AdultXXX Activites Around Kids?

[LeChatNoir]

Don't restrict everyone else's experience simply because you want to bring your kid.

Conversely, could it be said, “And don’t restrict the kids’ experience by demanding to be able to get it on in the wide open”?

That's an honest question.

[Kinetic IV]

What is so damn difficult about finding even a semi-private space if you want to have sex? Not everyone wants to see someone else banging away in front of them. It's like you're forcing me to be a voyeur to your kink shit and I may not want to see it. Your freedom ends where mine begins...and I feel it's a matter of common courtesy and respect to keep some things at least semi-private. (you have a tent, go use the damn thing!) Now I have no problem with sex, kink, whatever...but damn, the law of Nevada says to basically keep the shit private. Respect the law or at least try to go along with it a little bit...if you like the event and you know that Sheriff is looking for PR to milk for every thing he can get (remember the Jiffy Lube debacle), you go find a semi private place to do your thing. That way the kids don't see, you don't have to worry about being interrupted...and you're protecting the event at the same time. </soapbox>

[Rob the Wop]

I agree that ultimately the parents are or should be responsible for their kids, and I really like seeing kids in Black Rock City. There so cool!.... But with kids there or not it is still illegal to have sex in public. Is your camp considered public? I don't know it seems like it could be considered public, even if your tent, RV, and car are considered privet.

It is also illegal to use drugs, be naked in public, be drunk in public, drive any vehicle while intoxicated, drive unregistered 4wheeled motorized vehicles, distribute liqour without a liscense, there are noise pollution laws, etc.

I think we can agree that a vast multitude of the federal/state/county/city laws are suspended ( actively or passively to a degree) due to the event being considered 'private' as a whole. I can also personally attest to seeing sexual acts in areas where others could see it happening in years past, and this was considered not very unusual. Ergo, the only difference between the examples stated is the addition of children. So much so that in years past, LEOs have used children as an example of why specific behavior could not be public at BM anymore.

[Zulegoona]

I agree that ultimately the parents are or should be responsible for their kids, and I really like seeing kids in Black Rock City. There so cool!.... But with kids there or not it is still illegal to have sex in public. Is your camp considered public? I don't know it seems like it could be considered public, even if your tent, RV, and car are considered privet.

It is also illegal to use drugs, be naked in public, be drunk in public, drive any vehicle while intoxicated, drive unregistered 4wheeled motorized vehicles, distribute liqour without a liscense, there are noise pollution laws, etc.

I think we can agree that a vast multitude of the federal/state/county/city laws are suspended ( actively or passively to a degree) due to the event being considered 'private' as a whole. I can also personally attest to seeing sexual acts in areas where others could see it happening in years past, and this was considered not very unusual. Ergo, the only difference between the examples stated is the addition of children. So much so that in years past, LEOs have used children as an example of why specific behavior could not be public at BM anymore.

According to descriptions of Burning Man's past kids have been a part of it from the first Burn on so there is no difference other than the interest of the Leos. Kid are the excuse the actions are the targets, and they don't really need any excuses.

[dr.placebo]

Actually, Rob, you and I are not that far apart. I strongly agree that parents should take care of their kids, that they must be legally and morally responsible.

I'm skeptical about the harm involved when a child merely witnesses something sexual. I'm completely against coercion of a child, and I suspect you are as well.

The legality of public sexuality is an issue regardless of minors. The presence of minors might trigger enforcement sooner than if they were absent, but it still is a good idea to keep private things that legally need to be private. I say this even though I'm unlikely to be repelled by public or private sexuality at Burning Man.

Having seen some cases where kids thrive at Burning Man, I just wanted to put in a word for those who choose to bring them. Ideally we can have a place that welcomes children and also has a sex-positive approach.

[Rob the Wop]

Don't restrict everyone else's experience simply because you want to bring your kid.

Conversely, could it be said, “And don’t restrict the kids’ experience by demanding to be able to get it on in the wide open”?

That's an honest question.

Actually, the true converse of "if you are bringing a child, then you are restricting everyone's experience" would be "if you are restricting everyone's experience, then you are bringing a child".

Regardless, I could also say 'don't restrict my experience by being naked in front of me'. The exact same logic applies to both my statement and yours. The logic still points to an individual's view tempering a group's actions. Claiming that the populace is 'demanding to be able to get it on in public' implies that the said populace are exhibitionists, which taints the statement by attaching a perverted slant and is unnecessary.

Most of America would point out that bringing a child into a event where nudity and known drug use is illegal- and they would be right in doing so. Ergo, the legal defense shouldn't be applied (ie. public sex is illegal).

As to 'well I don't want to see it either', you can safely discard that. Otherwise there are quite a number of naked people that should be clothed, definitely some art that should be banished, and some outfits that should have the fashion police soundly trashing the unworthy. Personal preference should not dictate another's actions. Unless you're Larry, but its his party.

My qualms lie is in creating more unnecessary rules into a supposed 'free expression' community, especially when these rules curtail activities that are not physically damaging to those around them. Would you also ban same-sex displays of affection in front of children? How about banning crude and vulgar language? Who judges what art is too graphic for children?

I feel that banning sexual activities to specially sanctioned areas would be the next step on a slippery slope that I feel the event is already going towards.

[Rob the Wop]

I'm skeptical about the harm involved when a child merely witnesses something sexual. I'm completely against coercion of a child, and I suspect you are as well.

Abso-fucking-lutely. Child rape is a far cry different from a couple having a quiet tryst on a sofa at a party. I couldn't begin to count the times I've seen the latter at Burning Man. The former is more along the lines of a well deserved 'Western justice' should be applied to the creepazoid attempting such.

[LeChatNoir]

Actually, the true converse of "if you are bringing a child, then you are restricting everyone's experience" would be "if you are restricting everyone's experience, then you are bringing a child".

Hmmm... right you are and I stand corrected. But I was thinking of the converse of the situation, not the sentence.

Regardless, I could also say 'don't restrict my experience by being naked in front of me'

True, you could. Though I don’t classify being naked as sexual conduct and I don’t think you do either. But you are right the same logic may apply, although you and I are adults and can handle a little nudity, so I don't think that's the same as the question I posed relating to sexual conduct in a public space.

Claiming that the populace is 'demanding to be able to get it on in public' implies that the said populace are exhibitionists, which taints the statement by attaching a perverted slant and is unnecessary.

Then so too, would be unnecessary your claim that populace’s experience would be restricted by the presence of a child. Better chance that only those who wished to partake in something potentially "un-kid-friendly" would feel held back. But I think we both understand this and are, in fact, two people who actually agree but are venturing into picking nits.

My qualms lie is in creating more unnecessary rules into a supposed 'free expression' community...

I agree completely. It would seem that in situations such as this, any form of rule should be applied by one’s own conscious, rather than some form of authority. If a parent doesn’t want their child to see such stuff as a quiet tryst on a couch at a party, then “don't hang around the party” would seem to be the answer. I trust the individuals of the community to regulate themselves in a way respectful to the rest of the community the majority of the time. Some acceptance thresholds are different than others and sometimes, as with our theoretical parent removing their child from the party, we must modify (or voluntarily restrict?) our own actions for the sake of others. And if it were me, I would hope that when I left with my child out of respect for both kid and the couple, that I could go around the next corner with the reasonable expectation that someone else might have decided to be respectful of me and move their party indoors.

And I should add for those lurking, that this community does a good job of being respectful to one another. I only saw two instances of open sex on the playa, and both of those I felt were discreet to a degree and in context for the situation.

Kids are at the Burn. People often do non-kid-friendly stuff at the Burn. Nothing changing either of these things. Don't do this. Don’t do that... some will anyway. To do something or not is matter of personal choice and the argument of whether kids should be there or not is irrelevant to the truth of the matter. They are there.

So I guess... simply put, If you bring a kid, be prepared for them to see crazy stuff. If you do crazy stuff, be prepared to be seen by a kid.

[LeChatNoir]

Claiming that the populace is 'demanding to be able to get it on in public' implies that the said populace are exhibitionists...

And upon pondering it a bit more, how is a tryst on a couch with other people around not exhibitionism in some form? Rather the populace as a whole, my hypothetical question was intended for just such a situation and merely meant to show another side of it. Besides, I’d say we’re all exhibitionist in some way or another. We are at BurningMan after all.

...which taints the statement by attaching a perverted slant...

Personally, I don’t view all exhibitionism as perverted.

Curse you Rob, you've got me picking those nits again. But that's ok. I enjoy debating with you. And speaking of exhibitionism, that reminds me.. I need a beer in The Bar.

(Edited for typo and added last lines)

[Rob the Wop]

Claiming that the populace is 'demanding to be able to get it on in public' implies that the said populace are exhibitionists...

And upon pondering it a bit more, how is a tryst on a couch with other people around not exhibitionism in some form? Rather the populace as a whole, my hypothetical question was intended for just such a situation and merely meant to show another side of it. Besides, I’d say we’re all exhibitionist in some way or another. We are at BurningMan after all.

Simple. An exhibitionist derives sexual gratification from the very act of public displays of X. A tryst on a couch doesn't necessarily imply a desire to fulfill an exhibitionist fantasy, any more than getting it on in the living room but forgetting (or ignoring in the heat of the moment) that the blinds are open. I'm guilty as charged on that one. I remember a specific time when we heard a knock on the door and looked up in disbelief (we were somewhat secluded) to see an embarrassed police officer. They wanted to ask questions about my neighbor, but it was a somewhat ackward conversation to say the least.

...which taints the statement by attaching a perverted slant...

Personally, I don’t view all exhibitionism as perverted.

Curse you Rob, you've got me picking those nits again. But that's ok. I enjoy debating with you. And speaking of exhibitionism, that reminds me.. I need a beer in The Bar.

(Edited for typo and added last lines)

Personally I feel exhibitionism can be fun on occasion, but it is definitely not my fetish. The way the question was phrased though, did imply a 'leading the witness' quality. "Demanding to get it on in public" is a far cry from having a tryst on a couch (which is a far more likely scenario). One is an active display of protest, the other simply drunken human nature taking its course. I think we have all been - to some degree- guilty of the latter at some point in our lives, though probably not at Burning Man per se.

I don't think I have clarified myself sufficiently, so let me try again.

In some cultures (a couple tribal ones in South America come to mind), open sex in front of children is not a big deal. They would more than likely be puzzled if you asked them why they do it- it is simply what happens and they don't even think about it. On the other end of the spectrum, you have certain cultures (hard core Mormons come to mind) that don't believe in nudity even in front of your own spouse- much less anywhere near a child. This sliding scale is dependant only on the view of the individual viewing the event. And if you are using Nevada law, nudity in front of children = indecent exposure in front of a child = felony in Nevada (though only a misdemeanor if not considered lewd and a first offense).

So my position is one of individual rights versus group rights. Since the individual in question has to draw the line as to what is acceptable, I do not feel it fair to subject the surrounding population to regulations based upon that individual's viewpoint. Ergo, the individual (the parent) should police the viewing area of the child rather than the population policing themselves based upon the varying viewpoint of the parent.

Make a scale with nudity on one side and a group orgy on the other.
Should two people kissing be banned?
What if they are naked?
How about clothed groping?
Naked groping?
Simulated sex while clothed?
Lap dances? How about while naked?
Oral sex in a quiet corner?

If you made a list based upon act, clothing level, and location- you could ask 100 different parents and get 100 different levels of what's 'acceptable'. Kind of like Congress's definition of pornography. Since no solid standard can be drawn- my vote is to leave the burden of responsibility for a child's experience solely upon their guardian. Not everyone wants to have a public orgy, so there are plenty of places where the kids can go without seeing what an individual parent would find offensive.

Mind you, the situation becomes different when someone actively tries to set up a situation where a child will see a sexual act- but this can be handled with the proper application of the wrong end of a bat.

Oh and nits are tasty when picked fresh. Cats don't tend to have nits as they studiously clean their fur- so I am assuming you are finding these nits on one of more simian types. Probably a close relative. Did they smell like garlic? That would be my father's side.

[stuart]

it is any adult's duty to protect any child

I just wanted to let you know this topredoed any credibility you may have had.

I am not responsible for your decisions be they poor, justified, or other and that includes your decision to procreate.

[joel the ornery]

it is any adult's duty to protect any child

I just wanted to let you know this topredoed any credibility you may have had.

I am not responsible for your decisions be they poor, justified, or other and that includes your decision to procreate.

wow, i thought i was a curmudgeon.

[Rob the Wop]

it is any adult's duty to protect any child

I just wanted to let you know this topredoed any credibility you may have had.

I am not responsible for your decisions be they poor, justified, or other and that includes your decision to procreate.

Agreed. Plus I would quibble on the exact definition of 'protect'. If you mean legally, then you couldn't take your kids to Burning Man anyway since there is nudity and open containers. And since you encompass the duty to children not your own- then you need to be at the gate and prevent children under 18 from attending, period.

[LeChatNoir]

Since no solid standard can be drawn- my vote is to leave the burden of responsibility for a child's experience solely upon their guardian

Yeah, ultimately I’d have to agree with that. Even though I take responsibility for my own actions and try to consider how they will affect others, I do not automatically assume that others will do the same for me. I just extend the hope that they will and not use the above offered standard as a license to feel they can do whatever without repercussion. More often than not, I find that I’m returned consideration for consideration.

"Demanding to get it on in public" is a far cry from having a tryst on a couch (which is a far more likely scenario). One is an active display of protest, the other simply drunken human nature taking its course. I think we have all been - to some degree- guilty of the latter at some point in our lives...

Good point, good point... But I’ve never been drunk enough to think I’m no longer in a crowd. Drunk enough not to care on the other hand?.... Eh... In my mind, I still classify the “tryst” as a form of exhibitionism, even if only mild.

(begins rolling on the floor, biting own tail in a frenzied neurotic fit)

Ummm... garlic...

[Janka]

Uh, I think I am having a culture shock. I also feel the need to clarify what I said earlier.

1) I think kids should come, if they do not object and they come with a responsible guardian who knows what they are doing.

2) If someone is not comfortable doing something around kids, that's their problem, not the kid's or the kid's guardians. If it is your camp where you want to do the stuff, and not the kid's, ask the kid to leave. If it is somewhere else, go to some camp or somewhere on the open playa where there are no kids to do whatever it is you want to do without any kids around.

3) I do not think it is harmful for kids to see nude people. I think that if you think it is harmful for kids, you probably should not bring the kids in the first place. Not because the kids are likely to be traumatized, but because your worldview might not be completely compatible with the place, which will likely make the kids uncomfortable around you in BRC.

4) I don't really even think it is harmful for kids to see couples kissing, groping, or having sex, or to see adults waving their boobs or balls or other natural equipment around. Unless, of course, the adults around the kids somehow force/pressure them to watch, refuse to explain, or otherwise make it a traumatic experience, but I am now talking about walking past a couple having sex or a maniac waving his balls on the street or whatever. I think that people should watch over the kids they bring, take them away from scenes that disturb the kids (or disturb the guardians when kids are around :)), and explain whatever the kids see and express interest (or worry) about. If you do not have guardians for the kid willing to do this, during and for your entire stay in BRC, do not bring the child.

5) Rule of thumb: if you think your teens are so young that other people should moderate their behaviour around them, they are too young to move around alone. Watch over them.

6) Sometimes I find it really difficult to deal with this whole American fuss about nudity, and I apologize if I sound annoyed. ;)

[joel the ornery]

Sometimes I find it really difficult to deal with this whole American fuss about nudity, and I apologize if I sound annoyed.

you aren't alone with your annoyance, and some of us live here.

heck, why do you think the puritans were asked to leave Europe.

[karine]

IF YOU ARE THINKING LIKE A PARENT:

The whole time your (child or) children have been on this Earth already, you have been preparing them for LIFE- You have been their guide. They have inherited YOUR beliefs about public nudity, sex and decency... and they have inherited many of YOUR reactions, too.
They have also been absorbing from other medias around them, many of which you may be unaware. They have always noticed even the smallest things. They see EVERYTHING in new ways. It would be nice if they always came to YOU when confused or pondering something they havecome across or experienced.... but sometimes they don't. And you won't be there forever to hold their hand and guide them, but it is nice when they still WANT you to. You realize that you are the only one who truly KNOWS YOUR CHILD, and ONLY YOU are responsible for them. Communities change, but YOUR CHILD will always be YOUR CHILD.


IF YOU ARE NOT THINKING LIKE A PARENT, please don't bring someone else's kids.

[batmansdream]

I could not agree more to karine

Can I ask WHO of all the participants in this discussion having such strong and special concepts about parenting ARE PARENtS ??
or concepts of what is decent for the exposure to children?

In proportion as Black Rock population I would guestimate the percentage
of kids to be less than 5 %.
tell me if I am wrong.

Is sex so terrible?? what a prude society this! My kid does not watch me
having sex, but if he sees it in movies or kissing and sexual interaction in public, I tell him that it is absolutely natural and good.
nothing bad about it.

And he understands that Burning Man is not a reality for all year,
as well that many people especially in conservative environments will not
understand us if we say we go there.
my kid has been already 3 times.
his 6th birthday is at the burn, by the way.
I did not give birth on the playa that year...

I need to declare that it is sooo easy for all the non parents to point the finger.
If you do not have an experience in life, don't talk about it with blame and accusations of what was done so wrong.


If I don't want my kid to see something, I will lead him away from the place/situation. VERY SIMPLE. with movies the same.
certain movies my household will not allow. period.

please all you fearful of children's eyes to see indecency, please do not be paranoyed. please!

[theCryptofishist]

So, all of us were once children. What experiences harmed you? Because, for me it was basically putting up with crap in the school yard, not wierd stuff I saw when my mother pulled me out for a day to see the van Gogh or the true oddness of living a year in England when my father was on sabaticall.

[joel the ornery]

all of the above.

[dr.placebo]

Let's see, according to stuart my credibility has been topredoed [sic]. Not sure what that means. I think it means that stuart does not agree with the statement of belief I made, rather than doubting that I generally state the truth as I see it about facts.

I believe that an adult who sees a child in danger should intervene. I also believe that a parent has prime responsibility for a child. Resolving any conflicts between these two calls for moral judgement.

I think that the issue of children exposed to public sexuality calls for some kind of compromise. As I've said above, I'm skeptical about the harm involved with simple witnessing of sexuality. I do think that calling for some kind of good faith effort to keep minors separate from sexual activities is prudent based on the laws of Nevada and the "hot button" aspects of the issue. I suspect that such is the price of keeping some kind of sexual freedom in a crowd of over 35000 people.

[dragonfly Jafe]

...I believe that an adult who sees a child in danger should intervene...

We could debate the definition of "danger", however I think this is the essence of the issue; Adults (ie. LEO and Politicians) taking it upon themselves to "save the children" from the "evils of BM". All in the name of goodness, of course. And prohibitions/limits follow ("...if we can save just one!"). The arguement becomes hypothetical at that point, and devolves into what "could happen" as opposed to facts about what "did happen". And it is hard for the BMorg to argue that "free expression" is OK in the prescence of children. Just the sort of drivel that politicians thrive on. Yes, the same arguement can be made that adults need the same "benevolent protection", but it doesn't have the same emotional impact of "saving" children. Crusaders love to save the children.

Of course, REAL danger is a reason to intervene (if you can competantly do so without endandering yourself unduly), no matter if the subject be child or adult.

[Kinetic IV]

Several prosecutors here in Missouri are trying to lobby our General Assembly to pass a law making it a crime to not intervene and/or notify LE if you see a crime committed against a child. Now granted it's not on the books YET. But it's getting some serious attention among legislators here, several key legislators including several I know personally have said they back this 110%. This could be something that spreads to other states before long. So back to intervening in a case where a child is facing imminent danger, I don't think a prosecutor would come after you for doing what you think is right to protect their safety. The mindsets are a'changin as they say.

[theCryptofishist]

It's already a crime (where? I'm not sure) not to report physical child abuse if you see bruises or other symptoms if you're a teacher or doctor. Not sure that this is a bad thing. There's been a tendency to not report and allow it to continue. Of course, for a long time those same authorities didn't want to know about it.

[FireFox]

tl;dr

Get over yourself. Everybody is equal here. Not just the "adults".

That is all.

[Badger]

Of course, for a long time those same authorities didn't want to know about it.

Quite different these days. Black Rock Rangers have always made a point of not being associated with law enforcement or percived as being an extension of them. Having said that there are several things that we are required to do under Nevada law. One of them is to immediately report child abise. Elder abuse is the second. Sexual assault is the third. Domestic violence is the fourth.

I have no problem whatsofuckingever with those four 'commandments.' I don't know of any member of the Tan that does.

[chocokittin]

i've got two kids, two and five. i've never brought them to bm because i can't afford a camper and i don't want them out in the tent during a nasty dust storm, it can be scary enough as an adult... but i would definately bring them in the future if financially possible, camp in or around the kids camp, and have them in bed by a reasonalble hour, at which point my husband and i would get crazy as per the norm of our everyday life. the thing is that a lot of what goes on at bm is natural and beautiful, and i'm not ashamed to let my kids learn about certain truths in this world first hand. we are artists and own a business in a pretty crazy art related field, and the kids are around wild people everyday, and go to many burner events with us locally. i see no reason why they shouldn't be able to enjoy the freedom that burningman enables for the rest of us. one of them inparticular would likely paint his ass and parade it around with similar enthusiasm, and then offer to pain yours too. i totally respect your opinion, but i want to point out that everyone should be able to feel welcome there. why should age be a hinderance at brc when everything else (exclusive of commerce) is encouraged there? just a thought.

[batmansdream]

In a dust storm they could sit in the car??
or in a neighbor's RV?
please bring your kids!!
mine is now 6, it will be his 4th burn.

[MrGAJ5001]

Somebody said, and I agree: If you're doing crazy things, be prepared to be seen (even by a kid), and if you bring a kid, expect them to see crazy things.

Now it's a personal judgement call. Whoever thinks their children are capable of seeing/experiencing this place...fine. Anybody else, don't bring them.

Sexuality never hurt me.

But, I disagree with whoever said that kids are equal to the adults for a few reasons:
1. The adults are capable of reading the website, viewing pictures (with discretion) and deciding that they are willing to be involved. The children, in many cases (it seems) are brought along. They may even be able to avoid buying a ticket. Their level of control over their environment is much lower.
2. The adults have the money to buy the ticket. The child does not.

As such the kids most certainly are not "equal" to us, in a public or private event. In fact, they wouldn't even arrive, if not for the adults.