so the history of warnings 101, i could go for this

[seperis]

Picking up a thought from about three different conversations:

I wonder if it would be worthwhile to have a panel on warnings, not just common triggers, but the historical perspective on them as vehicles of exclusion in fandom and how they've changed in meaning and reason for existence. A lot of perspective on them during the debates the last time and now is still shaped by when they were used against slash or against certain types of fic, vids, etc. And I didn't know until some discussion enlightened me on this that VVC was at least partially founded on a period of time when warnings themselves were used to exclude, not to facilitate inclusion.

Now, we use warnings to make things more inclusive to other fans, but there was a time they were a form of social control, and it could be institutionalized in ways that marginalized.

In all the debates, I really didn't know that as more than an abstract thing, and when I was in Smallville, there were still slash websites under password and some authors requiring direct contact via email for their fic because that was the only way they felt safe. I mean, I feel as if I should have guessed that one.

Anyone have more information on that? I get the impression this was also an issue before regular 'net access as well and that it might have come from cons originally, but a complete perspective would be interesting to know about and read. A lot of discussion during these two debates makes a lot more sense if the original purpose of warnings was to restrict access and exclude certain groups of fans entirely.

And when I say, "I wonder if it would be worthwhile", I mean, "Please yes one day let's do that?" Any con; just someone take good notes and post them so I can read about it.

Comments

Re: Here via metafandom

[seperis.livejournal.com]

During the last warnings debate, Telesilla on DW, brought up some good points about how warnings for orientation or lifestyle choices were exclusionary - specifically people that did real life d/S and BDSM. (This post contains some discussion about triggery warnings.) Telesilla suggested that kinks, d/S etc... could be listed in other parts of the header and that putting them in the warnings was marginalizing. I think it was a good post because it talked about the idea that headers could inform readers without making judgments on groups of people.

Thanks for those links! I remember her discussion on them and why in the context of a warning they were marginalizing and insulting. Someone was talking about that particular line earlier and I was thinking about it in terms of warnings this time around too; while the orientation and lifestyle shouldn't ever be considered a "warning", if specific acts within that lifestyle might be warned for (I was thinking of explicit hard scenes or knifeplay/bloodplay/consensual non-con or rape fantasy, etc) since those can be triggering to someone who had them perpetuated in a non-con setting, whereas just wanting powerplay or light spanking would be less likely to do so (and just having a header advertising line, not a warning, with that in it would separate anyone triggered by those from those for whom specific play issues would be a problem).

...I'm actually not sure, to be honest. Kinks I really am worried about if there isn't at least a working standard, because if anything is going to flashpoint warnings grey area, it's going to be kinks, and that's not only damaging to those who practice them, it's working entirely against our entire fannish culture of not judging them. That's not a step backward I think we should be willing to take.

Re: Here via metafandom

[justhuman.livejournal.com]

After having thought about the various discussions in the last warnings debate, I've chosen to call out anything triggery (not that I write much that falls in that category) in the header, but not necessarily the warnings.

So I might do

Rating: NC-17 for kinks including: blood play knife play

I may choose to disguise the actual kinks with a highlight box to respect those that would rather go in without knowing.

Recently I saw a good suggestion that I plan on adopting. In the case of potentially triggery kinks like these, I would also add in the warnings.

Warning: Potentially triggery kinks; please see the highlight box in the ratings

That all being said, I would list Non-con under the warning section.

Of course, it's all a compromise, but I do think it creates a middle ground that informs the reader of things that may be important to them, while allowing other readers a chance to discover for themselves.