I tried to post a comment on Maymay’s post from 24 June describing some aspects of the aftermath of a KinkForAll event, but his site wouldn’t allow it, returning this page:
and this message:
Apologies, but we were unable to find what you were looking for.
Perhaps the search box will help.
As a result of Maymay‘s previous responses to conflicts we had before, I feel uncomfortable about contacting him privately. Besides, I wanted others to see my reply as well. Since I was unable to post it in the comments of his post, I am posting my comment here in the hopes that Maymay and other KinkForAll unorganisers will see it.
- Maymay wrote:
- My response:
“That’s why KinkForAll participants pay careful attention to issues of personal privacy and, among other things, supply a simple red (or sometimes bright orange) sticker that can be worn to signal one’s preference not to be photographed or video recorded.”
I wrote something about consent which you may agree applies to the issues of personal privacy you mentioned in connection with KinkForAll.
Because by definition (or at least by my definition) the default state of consent is declined (otherwise, why ask for it?), you may want to consider modifying your policy of identifying the default absence of consent in favour of identifying consent which has been explicitly given.
According to your description, your current approach assumes other people’s consent and requires positive action from them to nullify that assumption (e.g. wearing a brightly coloured “decline consent” sticker). Whilst people who permit being filmed and photographed are likely to also be fine with being excluded from film and photographs (for example if their “consent” sticker falls off), for those who decline to be filmed or photographed the reverse is most definitely false (for example if their “decline consent” sticker falls off).
Assuming the consent of other people burdens them with nullifying those assumptions, whereas I think the burden of establishing other people’s consent belongs with those seeking it. I think assuming the absence of consent by default is a much more respectful approach for everybody.
Instead of using brightly coloured stickers to identify the default absence of consent, would you consider offering stickers to identify explicitly granted consent instead?
With best wishes,