trying to work through some kink bingo stuff
So, we have this accessibility problem at Kink Bingo. And I honestly don't know how to resolve it in a satisfactory manner.
Note: contains some discussion of the KB kink "consent play" and therefore rape fic and rape fantasy. No specific descriptions of rape fic or rape fantasy, though - just brief references to general tropes. Also contains me working through some privilege, which could be annoying or exasperating for some readers.
This last summer, we instituted a new policy: any player can opt out of getting the kink "consent play" on their cards. This is because this kink, no matter how you slice it, deals with eroticizing consent (in several different directions). Now, eroticization of consent can take many forms: we specifically mention things like rape fic, rape fantasy fic, fic where characters have safewords so that they can pretend to say no, and enthusiastic consent (you can see how making someone consent to every little act explicitly and out loud could get kind of kinky on its own). Buuuuuut even eroticizing enthusiastic consent means putting the issue of consent front and center in a particular way. There's no other way to navigate it. And so, since rape fic and rape fantasy and so forth are likely to be triggering for many people, it makes sense to make that kink opt-out.
Not that other kinks couldn't potentially have triggering content - indeed, any kink might be triggering, just like any square at schmoop_bingo or what have you might be triggering. But consent play seems like the one most likely to be triggering for most people in the KB community. Okay, good.
So then folks asked if we couldn't make it so that people could opt out of any kink, not just consent play, for similar accessibility reasons. It seems like that's a good thing to do, and will enable more people to play.
However, my mind stumbles on this in two places:
1) The game is about having people write unfamiliar and even unliked kinks, as well as familiar and liked ones; letting people self-select the things to have on their card kind of defeats the purpose. And I absolutely know for a fact that people will abuse the system. Now, okay, this is totally a VVC Accessibility Policy-styles "OMG WE CANNOT MAKE THINGS ACCESSIBLE WHAT IF SOMEONE ABUSES THE SYSTEM?!?!?" objection - and when I chide myself for kneejerk-feeling this way, what I tell myself is: it's more important to make things accessible than to prevent all abuse of this manner; some abuse of the system is not a big deal in comparison to accessibility. So, I would eventually get over this objection and the privileged thinking that drives it and just suggest to my co-mod that we go ahead with an opt-out system, EXCEPT for the fact that the kind of abuse that this system enables feeds directly into point 2:
2) There's a competing accessibility issue, which is that allowing people to opt out of any kink whatsoever will very quickly enable signups like "no watersports or scat or things like that please!" (and no, I'm not making that up, it's almost a direct quote of someone attempting to sign up - and it's not like they were the only one who tried that). This comes out of a kink-negative place, and is often painful for people who've had their kinks denigrated in the past (and if you're in many many places in fandom, you've probably had your kinks denigrated in the past). For some this kind of "ew gross" or "none of THAT stuff" attitude recalls previous institutional or verbal abuse - being told that there's something wrong with them if they like X or fantasize about X, being put in therapy (or more aggressive treatments) by parents or spouses to get "fixed," being verbally denigrated (in a non consensual way) for the way their sexuality works. And so it is very clear that creating this kind of atmosphere - in which people can come in and giggle and say "no watersports please ew!" - will work actively against the safe kinky space that we try to create at KB, and will have the potential of being triggery for some of our members. And in fact I worried about this when allowing the consent play opt out as well (since rape fantasies are totally one of those things that people are told they're wrong for liking), but because it's such a BIG triggery category, it seemed like a good compromise to let players opt out of that one.
So in general I just feel this discomfort about the whole thing, because I am pulled between wanting to make a safe space for one group and wanting to make a safe space for another group. If KB were just my friends or just people I knew well, it wouldn't be an issue, because we could just trust everyone to act with respect, but we had over 1000 signups last round, and most of them were people who were new to me (and new to the game). And anyway trusting people to act with respect often fails as a strategy.
In the end, I tend to come down on NOT allowing any opt outs except for consent play (a compromise because it's such a common trigger). Because the group to whom I feel allegiance and want most to protect is the kinksters, especially those who yearn for safe spaces in which they can have whatever fantasies they want and not be made to feel horrible for it. I also don't want to explicitly invite the kind of people who will corrode that safe space by failing at Your Kink Is Not My Kink But Your Kink Is OK 101. And in the grand scheme of things, if people play KB thinking it's a relatively safe space and they're not going to be triggered for previous abuse, and then someone shows up and does it . . . well, it's sort of shocking and unexpected and hard to predict; hard to defend against that. On the other hand, if someone is triggered by the eroticization of power dynamics and wants to opt out of "authority figures" and "masters doms slaves and subs," but can't, and they get them on their card anyway, they can still do a line that avoids their triggers; this is sooooo not accessible, because accessible would mean everyone being able to play the game in the same way with the same options (ie, they could do a blackout if they wanted) but at least there would be no sudden and unexpected triggering likely to happen. The worst case scenario there is that someone decides not to play, which SUCKS, but perhaps sucks less than the alternative, where someone is triggered or made to feel unsafe in a space specifically designed for them? I dunno.
Sigh. The thing is, it's hard to make a rule that applies to everyone when some people want the rule for one reason and some people want it for another reason, and those two reasons take the challenge in vastly different directions. It's like how
eruthros hand-picked-out a couple of asexual-kinks kink bingo cards for folks who wanted to do a bingo where they wrote fic for asexual characters; that we can do, and we only wish we could do it without people needing to specifically ask for it. But if someone just shows up and says "I want a card without these five kinks on it," well, no. That's offensive and potentially painful. And then of course there's secret stumbling block three:
3) We generate cards in advance using a computer program (I don't know how, I know nothing about computers, it's some sort of magic that
chagrined designed for us). This means that making every kink opt-out-able drastically increases the amount of time it takes us to hand out cards, since we have to go through them looking for one that fits the bill. This year I think we're going to pre-make a set of consent play free cards, and perhaps work with the folks at
asexual_fandom, if we can, to pre-make a set of asexual-friendly cards, but there's no solution to this problem if everything is opt-out-able. And this isn't just "it's more work for us!" - we could always recruit helpers - just that no matter how many people are helping, the process of giving anyone a card would take longer, and slow down the signups process considerably. And that would be fine if it meant that we were making more people feel and be welcome, but when it means that we're making some people feel more welcome while alienating or hurting other people, it begins to feel like the extra work (and longer wait time) is not worth it.
Annnnnyway, I have no idea where all of this comes out; I've just been rambling on for a while trying to get my head through it, so apologies if this was over long or boring or if my privilege is showing in ways I'm unaware of.
note: please don't post to metafandom.
(click to comment at dw || there are
comments right now)
Note: contains some discussion of the KB kink "consent play" and therefore rape fic and rape fantasy. No specific descriptions of rape fic or rape fantasy, though - just brief references to general tropes. Also contains me working through some privilege, which could be annoying or exasperating for some readers.
This last summer, we instituted a new policy: any player can opt out of getting the kink "consent play" on their cards. This is because this kink, no matter how you slice it, deals with eroticizing consent (in several different directions). Now, eroticization of consent can take many forms: we specifically mention things like rape fic, rape fantasy fic, fic where characters have safewords so that they can pretend to say no, and enthusiastic consent (you can see how making someone consent to every little act explicitly and out loud could get kind of kinky on its own). Buuuuuut even eroticizing enthusiastic consent means putting the issue of consent front and center in a particular way. There's no other way to navigate it. And so, since rape fic and rape fantasy and so forth are likely to be triggering for many people, it makes sense to make that kink opt-out.
Not that other kinks couldn't potentially have triggering content - indeed, any kink might be triggering, just like any square at schmoop_bingo or what have you might be triggering. But consent play seems like the one most likely to be triggering for most people in the KB community. Okay, good.
So then folks asked if we couldn't make it so that people could opt out of any kink, not just consent play, for similar accessibility reasons. It seems like that's a good thing to do, and will enable more people to play.
However, my mind stumbles on this in two places:
1) The game is about having people write unfamiliar and even unliked kinks, as well as familiar and liked ones; letting people self-select the things to have on their card kind of defeats the purpose. And I absolutely know for a fact that people will abuse the system. Now, okay, this is totally a VVC Accessibility Policy-styles "OMG WE CANNOT MAKE THINGS ACCESSIBLE WHAT IF SOMEONE ABUSES THE SYSTEM?!?!?" objection - and when I chide myself for kneejerk-feeling this way, what I tell myself is: it's more important to make things accessible than to prevent all abuse of this manner; some abuse of the system is not a big deal in comparison to accessibility. So, I would eventually get over this objection and the privileged thinking that drives it and just suggest to my co-mod that we go ahead with an opt-out system, EXCEPT for the fact that the kind of abuse that this system enables feeds directly into point 2:
2) There's a competing accessibility issue, which is that allowing people to opt out of any kink whatsoever will very quickly enable signups like "no watersports or scat or things like that please!" (and no, I'm not making that up, it's almost a direct quote of someone attempting to sign up - and it's not like they were the only one who tried that). This comes out of a kink-negative place, and is often painful for people who've had their kinks denigrated in the past (and if you're in many many places in fandom, you've probably had your kinks denigrated in the past). For some this kind of "ew gross" or "none of THAT stuff" attitude recalls previous institutional or verbal abuse - being told that there's something wrong with them if they like X or fantasize about X, being put in therapy (or more aggressive treatments) by parents or spouses to get "fixed," being verbally denigrated (in a non consensual way) for the way their sexuality works. And so it is very clear that creating this kind of atmosphere - in which people can come in and giggle and say "no watersports please ew!" - will work actively against the safe kinky space that we try to create at KB, and will have the potential of being triggery for some of our members. And in fact I worried about this when allowing the consent play opt out as well (since rape fantasies are totally one of those things that people are told they're wrong for liking), but because it's such a BIG triggery category, it seemed like a good compromise to let players opt out of that one.
So in general I just feel this discomfort about the whole thing, because I am pulled between wanting to make a safe space for one group and wanting to make a safe space for another group. If KB were just my friends or just people I knew well, it wouldn't be an issue, because we could just trust everyone to act with respect, but we had over 1000 signups last round, and most of them were people who were new to me (and new to the game). And anyway trusting people to act with respect often fails as a strategy.
In the end, I tend to come down on NOT allowing any opt outs except for consent play (a compromise because it's such a common trigger). Because the group to whom I feel allegiance and want most to protect is the kinksters, especially those who yearn for safe spaces in which they can have whatever fantasies they want and not be made to feel horrible for it. I also don't want to explicitly invite the kind of people who will corrode that safe space by failing at Your Kink Is Not My Kink But Your Kink Is OK 101. And in the grand scheme of things, if people play KB thinking it's a relatively safe space and they're not going to be triggered for previous abuse, and then someone shows up and does it . . . well, it's sort of shocking and unexpected and hard to predict; hard to defend against that. On the other hand, if someone is triggered by the eroticization of power dynamics and wants to opt out of "authority figures" and "masters doms slaves and subs," but can't, and they get them on their card anyway, they can still do a line that avoids their triggers; this is sooooo not accessible, because accessible would mean everyone being able to play the game in the same way with the same options (ie, they could do a blackout if they wanted) but at least there would be no sudden and unexpected triggering likely to happen. The worst case scenario there is that someone decides not to play, which SUCKS, but perhaps sucks less than the alternative, where someone is triggered or made to feel unsafe in a space specifically designed for them? I dunno.
Sigh. The thing is, it's hard to make a rule that applies to everyone when some people want the rule for one reason and some people want it for another reason, and those two reasons take the challenge in vastly different directions. It's like how
eruthros hand-picked-out a couple of asexual-kinks kink bingo cards for folks who wanted to do a bingo where they wrote fic for asexual characters; that we can do, and we only wish we could do it without people needing to specifically ask for it. But if someone just shows up and says "I want a card without these five kinks on it," well, no. That's offensive and potentially painful. And then of course there's secret stumbling block three:
3) We generate cards in advance using a computer program (I don't know how, I know nothing about computers, it's some sort of magic that
chagrined designed for us). This means that making every kink opt-out-able drastically increases the amount of time it takes us to hand out cards, since we have to go through them looking for one that fits the bill. This year I think we're going to pre-make a set of consent play free cards, and perhaps work with the folks at
asexual_fandom, if we can, to pre-make a set of asexual-friendly cards, but there's no solution to this problem if everything is opt-out-able. And this isn't just "it's more work for us!" - we could always recruit helpers - just that no matter how many people are helping, the process of giving anyone a card would take longer, and slow down the signups process considerably. And that would be fine if it meant that we were making more people feel and be welcome, but when it means that we're making some people feel more welcome while alienating or hurting other people, it begins to feel like the extra work (and longer wait time) is not worth it.
Annnnnyway, I have no idea where all of this comes out; I've just been rambling on for a while trying to get my head through it, so apologies if this was over long or boring or if my privilege is showing in ways I'm unaware of.
note: please don't post to metafandom.
(click to comment at dw || there are
comments right now)