Kinoite
1mo ago
For what it's worth, I saw that exchange, and I think you're right. I'm not a fan of their (implied) norm that the only risks which exist are the ones that can be specifically articulated, right now, with numbers to back them up.
I'd be more sympathetic to the opposition if there was a clear boundaries (literal, or social line) around the "for adults" stuff. If, for example, someone wanted to do a midnight nude pool party, in a walled-off pool, with "security" I'd be more ok with it, because there'd be a clear demarcation between the spaces where people are going to be child-safe weird and the adult spaces for adults.
But, as-is, this seems like a bunch of people who are excited about being transgressive and weird, who seem oddly enthusiastic about the opportunity to be transgressive around kids. Even if I'm not worried about specific, felony-level harm, to me that just comes off as chaotic bad judgement of the sort that makes me want to back away to avoid the inevitable splash damage.
To agree with you, even everything is legal, the "weirdness points" stuff matters if I ever need to explain my decisions to a pediatrician, a teacher, or another parent who hears a child's retelling of their summer vacation at a sleepover.
Eg; suppose a kid climbs a tree, falls out of the tree, and needs to go to the ER to get a leg x-ray. That's sad, but it's a risk of camping.
Only, now, the kid happens to mention that the tree was next to the sex tent, but it's ok, because the bondage-a-torium is shut down during the day, and only active at night, when the kid isn't allowed to be out. Imagining that conversation just sounds awful all around, even if everything is entirely legal.
More options
Context Copy link