Template talk:ImageDepictingNon-conOrSexualAssault

From Fanlore
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Discussion Moved From Image Page

Moved here from [Image talk:Yourkink1.jpg]

I didn't add the consent warning here because they are both happily smiling, which indicates consent to me. To someone else that probably doesn't make a difference. I guess we'll end up with anything even remotely connected to bondage, BDSM, and consent play labeled as "sexual assault" because you usually can't *see* consent in visual representations of these things. :/ IMO that isn't a respectful way of dealing with kink. It would probably be more useful to rename this template to something like "issues of consent, consent play, and bondage". --Doro 18:50, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your thinking. I am hoping the group that approves these templates is open to wording changes so we don't end up seeing all BDSM labeled as assault/non-con. It'd be much easier to change the template wording than to go through each image and debate - "is that a smile? a grimace? can you signal consent just by smiling? Which is why I put the template on this one and asked the question.
PS. is this enough of a smile? http://fanlore.org/wiki/Your_Kink_or_Mine :-) --Morgandawn 19:16, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
You ask the hard questions! *g* I would say yes, it's enough of a smile, because Jim is all "Look at my shiny bondage gear!" ;) PS: Point well taken. Trying to figure out if Jim is smiling and what it means is an exercise in...something. --Doro 19:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Yes, but is *Blair* smiling. Jim's all "Look at my shiny bondage gear!" but Blair lookes like he's gasping in horror (mayhap a bit intrigued.) But since he's facing away from Jim, he could be fleeing, so would that mean there are consent issues after all? Perhaps it's not only the smile/grimace factor but also whether they are leaning forward/backwards and/or whether they are the facing each other or away from each other.
Should we add hands open (reaching/longing/loving) or closed (fists/fear/attack) to the list?
This "we must analyze whether in the prescence of bondage gear they are visually signaling consent" excercise can become very silly. --Morgandawn 19:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
So much agreement with you both. I have just been looking at some of the images with the consent warning and *wow*. YKI not OK on fanlore, apparently! It is incredibly offensive that anything involving BDSM is basically marked as rape. I - seriously, the BDSM page has a picture of two people kissing and it's minimised because one of them is in a collar? The hell? Even on the BSDM page you don't get to portray BDSM as, you know, not evil? --MegR 20:23, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
It's really a matter of interpretation. Qui-Gon is older, a Jedi master and Obi-Wan is his padawan. Maybe it's a non-con slavefic AU, maybe it's a loving relationship. Warnings that are useful in fiction aren't necessarily useful when it comes to images. :( I've argued in one of the many discussions that pages that are about something should be able to show this something without minimizing it but the reply so far was that there are no exceptions. Today I've added templates to a lot of images, strictly adhering to policy, to better show how the policy works and how it doesn't work. Lets just say when it comes to BDSM, there is definitely room for improvement. --Doro 20:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I didn't realise you were the one adding all those templates before and ... I find your reasoning unconvincing. I have looked over the template and the image policy and it doesn't specify what counts as non-con or offer any examples as far as I can see - which is a problem, obviously. Am I missing a more detailed policy somewhere? But you said you're "strictly adhering to policy", and as far as I can tell all it says is "images that depict rape or sexual assault", and you're the only one "intepreting" a kiss as a sexual assault because someone is wearing a collar. So you're deliberately adding the template to images that you don't think need it in order to - show what a pain in the ass it would be if someone added the template to images that don't need it? --MegR 21:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Am I missing a more detailed policy somewhere? No, that's all there is. The template instructs to add this text: "This image has been marked as depicting acts involving sexual assault and/or consent issues (either non- or dubious consent) and has been minimised." Meaning dubious consent is included as well. Also, the templates are supposed to be "warnings". I've added the template when I've thought an image could possibly be considered dubious consent. ETA: Also, I haven't added it to this page, see reasoning above. --Doro 21:12, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I was talking about the image on the BDSM page [1], not this page, sorry for the confusion. I still disagree with your reasoning regarding adding it to anything that "could possibly be considered dubious consent". If someone considers it dubious consent, *they* can add a template; I think someone who *doesn't* consider it dubious consent adding it just to make a point is unhelpful at best. At least, I am getting the impression that you don't actually consider most of these images to require warnings, I'm sorry if I've misunderstood you. --MegR 21:28, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
I disagree with that. I think the people editing the wiki should add the templates, especially the people uploading the images. If they won't, no one else will. Also, I don't think it's right to expect people who need warnings to add them themselves after it's maybe already too late for them. If you don't think that particular image qualifies as dubious consent, you can contest it on the talk page there and change it yourself. After looking at hundreds of images to distinguish between sexual activity, visible genitalia, and sexual activity with visible genitalia it's quite possible there are a few misses or some where I was too trigger-happy.
I got the impression from your earlier comments that you were adding templates to prove that the templates don't work very well and that you do not actually believe that minimising images comprises a useful "warning", or that "dubious consent" can be determined by the presence of bondage gear. If you're actually doing it because you think all the images you templated do need to be warned for and that minimising them is a useful warning, then I apologise. I'll contest the individual image templates as appropriate. --MegR 22:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Now that you mention it, maybe Jim is forcing Blair to participate in his kinky scene while Blair really didn't want to know about Jim and his kinky sex life, never mind seeing him in full bondage gear. *ponders* This could lead to glorious essays discussing kink. Not. --Doro 20:46, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Maybe we could switch the burden of preponderance towards assuming BDSM is consensual unless there's a reason to think otherwise? Where does this discussion and decision take place? --msilverstar 21:36, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Points up. Ya think? I do not understand why this is even a question. Where is this idea coming from that the policy says that any image that depicts sexuality or sexual activity in a BDSM context must be assumed to be more likely to require a content label for issues of consent than any other sexually explicit image?
I had my high horse all saddled and ready when the committee released the draft policy because the earlier conversation on this issue included this kind of talk. Talk that infuriates me. My comments about that kind of thinking making its way into the policy and how that would be a very bad thing went unanswered, and I was very afraid that the committee was going to go the route of conflating BDSM with issues of consent. They did not do that. They made open-ended rules that editors can interpret on an individual basis.
Your contention that the policy is forcing you to consider the supposed feelings of hypothetical future viewers of this site is unsupportable by facts. The policy is not forcing you to make any objective decision, only subjective ones. You are therefore using the real experience of bigotry by BDSM practitioners to make a point about how you feel about this policy and its wording. You say you are concerned about showing respect for kinky people. This is not how you do that. Your suggested wording change only adds to this erroneous thinking that kink and BDSM should be filed in the consent issues box. --facetofcathy 23:14, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

Example Images Currently Marked As Noncon/Dub Con

Here is a list of what has been marked 'non/dub con". I think it would be helpful to use them as examples in discussing how the template should be appplied. Keep in mind, the image templates are new so there is going to be a period of poking and prodding.

http://fanlore.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Whatlinkshere&target=Template:ImageDepictingNon-conOrSexualAssault --Morgandawn 23:53, 27 November 2010 (UTC)

edited to add: I don't necessarily agree that all of these fall into the category, but hopefully this can help frame the discussions.--Morgandawn 00:09, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

edited to further add: as of November 30, the NonCon Image Template has been removed from the majority of these images. The Fanlore Image Wiki Committe will be meeting on 12/7 to further discuss (see awils1's comment below).--Morgandawn 16:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Kissing with collars

Examples:

  • Kirk wearing collar being kissed by Spock!Man!Fish!?

  • Obi wearing collar and being kissed by Qui-Gon

Naked in chains/Tied in ropes

Examples:

  • Kirk in handcuffs, despondent Spock, both naked

  • Naked kneeling Obi Wan's hands bound behind back

  • Krycheck tied in ropes in a chair, gagged with rope

  • Hutch tied on bed, Starsky in doorway

  • Kirk and Spock naked in chains, being paraded in front of McCoy on a throne

  • Avon hands tied in bed - this has not been marked, offered for discussion

  • naked, bound hands, whip. image has not been marked, offered for discussion

  • naked woman kneeling in chains (is this... Dr Beverly Crusher? OMG!).image has not been marked, offered for discussion.

Below is a series of Blake's 7 images I chose not to upload for various reasons, but again they are offered for discussion

  • Avon naked, bound & spreadeagled and gagged on bed

  • Avon in chains and blindfolded with genitals showing

Wearing BDSM Gear, In Play

  • Spock spanking a naked Kirk - no gear here, but this was the closest currently marked

  • Mulder bent over desk, Skinner raising belt, no gear (except for belt), not marked, offered discussion

Wearing BDSM Gear, Not In Play

Examples:

  • Jim in BDSM outfit with Blair holding leash, both smiling

  • Jim in BDSM outfit smiling, Blair...throwing his hands into the air/doing a 'Home Alone' move?

Other

Examples:

  • woman in chains kneeling at the feet of a Klingon holding a whip

  • Evil Universe Spock shaving a bound Kirk's balls

Smile

Well, hello there little fella.

Rearrangement & Fanlore Policy

This morning, I went ahead and jiggled the warnings on the examples that User:Morgandawn offered. This has come from communication with Fanlore staffers. We have agreed that it is best to rule the rape template to be used when an example is specifically depicting a rape or sexual assault. It is not to be used for images that require second thought, as in "Hmm, is this consensual?". This is an interim measure, until 7/12, when we will decide what to edit the image policy with. We also going to decide on the length of the warning text to be used on Main namespace pages, and on the visibility criteria involved in warnings (i.e. which pixel size to use). --awils1 03:45, 30 November 2010 (UTC) .

Retrieved from "https://fanlore.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:ImageDepictingNon-conOrSexualAssault&oldid=971891"