A recent thread on here resulted in some people chastizing a 15 year old for using language they felt was inappropriate.The feeling was expressed that maybe those under 18 should not be allowed in GD.

I am wondering then should those minors even be allowed to listen to the earlier output from the artist this site is dedicated to?

How far should we go to "protect" the fragile eyes, ears, and brains of those now experiencing what many of us did at their age?

I never treat children as less than me. I speak to them in a normal tone of voice and use expressions that I feel fit the conversation. My nephews which I largely raised have been treated that way all their life and are now straight "A" multi sport high school students. Their vocabulary and ability to interact with adults far surpasses that of their peers. They are also more respectful of adults that other kids their age.

What are your thoughts? Treat kids equally or talk down to them?

Does the org need a disclaimer page of 18 and up to get in?

Wrong forum.

TotalANXiousNESS said:

TotalANXiousNESS said:

Words of wisdom

TotalANXiousNESS said:

Yeah you want www.idontwannateachyouale...rs23/reply

it's up to PARENTS to watch kids, not the websites themselves. i didn't see/learn anything in GD as a minor that i hadn't already known about. that this is even an issue on a website dedicated to prince is ridiculous to me.

I very seldom personally interact with minors on here, but knowing that there are some minors on this site doesn't stop me from interacting any way I want with those who are over the age of majority.

JustErin said:

Isn't spooky a minor???

And hes the most revolting thing I've seen here.

The littel fuck!

TotalANXiousNESS said:

he's been 18 for ages!

evenstar3 said:

Oh.

TotalANXiousNESS said:

Let's ban him anyway

ArielB said:

awww. then who would threadjack with me?

evenstar3 said:

I don't know, ut I'm too jealous

ArielB said:

you have like, eleventy billion other org women to threadjack with.

JustErin said:

Same here. If we were to change our whole behaviour when minors are present then we'd never get to talk about adult stuff at all. Kids find their way around the net everywhere, so the problem is not limited to a few specific websites. The fact that it's a problem that concerns the whole internet doesn't make things better though of course, but rather worse. How to deal with it I do not know. As always if you forbid kids to do something, that only makes them want it even more, and the internet is something they will always be able to access somewhere somehow.

when i was 15 i would have been very insulted to have been told i "wasn't allowed" to be a part of this forum. in many ways i acted more mature in highschool than i have as an adult.

yes! there are super explicit topics here
have i seen stuff that i wish i (at 34!) hadn't? yes!
but guess what. this is an open forum.
it always surprises me when people are shocked that i remember
something that i read here. ummm, it was posted. for alllll to read.
whether you are a member or not! there is no magic little wall here.

as the thread starter says, i was 11 and listening to prince talk about
fucking someone in designer jeans while she moaned in the background.
leave the censorship for parents. not for this site administration.

i think the moderators do a great job in snipping truly offensive stuff (bigotry), which strikes enough of a balance.

Mars23 said:

What thread is this, any how did I miss it?? hmmmmm...

Ultimately parents should be policing their kids and not us. However, I take some responsibility in my actions.

For example, before SpookyMuffin turned 18, I seldom interacted with him, and this had nothing to do with liking or disliking him, though at times he may have thought it did. I just find that interacting with a minor is an area of the orging experience I need to tread upon very carefully.

Nobody want's their child to enligten them on the joys of docking, painting, and fisting, while pointing to an unofficial Prince fansite as the source of their knowledge.

It would be kind of cool to mark threads "adult" somehow through an icon or something though. Labeling a thread to me is a decent compromise to allow folks to say whatever they want but still not be censored.

Imago said:

that is a cool idea. like the little icons by posts that are already exist, but a new one. and a post that somehow turns NSFW can always be edited to include it.

evenstar3 said:

yup.


at issue is that even the sweetest threads turn nasty. I know this.

Imago said:

orgnote ben about it!

Imago said:

Ultimately, nobody should be policing anyone. Raise your kids to think straight, and know right from wrong. Teach them well, and the rules they'll make for themselves will be good enough.

ArielB said:

Yes, and ultimate we should all be enlightened enough to be self-governing Ariel, but please

Imago said:

And ultimately you should be dating Carrie

There's no way policing your child can work. if you force a kid to stay out of somewhere, they'll find a way to do the exact opposite. And there's no way you can watch them 24/7, and even if you did find a way, that kid would grow up to be really messed up. kids need their freedom to explore and learn for themselves. Your job as a parent is to teach them how to think for themselves and how to use logic.

ArielB said:

That sound great until you actually have to raise children.

My sister and brother-in-law are having to protect my nephews in ways they never thought they had to.

The world is not benign Ariel, and you of all folks should know that. Parents need to know what they're kids are doing up until the point in which you are talking about, which could range from 15 to friggen 35 depending on the child

Imago said:

But I think both approaches can work, it really depends on the child. Ariel's approach is in my mind ideal, just not always practical, and won't work for every child. But it's not to say it can't.

PS - Ultimately, Dan should not be dating me. I just had to put that in there.

this thread.

Baby9s said: