Spring 2024, the French press discovers “adults only” leisure activities. Continuing a trend in sunny tourist destinations (Mexico, Thailand, Spain), hotels, campsites and vacation sites in France now appear to be reserved for adults. Public opinion is upset, to the point that Senator Laurence Rossignol is tabling a bill against these new forms of discrimination against children and their families, which current legislation would not allow to prohibit – insisting on the fact that mothers are then just as excluded as their children, as we see in countries where “no kids” zones are very developed (for example, in South Korea).
A year later, spring 2025, Sarah El Haïry, just appointed High Commissioner for Children, rekindles the controversy by summoning tourism professionals and announcing that she wants to take radical measures against this drift which she considers unacceptable. For a management researcher, if there is an economic phenomenon, it is because there is a demand or even needs to which companies respond by finding an interest in it.
We therefore began an exploratory study on these services reserved for adults, focusing on the motivations of customers and companies.
A rapidly growing offering
For the moment, there are no proven figures on the number of these offers in France. The experts, or so-called experts, called upon announce 3 to 5% of the stock, but without any supporting study. However, everyone says that they are growing strongly. The definition of the concept is not unanimous either. Rather than 18 years old, many providers set the threshold at 16 years old, or even 12 in certain cases. It’s not so much age as childish behavior that seems to be the problem.
At the sector level, the offers mainly concern tourist accommodation, hotels, campsites and clubs. For the moment, no identified restaurant or carrier, as is the case in other countries, apart from stopovers in France by foreign cruise ships.
On the customer side, aspirations can be classified into three main categories, which can be combined. First of all, the search for a peaceful space-time allowing rest, protected from disturbances caused by children (noise, demands, agitation, etc.). Then, a search for intimacy between adults, within the context of a couple or close friends. And finally, the exception and distinction, since the “adults only” dimension is associated with a premium experience, through the comfort and exclusivity of the activities offered.
A “premium” offer?
Thus, the mere fact of prohibiting the presence of children in certain leisure places would be enough to make them sites deemed high-end. According to the companies, this economic model would then be more profitable, as observed in other countries.
There is, on the one hand, an increase in turnover, due to growing demand, an extension of stays beyond school holidays, and a clientele willing to pay more for a perceived superior service; and, on the other, a distinctive commercial offer, without new investments and even with a reduction in costs, since the presence of children would imply additional costs and charges – surveillance and especially consumables (notably water). Some operators even put forward the ecological argument, which is also found in another movement without children, the childfreecouples who do not want to procreate.
However, we have not yet verified the veracity of the best profitability. Some entrepreneurs speak of classic results, due to lower demand than expected and a growing demand from these customers for luxurious, more expensive services.
Legal discrimination or not?
The problem of the illegality of discrimination remains “based on age or marital status” according to article 225-1 of the Penal Code, which can lead to a fine of up to 45,000 euros and three years in prison. Until now, to avoid this legal risk, certain companies have instead sought to implicitly discourage families, announcing that their premises were unsuitable for children, with dangerous equipment, an unsupervised swimming pool, or a lack of space for strollers.
Since the media coverage, the positioning reserved for adults is more assumed in company communication, specialized sites are flourishing and the platforms even offer a specific “adults only” option (Booking, TripAdvisor). The lawyers of these professionals assert that the legislation being vague, the principle of business freedom would be arguable, since these are sites reserved for adults (“adults only”) and not prohibited for children (“no kids”). In any case, lawyers believe that the reform of the law, as envisaged in the Senate, would not be effective.
It is therefore not a question of a rejection of children, but of a need for moments without mental or physical load.
Especially since after two years of a heated media debate, no complaints from families or associations have been recorded. Would French society therefore be in favor of this development? Moreover, the private sphere, unregulated, turns out to be much more intolerant, with in particular a growing number of wedding ceremonies without children and an increase in places where they are no longer tolerated (cinemas, restaurants, transport).
On rental platforms (Airbnb, Gîtes de France, etc.), it is also among individual owners that we found the most questionable comments and practices to dissuade families with young children.
The triumph of “misopedia”
Would the offers reserved for adults then reveal a society that has become misopedic, that is to say, one that hates children? The reality is more complex. It seems that we are rather witnessing a segmentation of tourism providers, with a tendency to exclude children for some, and a specialization on families for others. Paradoxically, after much media agitation, the High Commissioner ultimately only proposed, as the only measure, the labeling of “family-friendly” services, which ratifies and reinforces this social segmentation that she nevertheless claimed to circumscribe.
Furthermore, if couples without children (under 30 and retired) are logically the most represented, assuming that they do not want to endure other people’s children during their leisure time, we nevertheless find a significant proportion of parents and mothers (more than a third) fans of these services in other countries. They express the need for a break without their children, time to rest from the exhaustion of everyday life, although feeling guilty.
Added to this are childcare professionals, teachers, caregivers and nannies, who just as much need to rest, in order to be able to better care for the children the rest of the year. It is therefore not a question of a rejection of children, but of a need for moments without mental or physical load.
A more egalitarian measure?
Another social consideration: abroad, these tourist offers are frequented by well-off French people.
Their generalization across the national territory makes them accessible to the middle classes. But probably not to working-class mothers, especially single ones, who need rest the most. This age and gender discrimination is therefore also more broadly social and economic.
Despite the media discourse, we can question the real scale and profitability of this phenomenon. The effectiveness of an indiscriminate ban, which would ignore the reasons for these requests, also deserves to be questioned. More structurally, in this cacophony, the words of those primarily concerned – the children – are completely absent.
Offers reserved for adults raise more complex issues than media debates would suggest. Current responses from decision-makers appear, at best, useless, even counterproductive.
