Why should travelers without children subsidize other people's kids?

Why should a couple traveling alone have to pay a higher rate so that people with kids can pay artificailly low rtaes? Why should people with kids expect other people to subsidize their cost?

Of course, they shouldn't. But from the hotels' perspectives, if they didn't have a "kids under 12 free" policy, fewer people with kids would travel in general or stay at their hotels in particular, in which case their overall rate structure would rise anyway. Unless people without kids stay away in droves, it's just a good marketing decision.

nytraveler - What particular bad experinece made you start a thread,... albeit a very negative one at that....

"Idiot 10 year olds" - those are harsh words to desribe a child - if that is the worst of your day then you are in good shape I would say...

Why, as a single traveler, should I be subsidizing couples? In 99.9% of hotels in the US, the room rate for one person is the same as for 2. Since I'm only using half the amount of water, soap, towels, why do I have to pay just as much?

-----------------------

That's just the way life is, nytraveler, nothing is fair. It all evens out in the end. No reason to whine about it.

Why is it always only your own children are raised to behave properly in public places, and everybody else's misbehave?

And what about all the wasteful adults out there who use many extra towels, leave ac and lights on when they exit their hotel room? Their waste drives the cost up for everyone. And what about adults who drunkenly return to their rooms at 3 am waking every one up (yes, even in an 'adult' 5* hotel)?

Calling a child who you don't know an idiot is pretty harsh; he or she may actually be one or have other issues.

I'm wondering if you 'raised' your stepdaughters.

Methinks this partcular poster is feeling a wee bit bored
and is looking to Fodors to provide some stimulation to an otherwise dull day.

What the heck are you talking about?

Excellent point, yk. Why should single travelers be expected to pay higher rates so that the OP and her boyfriend can pay artificially low rates?

And why only target families as the problem? Why not levy the same criticism against anyone who gets a discount on a hotel room? Old farts, military & gov't personnel, priceline bottom feeders, convention attenders, AAA members?

This is in response to another thread in which a poster complained about having to pay hotels for their 2 teenage children. Felt the rate for 4 people should be the same as for 2 people.

By that reasoning why not allow 8 or 10 people in a room and charge the same? Just say they're your kids and they should be free.

Obviuosly there are some places (Orlando) and some hotel chains that focus on family business and choose to make kids free. That is their option.

But for people to expect all hotels to do this automatically is really asking other people to subsidize their children.

Now - I have nothing against children. And I pay a huge amount in taxes (for schools, government support to daycare, free healthcare for poor children) subsidizing other people's kids. And I have no problem with that - since the overall well-being of any society requires a healthy and educated populace, starting with the children.

But - I don't think that society's well-being rests on people being able to take their kids on vacation. That is an extra -not a basic. If they can find a hotel that doesn't charge for kids - more power to them. But - don't complain when a hotel does charge for kids (who are using services just as much as anyone else.) Either pick a different hotel - or pay your fair share based on how many of you there are.

And I'm not suggesting that everybody else's kids misbehave. But some people's do. And in "child friendly" hotels you are more likely to run into kids who are not being properly supervised and run aorund the halls at all hours, have tantrums in public places, make hideous amounts of noise at 7 am (when I want to sleep) and use inappropriate facilities as amusement areas (riding the elevator up and down for fun while people are waiting to get to their room). And I called the kid an idiot because that's how he was behaving - my only means of judging. (If he really had a mental handicap, why did his parents let him run around a hotel unsupervised - getting into who knows what trouble?)

As for singles paying the same as two people - I agree - singles should pay less - but no one is rushing to make that offer - posibly since most single travelers are business travelers, who typically get special rates anyway.

Not to be a grinch - but it really bothers me when people who usually get a special deal complain when asked to pay their fair share. Sort of like the old white guys complaining about being discriminated against now that they have to compete on a (somewaht) even basis with women and minority group memebers.

If they every need an example of a "troll post" in wikipedia, this is it.

This isn't a "troll post" at all. Just a point of view - posted as a result of the assumptions made by another traveler in his/her post.

Obviously I don't expect everyone to agree - but think a lot of people will.

It is just the way you presented your ideas that are offensive to me.....

I understand what you're saying NYTraveler, but think that the way it's presented is going to get more attention than the message itself.

It really doesn't have anything to do with children, ill-behaved or not. It has to do with the whining because a hotel uses extra charges to limit the number of people per room:

A family of 4 complaining because the hotel charges extra for more than 2 persons per room;

A group of women complaining because the hotel charges extra for more than 2 persons per room;

A group of college students complaining because the hotel charges extra for more than 2 persons per room;

and so on.

They all think that THEY should be allowed to pay less simply because they are THEY. They believe that the cost should be a set fee because they don't want to spend the extra money. In reality, they don't care if others are charged more, only that they should not be charged more.

Of course, if they chose to travel alone, they'd be complaining that they had to pay the same amount as that annoying family of 6 that stayed in the room next door.

Now that you put your first posting in context I can see what you're saying.

"I don't think that society's well-being rests on people being able to take their kids on vacation. That is an extra -not a basic."

If you feel that way then let me present you with my idea (I live in the state with the highest per capita taxes).

I believe that there is a big difference between "schooling" and "education". We pay dearly for "schooling" but the real "education" does not take place sitting infront of a black board for 6-8 hours a day.

I believe that taking my kids to see other places, cultures, feel & touch history does more to their education then any schoool could.

So why not subsidize that?

Recently when I went to SF and took the glass elevator in the St Francis to see the view I pressed all the buttons. I told everyone who got on that the drunk lady who just got off leaned on the panel. They all thought that was amusing. They seemed like fun travelers. We all enjoyed the view together.

People who complain about having to pay extra when they take extra people with them when they travel are cheapskates.

nytraveler I didn't see anything offensive in your post and I don't think you have to put anything in context or describe things in fairytale language-- I hear you loud and clear and it's ok to be irritated by something legitimately irritating! There are tons of little idiots out there: most recently, my mother-in-law sprained her wrist when she was knocked over in the Albuquerque airport by some little moron zipping around on a scooter with his parents' knowledge.

With respect to the subsidization of families, however, I'm guessing it does all even out in the end. Especially since the price of the room is somewhat arbitrary to begin with. A hotel could probably rent its rooms at $50 less than the $300 they charge and still turn a profit, but they're not likely to do that any time soon. In other words, I'd think the standard price across rooms is the price they've set to meet what they consider an acceptable profit margin and not representative of the bare minimum they can charge across the board to cover the cost of all the under-18 consumption of goods.

So while somebody complaininig about having to pay for their 2 teens is probably not going to get much sympathy from me (go someplace else, most places don't charge for kids), I also don't view myself as having subsidized the 2 kids in the room next to me. I view us as all having paid X dollars for our respective rooms, and X dollars is way beyond what any of us will cost the hotel in soap, electricity, water, etc.

I'm with you NY - and I don't think your post was offensive at all. I think some people are just overly sensitive about people saying ANYTHING remotely negative about children.

But in the end, some hotels will cater to families and others wont. We generally pick the hotels that don't.

Recently when I went to SF and took the glass elevator in the St Francis to see the view I pressed all the buttons. I told everyone who got on that the drunk lady who just got off leaned on the panel. They all thought that was amusing. They seemed like fun travelers. We all enjoyed the view together.>>>

Suzie~~~ I literally LOL when I read your post! WTG I am staying there in August and think I will do the same and later have a small toast to you!

>>It really doesn't have anything to do with children,<<

No kidding? The title of the post is "Why should travelers without children subsidize other people's kids?"

So it's ot about kids. If you can get beyond the part of it not being about children in hotels.

If 4 people (whatever their ages) cost more to occupy a hotel room than 2 people, then don't 2 people cost more than 1 person? Shouldn't the price per occupant be distributed proportionately?

No, of course not, because most US hotels, including many at the upper end of the price spectrum, charge per room and not per person. And even those that charge per person make allowances for children of varying ages.

That someone would complain that the per room policy is not universal is a bit of a whiner. But another someone who would broad brush that whiner's complaint to the level of childless couples subsidizing the cost of children in hotels is, well, approaching idiotic.

>>There are tons of little idiots out there:<<

And tons of big ones too. Only problem is the big ones think their wallets cancel out their asinine behavior and attitudes.

Obxgirl - If you had read my entire post instead of picking out one sentence, you might understand that I was separating the two issues out because one doesn't have anything to do with the other.

Not wanting to be around bratty kids has nothing to do with people whining because they expect to get a deal for cramming a group of people into one hotel room.

Your use of my one sentence to attack the OP on the other issue is rather unfair to me since it had nothing to do with it.

Well I for one don't like the fact that the full tuition I wrote checks for went to subsidize scholarships for lower-income students. (I don't have a problem with the school giving those scholarship from their endowment, I have a problem with me paying full, higher tuition and a portion of it going for that purpose). I guess we each have our own pet peeves

The hotels, like many restaurants, know that without the
kid(s) there would be no parents. You really need to get a life.......

>>Well I for one don't like the fact that the full tuition I wrote checks for went to subsidize scholarships for lower-income students.<<

There's not much to add since no one here can discern what portion of your tuition check funded some lower income student's scholarship at some undeclared university. I'm not asking you to share personal details but it's a bit of a stretch from that to the topic of how a hotel charges for how many people occupy a hotel room.

I don't think it's such a stretch as an analogy. The point is I paid more than I "should" have, and somebody else paid less. (By the way, the particular school, a private university, does not hide the fact).

I've only got the one kid but I guess I ought to start making another one so I can really cash in on all this subsidizing going on.

sf, I disagree with your analogy.

I am empathetic to the very high cost of a uni education but I disagree that it's analagous to how hotel rooms are priced.

And, FWIW, I am writing the big checks this summer too. We qualify for little or no need based help.

Toedtoes, I read your entire post. I agree that you distinguished between two issues. I don't think the OP has been so clever.

obxgirl -

We're not a childless couple - or at least we weren't - they're young adults now. And we got them their own room when we traveled so we could have some privacy. I understand a lot of families prefer not to do that and prefer hotels that allow kids for free. there are plenty of them. That's where they should stay. Not pick out hotels that charge extra for more people - and then complain about it.

What bothers me is the assumption that "kids should be free" - as if the entire world should pay to support their kids. And, as I said - I'm already subsidizing other people's kids in many ways without complaint.

But I resent the assumption that their kids are my responsibility in terms of vacation. I don;t choose to pay for other peoples' kids vacations (and avoid "family friendly hotels for many reasons - that among them.)

And it's not really the money - it's the assumption of entitlement that bothers me. "We have kids, and they're special, so we're special so we should get stuff for free." They're already getting stuff for free - I'm paying for their kid's education - after having paid separately for our own.

I think people who have children should realize that this is an expensive thing to do. And other people shouldn't have to pay for them. So go to a hotel that lets kids stay for free. But don't assume the whole world will work that way - and that YOUR offspring should be free everywhere.

Thanks. You have cheered me up with this ludicrous rant. Now that you have let off a little steam, maybe you will take the time to thank the young families for subsidizing your Medicare coverage.

HTTY

wow, it just gets richer with every post.....

Thanks Obxgirl. I just didn't want you or others to think that my post was addressing the "children" issue or combining it into the "multiple people in a hotel room" issue.

NYTraveler - I read the thread that I believe initiated this one, and I didn't see any "entitlement" by the OP. (S)he simply asked for a list of hotels that won't charge extra for the kids in the room. I think it's a bit strong to turn that into believing that their kids should be allowed to do everything for free. As per your second post "Either pick a different hotel - or pay your fair share based on how many of you there are."

The OP of the other thread was trying to do just that - find a hotel that would include the kids for free.

I thought about responding to this again but, nah, no need.

The OP's profoundly exaggerated sense of self importance will stand will just have to stand here on its own merit.

Lately I have seen adults get even on this issue. Several times this year I have seen 4(4+?) adults sharing a room, once at a 5 star resoty.
My kids dont require nearly as much service as some of these 'thrifty' travelers. So why should my kids, who ration soap and hot water like its 1943, have to subsidize a bunch of towelhog cheapskates?

hee hee MomDD. Nobody who got on seemed to care. We all talked about the landmarks we could see. It was really pleasant.

BTW I noticed on the way up which floor was the lowest that had a view and pushed only the buttons from there up so we didn't have to stop on the low non-view floors unless someone wanted to get on.

Well Suzie - I am serious! I am excited to go with my stepdaughter in August and shall stop that elevator

HTTY->>Now that you have let off a little steam, maybe you will take the time to thank the young families for subsidizing your Medicare coverage.<<

By the time a person is elgible for Medicare they have paid their dues/taxes for many years,,,,, They have also subsidized this Country's schools and infrastructure that those 'young familits' are now using....

When you find ill-behaved children you will also find ill-behaved parents.

Happytrailstoyou -

We're both a long way from Medicare coverage. And even when we're old enough to get it we will have paid for it and more with all of our taxes - Social Security Meidcare, Federal Income, NYS Income, NYC Income, real estate plus an 8% sales tax. We have the highest taxes in the country - and pay them willingly - because this is where we want to live. (And our SS benefits won;t be sucked out of your poor children's pockets - since we've provided for our own retirement.)

And I have no problem giving to charities for the needy - we are regular contributors to several very worthy causes.

But nowhere did I sign up to pay for other people's kids vacations. that's like asking me to pay for their summer camp or their music lessons. If you have kids you pay their way - or not - as you prefer. But don;t complain that other people won't pay more than their share so you can have something free.

As I said above there are plenty of hotels where kids are free. People who don't want to pay for their kids should stay there. Not pick out hotels that choose NOT to let kids in free (perhaps this isn't their desired clientele or ambiance) and then complain about those hotels trying to gouge them, as if free hotels for their kids is their right, not an optional benefit.

And I'll give up now. since obviously there are some people on this board who do think that everyone else should pay for their kids.

Just hope these kids aren't the same ones who go through life expecting make-up tests when they don;t do well in school, or extra projects to raise their grades, or expect everyone else to do their work when they get a job.

(We just had to let one of those go - when he reported late to work 4 days in a row - after being put on probation for chronic lateness, as well as not pulling his weight in group assignments. Maybe he was riding up and down in the hotel elevator all day and missed the lesson on the need to turn up on time for work.)

Today's bratty, idiot kids will grow up to be the executives that will be in charge of the hospitals and nursing homes that you will no doubt be using in your "golden years". They will be the administrators of the banks, government agencies, grocery stores. They will be cleaning your streets, picking up your garbage and maybe even teaching your step-grandchildren.

I understand the complaint issued by the OP. I don't really share the concern about this, but I do often wonder about the "single supplement" levied on group travel so often. It's the same thing, only different.

I understand operators do what they think will bring them the most income. It suits some, bothers others.

Now, NYTraveler, you'll have to explain this a bit more:
"Sort of like the old white guys complaining about being discriminated against now that they have to compete on a (somewaht) even basis with women and minority group memebers."

"We avoid "family friendly" hotels whenever possible."

That's your answer.

After all, you don't really think the cost to you would go down if motels decided to charge a fee for kids in the room? You aren't subsidizing kids; you're subsidizing the bottom line, whatever it is.

Do think the "single supplement" is unfair.

When a tour operator determines the price of their package look at it from another angle: they determine a price per person, then discount each 1/2 of a twosome's room charge because the operator is paying 1/2 room charge for each. Yes, the touring, airfare and food (if included) is charged per person. But the physical room holds 2 people; even though the second person uses electricity, water, towels, etc. the hotel still makes a greater profit from booking 1 room, thus freeing up a 2nd room that can be booked. So does it really matter if it is a "single supplement" or a "twosome discount" the bottom line is the same.

"But nowhere did I sign up to pay for other people's kids vacations."

How much more can one or two kids staying in the same room cost? The square footage is the same, heat and AC is the same, if all we're talking about is some water, electicity usage, and some towels, can it possibly be more than a couple of bucks?

Here's something to keep in mind - sometimes people do things for you, and sometimes you do things for them. It pretty much evens out in the end. Sometimes you can pay it back, but if you can't, you pay it forward. I think you are obsessing about a tiny amount of money.

Today's bratty, idiot kids will grow up to be the executives that will be in charge of the hospitals and nursing homes that you will no doubt be using in your "golden years".

That is a problem.
I offer the following advice to kids-the kid you want to beat up after school, either cripple him or ignore him because one day he will be your boss. And start a hooker fund for him, because that is the only way it will happen.

Now back to the OP.

As a business and personal traveler and someone without children, the thought never crossed my mind. The ones that I think jack up the prices are the ones who make incessant and unreasonable demands.

Wow. You're crotchety.

Maybe parents are looking for a place to forget their kids?
(Referring to your other thread)

Sorry, NY, but you've got a real hang-up about parents with younger children.

It's good to get things off your chest

Just curious how you could be so sure your 11/14 stepdaughters were behaving themselves when you left them alone in their separate room so you could be alone with their father? For that matter, how did you ensure their safety? I totally agree that some parents are more conscientious than others.

I have a bigger problem w/the 'idiot grown-ups'. While recently staying @ a typical, chain hotel in the NC Mts. (w/my idiot kids) I was given a room w/a view of the pool. Which stayed open until 11pm ?! That's not a very good rule. Since a group of visiting sales people decided to turn it into their own private party zone until well after Midnight. After 2 calls to the front desk, & my idiots being awakened, they were finally dispersed. The joint did give us our room for free, but we'll not be heading back there, ever again. Generally, speaking if you do run into kids that are misbehaving, you can usually blame the parents, not the kids. I won't even get into the next door headboard pounding screamer or the drunks meandering down the hallway yelling at each other from a distance of 2.5 feet. Children are the least of my concerns.

"were behaving themselves when you left them alone in their separate room so you could be alone with their father?"

She could hear them giggling through the wall while pops and wife #?? were humpin' and bumpin'

nytraveler, if you are still reading, the business traveler makes up for more than 70% or room revenue.

Most of the bigger convention hotels charge for more than two people in a room not for the kid reason but because adults are abusing the system. Putting six people in a room with two beds.

GoTravel, I'm curious whether the facts you state "go together". Meaning, is it the business travelers who "put six people in a room with two beds"? If so, wow. When i traveled on business (years ago), I didn't/wouldn't even share a room with one other adult!

Conventions and conferences are considered business travel.

A lot of time with big association conventions, attendees, who are considered the business traveler will pack many people in a room.

An example would be the National Restaurant Association. You may have six students from and CIA who want to attend and being that they are broke students, they will pile six in a room.

This is very common for association conferences.

sf, as a former hotel manager and Director of Sales, I do know what I am talking about.

You are assuming all business travel is equal and it isn't.

Actually, I assumed you knew what you were talking about. I really was just curious.

I have seen that in places like Vegas, did not know (or expect) it to be so commonplace. I'm like sf, I used to get mad if they asked me to share a room.

**I won't even get into the next door headboard pounding screamer or the drunks meandering down the hallway yelling at each other from a distance of 2.5 feet. Children are the least of my concerns.**

Maybe they were just trying to get back at the guests who think that because their children are up at 6:30am, everyone else is also awake.

Maybe, they should know better...

sf - dh recently started working with a new company - he has had to take two business trips thus far in the last 3 months. He was asked to share a room in New Orleans to save on costs. Bless his heart! He was a big "muckty much" who was use to being put in the suites! Oh times have changed... yes, many companies ask for people to share rooms on business travel to save on costs and I imagine it is becoming more and more prevalent.

Interesting thread.

Do we KNOW that other travelers subsidize kids or do hotels swallow the cost of kids (< 12)?

Afterall, if it's $300 a night for a 2 bed room what do they care if two kids stay (and they charge extra for a cot) with the parents?

It doesn't cost more in electricity, a bit more in water (nothing they'll notice) and they got to clean the room anyway. As a business owner I'd rather take the "less profit" route than the "no profit" route (parents go to another hotel).

"I have a bigger problem w/the 'idiot grown-ups'"

You've hit the nail on the head-- the probelm isn't kids-stay-free, family-friendly, single supplements-- it's IDIOTS! We'd give anything for the idiot-free vacation

HTTY <We're both a long way from Medicare coverage.> nytraveler

Then perhaps you resent those who get a discount on hotels, restaurants, buses, etc. because they are in their "twilight years".

It is often the case that children receive a reduced price or a free service when they are accompanied by an adult.

Tax payers subsidize children's education and, often, their health care. Do you resent that as well?

Are you annoyed that you subsidize children's movie attendance?

PS Since last I wrote I have read your restaurant advice on page 416 of the beautiful new Fodor's guide to New York City. That makes good sense,

HTTY

There are lots of discounts in all walks of life for young people and the older crowd...restaurants, movies tix, teetimes, hotels, sporting events, education, amusement parks, education.....

We subsidize...it's what a civilized society does!!!

And to the OP..get the chip off your shoulder and the drop the haughty attitude.

One of the earlier posts indicates that taking kids on vacation is a luxury. Agreed, but it's also a valuable learning experience for them, that I for one could probably not afford if I had to pay for 2 rooms. In a recent trip to DC my DH and my 2 children (10 and 15) all shared a room. My 15 year old was the one telling me to turn the lights out etc whenever we left the room, so probably actually spent less on utilities for the 4 of us than since she is so energy saving conscious. The "extra" cost for the 2 kids is so small - perhaps the cost of washing extra linens and towels (esp since we generally don't use the hotels soap etc) that I have a really hard time understanding the OP's concern about subsidizing me. If I hadn't been able to have the kids in the room with me, we simply would not have taken the trip. So.. an empty room at the hotel, which means they make less money, which means prices go up to maintain profit margins...

My two cents...today's children are tomorrow's adults and if their parents can instill in them a love of travel when they are young, they will be the travel industry's customers in the relatively near future.

Dear OP:

Please consider new or adjusted meds. This thread is preposterous. If you don't want to "subsidize" kids to the tune of maybe $3 out of your pocket per night, go stay at Club Med type places that don't allow them.

I've been subsidizing the oldies for years, but considering what my own parents did for me, I will wish I had such discounts and travel advantages instead of wishing they did not.

Look I do tour work with groups and I have to tell you that adults are more trouble than the kids. They complain about EVERYTHING even to the point of, in my opinion, making up things.

Let me tell you an old tour director story. There you are at the hotel. There are no more rooms and one couple is loudly complaining about theirs. So, you quietly go to the desk and talk to the management about the problem. Quietly (so no one in the group knows you are doing this), you have them switch the kvetches into your room and you take theirs. Since good tour directors NEVER give their room number to the group and almost always stay away from the group (to enhance the ability to sleep and avoid silly calls), no one is the wiser and the kvetches are happy.

I have had self entitled people complain about EVERYTHING and the adults are much worse than children. So there. I go to the desk with complaints but I am nice about it and explain that (a) this is what they are saying and (b) I am not saying whether it is true or not because I don't know. Kids, by the way, will complain that maids are stealing their clothes (valuable items such as "hoodies"). The "valuable items" are certainly not appropriated by the maides. They are taken by other kids in the group--and/or mislaid by the complainers themselves. Unbelievable!

It all boils down to who is polite and who is not. It is not families staying in the hotel with me that I mind at all. It is people with bad manners--some of whom have posted on this thread. It doesn't matter what age they are. If a chain has a group of school kids staying at a hotel while I am there and it is not work, for the record, I'd rather stay somewhere else. Kids staying with parents have never been a problem for me.

Insofar as prices for hotels are concerned, it is all in the business model. If they do not need family business, they do not have to entice it with "kids stay free" promotions. If everyone is staying in the same room, I don't see the issue. What do the families use? A few extra towels? Give me a break. In any event, I don't go around comparing what others paid for a room. I worry about what I have to pay and that's that.

Do you also get upset by people who take more baths, use more towels, visit the ice machine more than once, eat lots at the breakfast bar, etc., all things that could make your stay cost more.

I would just rather enjoy my trip and not worry about others.

Nytraveler--If that's how you feel, then please boycott any hotel that offers a free stay for children. I won't have to worry about running into you.

As a parent, I don't "expect" anyone to subsidize my child's stay. But if the stay if FREE for children, I'm certainly not going to volunteer to pay for them.

*eyeroll*

charsuzan, I could not agree with you more. You take your trip and I take my trip and we both mind our own business and we both have a great time.

My next trip is going to be a home exchange in Finland. Since I travel mostly with home exchanges, I don't worry about staying in hotels much on vacation. I stay free!

NYTraveler:

Thank you for reminding me why I left NYC...

Hey milemarker0 - don't judge a city by one Fodor poster!

Um. I travel with kids. A lot. I guess I never really thanked everyone else who travels for helping to pay for their uh, soap (God, I wish they used soap....) and for waiting that extra few seconds while my kid "pushed the button" on the elevator. Sometimes staying home might be better if you are at all "prickly" about stuff, you know?

Has anyone else noticed that NYtraveler has not responded in 8 days? Do I sense defeat??

in my opinion it was just a nonsensical post and a rather rude one to boot.....

Annesherrod--Agreed! Apparently, those of us with children shouldn't travel...or should sleep in our cars so that we don't disturb the more "mature" guests!!!