of our adults.
Honestly, I wish that in itself were not a barrier to education. I wish it didn’t have to be limited to those who had the extraordinary courage to seek it out. I wish that we’d get comprehensive, all-sexualities-positive, kink-friendly (because why is kink so much worse than regular sex?) sex ed in schools that talked about pleasure, that talked about caring for your partner, that talked about sex as the honest and joyful part of human existence that it is. But we’re a long way away from that. So for now, we need people like you who are willing to encourage these spaces. Maybe the young people who get educated there will teach our next generation to be less afraid. Who knows.
Pingback
by Bookmarks | Viviane's Sex Carnival
19 Apr 2010 at 10:02
[...] My opinions on youth at KinkForAll unconferences | Maybe Maimed but Never Harmed › – I’d like to make clear that I am of the opinion anyone under the age of consent should be requested to seek the permission of their parents or legal guardian before participating in a KinkForAll unconference. I remain convinced that it would be inappropriate and unnecessary for a specific age restriction to be imposed as a blanket rule for all KinkForAll unconferences. [...]
Pingback
by There’s A Reason Why Sex Education is Radical – Sugarbutch Chronicles
28 Apr 2010 at 14:45
[...] has been writing amazingly beautiful, transparent posts about this topic, and I highly encourage you to read them if you haven’t already. Or [...]
by Venus
09 Jul 2010 at 06:11
Hi
I couldnt find anywhere else to comment, so this is very off topic.
On your Malesubmissionsart site what she is holding is a Venus razor, not a toothbrush.
I know, because I use the very same razor myself.
Pingback
by Create awesome or Create cliques, your choice « Kink in exile
27 Feb 2012 at 23:46
[...] Denver had a bit of pushback from the BDSM community. Because KinkForAll is all ages and many sessions are recorded or live streamed this is not exactly unusual, however the nature of [...]