This post is on the Other BDSM web board.
| 4 Jul 09, 6:53 PM IndelibleMarker UK(E), 6 yrs     |
I agree with you 100% here. I was discussing this with TheKey in our front room earlier today and my only response to that was... "Well, she wasn't actually saying it to the lady herself... She was asking the IC board their opinions". I think that takes a little of the edge off it for me and as I've mentioned - I respect the honesty. In the end though - there clearly is no age - anyone with an ounce on sense should see that because everyone ages at different rates. People have back injuries and all sorts of limb and joint problems and would need to "settle down" at all sorts of different ages. Putting an age on it is just impossible, if not ludicrous. Tuam Matrem Feci | ||
| 4 Jul 09, 7:02 PM TheKey UK(N), 4 yrs |
I just read through this entire thread and I actually didn't find many posts that I considered to be rude to the OP. The general consensus seems to be the same - it's none of your business, which is a fair answer to the question. Yes, it's not unnatural to look twice at something you don't see in your everyday life and we're kidding ourselves if we don't admit that. Someone older than usual, someone extra large bulging out of their latex, someone in a wheelchair, even a particularly good looking person. (It doesn't necessarily mean I'm disgusted by these things, just that I - and most likely you too - specifically notice them.) I respect those who are sensible enough to recognise that people aren't all the same and that we notice this, but I don't respect those who are patronising to others, intentionally or not. I also don't respect people who are implying they might have some sort of say in other peoples' lives because they are outside what we are used to. The lower 18 limit is there because there has to be a line somewhere and this is what has been decided. At 18 most of the bell curve are educated and mature enough to start being able to live their own lives and look after themselves. All parts of most of their brains have developed (some important parts don't develop until teenage years) to equip them to deal with life on their own. Yes there will be younger people who can do the same, but there are just far too many people and variables to decide on a case by case basis, so we protect as many as we can. No matter where the line is, people younger will try to be involved. After 18 we're judged to be mature enough to make our own decisions, look after ourselves until a doctor or the law takes those decisions away from us. There's no upper limit and there's no need for one as it is purely about maturity. There are medically and mentally vulnerable people of all ages and there are different factions in place to help them already. A fair answer to this question is that it's just none of our business whether or not we think she should calm down, we can't know enough about her life to make such a decision. If you'd like to start a discussion on whether or not people in the scene still feel uncomfortable about taboos, then you'll need to word it differently.
My response to this was to reword the OP to:
Sounds patronising now, even if you're not telling the person directly. This reword is patronising to all the young people that read it, and the original OP is patronising to any older people that read it. Edited 4 Jul 09, 7:15 PM by TheKey |
