Comment For Maymay

 
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:

Not Found
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:
  • “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.”
     

  • My response:
  • 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?

 
Maymay, I hope you see this.   I really admire the turn your blogging has taken.   I hope you can accept my input in the sincere spirit in which I intended it.

With best wishes,

Lubyanka.
 

About Lady Lubyanka

I am a 45 year old musician, and also a multisexual, polyamourous, Jewish, socially dominant woman within my romantic BDSM relationships.
This entry was posted in Consent, correspondence, inclusion, Respect. Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Comment For Maymay

  1. maymay says:

    About KinkForAll: you express nice sentiments in the wrong context. Context is important. If you’re at a KinkForAll event, you’ve consented to being there; no one is forced to attend or participate. The opt-out policy is expressly designed to create a no-closet, public space by default. There has been endless discussion about this, so I’d encourage you to go read through the archives of the mailing list if you haven’t yet.

    Thanks for the compliments on my writing. I’m sorry my blog is acting up and that the continuing server issues have prevented you from commenting. If you try again, it might work, and I’m trying to resolve the “Not Found” error as quickly as I can prioritize the many things on my plate.

    • Thank you for the link to the mailing list archives. I had a look and found one message which contained some discussion of this topic.

      Whilst I acknowledge that diversity and other human interests are in general less well served by closetedness and much better served by outedness, and whilst I also acknowledge that KinkForAll is explicitly designed to be a public space, my primary point was less about recording and much more about a general policy of stickering by presence of consent rather than by absence (which it is already by default).

      I agree that context is important. However, although you stated that my blog is the “wrong” context for my sentiments, I’m not clear on what you think is wrong about this context, why it’s wrong, how the wrongness of the context invalidates the points I was making, how the “right” context would change that, and what that “right” context might be.

      I was offering you something to consider, which I’m sure you are entirely free to disregard or incorporate according to your choice. Since you’ve clarified that you intend to continue assuming consent for this particular matter, then I wish you and all your fellow unconferencers luck with that.

      Thank you for clarifying the details of your server issue.

      • maymay says:

        Thank you for the link to the mailing list archives. I had a look and found one message which contained some discussion of this topic.

        There’s plenty more references.

        However, although you stated that my blog is the “wrong” context for my sentiments, I’m not clear on what you think is wrong about this context, why it’s wrong

        Your blog is always the correct context for your sentiments. :) That also makes it the wrong context for a discussion about this issue. You’re welcome to bring it up again, of course, and I’ll simply refer you to the prior discussions on the matter.

        A public-space mindset is an intrinsic part of KinkForAll unconferences. Wavering half-heartedly on this principle is unnecessary and, although it might seem counter-intuitive at first, actually very dangerous.

      • Thank you for the link. On the page you linked to, I was unable to find any reference to any discussion about recording devices or stickering by presence of consent. Was that the link you intended to provide?

        Is there a reason you have assumed an inextricable connection between a general approach to seeking consent which first assumes denial, and enforcing or encouraging closetedness or invisibility? I consider those to be entirely separate and different topics.

        I presented only the first for your consideration. I already expressed my support for open visibility to you in my previous comment, and I reiterate that position all over this blog and in my life. Was there a reason you thought I was disputing this and didn’t understand?

        Also, although you repeated that my blog is the wrong context for this discussion, you still omitted your reason(s) for asserting this. Why is my blog the wrong place to bring up approaches to consent with you? How does the venue of my blog invalidate the topic for you? Wrong for whom? Wrong how?

        You might be interested in having a look at the bicon organiser guidelines. That event is the most open, safe, sex positive space I have ever experienced. And they specify that recording of any kind in any medium must be done only with permission. So I am confused why you think that stickering by presence of consent must be connected to closeted invisibility.

        I appreciate the time you’ve invested to answer my questions, Maymay.

  2. maymay says:

    On the page you linked to, I was unable to find any reference to any discussion about recording devices or stickering by presence of consent. Was that the link you intended to provide?

    Oops, no, my bad. I’m sorry, the link I intended to send you was this one.

Spill yo oh-PIN-yunz after the tone ...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s