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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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 think if KFA required parental permission slips for minors to attend, you’d find that even fewer would. I simply don’t think that requiring parental permission would be helpful.

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.

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.

[…]

Something that I think could be useful to teens looking at coming to a KinkForAll event […] 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.

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.