Should children be allowed into the Furry Fandom?

[Troj]

^^^ Also, the Law doesn't care that someone was almost of legal age, so it's just plain smart to stay on the right side of the Law where applicable.

Otherwise, I reckon we can establish guidelines, standards, and rules based on general knowledge of child development.

 

[quoting_mungo]

While staying within the bounds of the law is obviously necessary (and I maintain that it’s a good idea to stress to minors that legality and legal liability are the major reasons why we can’t let a 17-year-old have a little tinysex as a treat), I think it’s still important to treat minors their age. I don’t agree with calling teenagers children; I find it infantilizing. We can acknowledge that a 15-17-year-old has gone through puberty and is more mature than an 8-year-old without for that sake advocating for them being given open access to ALL THE PORN.

The line of where “child” ends and “youth” or “teen” or whatever begins is kind of fuzzy. The point is that age appropriate interactions/conversations will look different depending on age. Because realistically (though not legally) there’s no major difference between someone a day before and a day after their 18th birthday, and treating them as though there is (beyond a straightforward “look, I can’t legally have that conversation with you”) is disrespectful as fuck. Remaining cognizant of that is also important in order to prevent situations where two minors in their late teens get in the habit of having raunchy conversations (as teenagers do - I'm not going to pretend most post-pubescent teens don't at some point talk about dicks and boobs etc. with each other) and one turns 18 before the other, and the slightly older one is suddenly called out as OMGPREDATOR because a third party found out. And like... no.

 

[Connor J. Coyote]

Never once did I say that the manager was fired for what he said to the employee.
He was fired because he was a crappy manager.

Okay...... never once did I say he was either....... but, based on the style of your writings it suggested that that may be part of the reason..... which was based on his managemnt style. I don't know that either way..... but as I said:

I honestly doubt - your old manager was fired simply for telling your colleague to "move on" if he/she felt that the current position they're in is no longer suitable for them.

But I still stand by this also:

That's an honest boss; not necessarily a wrong one who made a bad move.

A boss (in his/her capacity as a supervisor) often needs to tell people what they need to hear...... which is not always necessarily what they want to hear..... and thus, for those who feel this Fandom is a bad place, the door is still open for them to explore other pursuits (I and many others, contend).

Uh, no.

All it means that we typically take our history, our personality, our desires, our values, our hang-ups, our beliefs, our attitudes, our tendencies, our habits, our assumptions, and our patterns with us into new relationships and new situations, unless and until we decide to change something. I was musing on the fact that some people have a tendency to look for the perfect community or perfect relationship, not realizing that at least some of the problems they've been constantly running up against reside within themselves.

Okay...... (shrug). As I said:

I'm not entirely sure what that means; but if you're in some way cryptically referring to me posting on this thread yesterday.......

so, I didn't know what the context of your posting meant; and as such, I addressed your (what I though was) your concerns...... and as such I still stand by what I wrote; even though the context of your posting was cloudy to me.

If you see that as a direct and insidious message intended specifically or solely for you, then maybe you have a guilty conscience, and maybe that should prompt some reflection on your part.

There's no need to be insulting though Miss; just because I was confused about the context of your posting and couldn't wave my magic wand and automatically decipher what you meant - doesn't reflect poorly on me personally, per say.

And so, assuming that my conscious was "guilty" (as you write) simply becasue I stood up for myself against (an interpreted) off the cuff remark about my presence on this Forum is frankly, a bit snide.

And maybe you should do some of your own reflecting - seeing that you felt the need to throw such a misinformed remark my way when I was simply confused.

I make no apologies to anyone though for standing up for myself, so there.

If you surround yourself in adult content/tendencies and you know that minors share your platform, you need to do everything you can to keep them away from you and your 18+ content. And you should have zero interaction privately with minors.
This is what I meant by boundaries. Obviously.

Of course.... that makes sense.

But at the same time, there's a big difference (many of us contend) between preventing someone from being victimized versus slamming the guantlet down on the table (so to speak) and implementing a semi-police mentality that evicerates consenting adults of their private activities also, in our zeal to "protect the children" at whatever cost.

If an adult inadvertently talks to a minor on here for example, I don't think public scrutiny is warranted on that individual simply because other people are nervous about the potential for wrongdoing, when no wrongdoing is actually proven.

 

[Troj]

While staying within the bounds of the law is obviously necessary (and I maintain that it’s a good idea to stress to minors that legality and legal liability are the major reasons why we can’t let a 17-year-old have a little tinysex as a treat), I think it’s still important to treat minors their age. I don’t agree with calling teenagers children; I find it infantilizing. We can acknowledge that a 15-17-year-old has gone through puberty and is more mature than an 8-year-old without for that sake advocating for them being given open access to ALL THE PORN.

Absolutely. Technically, teens are children, but it's important to recognize the critical differences between, say, an 8-year-old, a 12-year-old, and a 16-year-old, and treat them accordingly.

I don't think 12-year-olds should attend conventions (furry or otherwise) by themselves without any adult supervision, but most 16-year-olds can handle it.

Your point about not treating normal teens like sexual predators or deviants is also very well-taken.

Broadly, I think it's perfectly fine to interact with kids, but how you interact will depend on their developmental level, age, personality, and personal situation, as well as your local laws. When interacting with known or suspected minors, I err on the side of keeping conversations light and uncontroversial. When interacting with younger kids, I make sure to keep guardians in the loop. I also tend to err on the side of letting the minors initiate the interaction with me.

 

[Foxridley]

While staying within the bounds of the law is obviously necessary (and I maintain that it’s a good idea to stress to minors that legality and legal liability are the major reasons why we can’t let a 17-year-old have a little tinysex as a treat), I think it’s still important to treat minors their age. I don’t agree with calling teenagers children; I find it infantilizing. We can acknowledge that a 15-17-year-old has gone through puberty and is more mature than an 8-year-old without for that sake advocating for them being given open access to ALL THE PORN.

The line of where “child” ends and “youth” or “teen” or whatever begins is kind of fuzzy. The point is that age appropriate interactions/conversations will look different depending on age. Because realistically (though not legally) there’s no major difference between someone a day before and a day after their 18th birthday, and treating them as though there is (beyond a straightforward “look, I can’t legally have that conversation with you”) is disrespectful as fuck. Remaining cognizant of that is also important in order to prevent situations where two minors in their late teens get in the habit of having raunchy conversations (as teenagers do - I'm not going to pretend most post-pubescent teens don't at some point talk about dicks and boobs etc. with each other) and one turns 18 before the other, and the slightly older one is suddenly called out as OMGPREDATOR because a third party found out. And like... no.

I was wondering when someone would bring this up.
”Should children be allowed in the fandom?” and “Should minors be allowed in the fandom?” are not entirely the same question.