![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
so the history of warnings 101, i could go for this
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.
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.
no subject
Of course, that isn't intended to be a criticism of your decision in the past. And there are theoretically good legal reasons to not want minors reading your porn. (And the thing about not wanting the actor to see it, yeah, that makes sense.)
But the people you're branding as kiddies unable to appreciate or want that, or view it without being harmed... really aren't. Adultism is an *ism too - and it's not something I'm bringing up to accuse you of, but something I'd like to genuinely debate and see discussed more in fandom, with its self-imposed age ratings.
no subject
long (possibly incoherent) reply, erk
and the use of the word "right" in its other sense in my closing argument was really, really poor - because it's absolutely true that the right to access information shouldn't have age limits. the fact that I fucked up on this point is really ironic for reasons I can't explain in a public post, but I am horribly embarrassed by it.
and yet, and yet. I was a teenager who was given very few limits and looking back I'm very aware that the emotional maturity one believes one has at that age is most often a very different thing from one's actual level of emotional maturity. without getting too gross and personal, my impulses on this issue, on the -- let's call it what is is -- age discrimination regarding this stuff, are like those people who were wild kids and then become strict parents. and I think that our (a societal we, not you and I we) ethical impulse to protect our young is not wrong. it's just often very poorly applied.
at this point in my fic writing "career" I don't limit access to my archive - it's there, it's open and searchable, it has minimal warnings, and if Orlando Bloom wants to sue me, well, okay. it is curated, so to speak -- I don't archive everything I wrote in the last mumble mumblety years -- but that process is based on my opinion about each piece's subjective quality, regardless of content.
tl;dr: thanks for giving me things to think about, and again for pointing out my fail. :)
Re: long (possibly incoherent) reply, erk
Re: long (possibly incoherent) reply, erk