Spoiler: more clarification on why I don't think existing tags work (tw rape discussion) I don't think the existing tags work because they don't work. Clearly they don't work because people are getting upset all the time. Nobody agrees about what "dubious consent" or "noncon" mean and I've even had people tell me I should expect surprise! rape in anything labelled "darkfic" when I was like, actually looking for mystical darkness or something. Problems we can fix: current tags in use have multiple conflicting meanings resulting in upset readers many current tags contain language not familiar to people who aren't already part of fandom and familiar with the jargon confusing tags give people ammunition when they want to be assholes to writers and artists Problems we can't fix: society does a terrible job about educating people regarding what rape is some people want to eat a dead dove specifically so they can puke dead dove chunks back up on you and call you a terrible person even though you labelled the bag and tags won't fix that kind of crazy. As I said above there are five basic types of stories about non- or dubiously consensual sex that people look for and when they are looking for one they don't want the others. Having an actual list of specific tags for these types of stories (magical healing cock is a sub-category of hurt/comfort, not the whole category) with actual definitions would help a lot of people navigate through the territory without getting triggered or squicked in order to find the specific content they want. The current tags suffer from lack of agreement on meaning, for instance does dubious consent mean "they didn't ask but you got what you wanted" or does it mean "pollen and booze"? Additionally many of the current tags suffer from the fact that people who are new to fandom won't know what they mean. An 18 year old new to fandom writes a story in which a character is sexually assaulted and then goes home to their lover, and they have tender loving sex and they feel better. This person doesn't know that they should tag their story "healing cock" because they don't even know that's a trope. All "dead dove" tells you is to be prepared for content that may be upsetting, but it depends on the other tags (which may or may not be clear) to let you know what that content is. "Sex pollen" is as old as Star Trek ("This Side of Paradise") if not older but not everyone knows what that means either.
I actually agree with you that words mean things. I'm saying, however, that the word we're arguing about is useless as a fic or art tag for two reasons. 1) The word in question means a thing that can take many different forms. People who want to read about it usually want only one of those forms and none of the others. Therefore, at least by itself, it does not actually warn you about the content you want to avoid nor does it advertise the content you are looking for. 2) On top of that, the word in question attracts people who want to eat dead dove so they can throw dead dove up on your rug and tell you you're a terrible person who deserves to die for giving them the dead dove they went and looked for. How is this not a moral argument when you are saying people should do something that isn't actually helpful or practical because someone might read it and (continue to) think the wrong thing as a result of doing so? Spoiler: But I think we really want the same thing. tw: rape discussion Under the system that I am proposing, you would know that. What bothers me about your proposal is that if I want to read a bodice-ripper, I want to know if I'm about to walk into an ugly traumatic realistic scene or a degradation fantasy instead, and I have the same right not to get that when I'm looking for a bodice-ripper that you have not to get a bodice-ripper when you're looking for sex pollen. And unless you've ever actually received death threats or hostile "you should be raped for writing this" --spoiler alert, I got raped ages before I ever wrote any fics and posted them online-- comments on your work, you don't get to tell me that the fact that some people have learned stuff from fics should be more important to me than my mental health. Because I have had some really ugly comments in the past. I don't write these things any more, but if I ever do again, I'm not going to tag them in a way that draws mean judgemental assholes like shit draws flies.
OK, so, my mom's dragging me around furniture shopping as we're talking, so I'm multitasking and over-fucking-loaded right now, and subsequently I'm swearing more than absolutely necessary. Apologies for that. Suspect I'm coming accross as more pissed about this than I actually am. (Tbh I am a little pissed, but mostly in a "wheeee argument" way. I think? I'm not sure.) (FUCK I DON'T KNOW THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A TWIN AND A SINGLE, I CAN'T GIVE YOU A PREFERENCE, STOP THROWING OPTIONS AT ME GODDAMN.) I'm gonna let my brain cool down and come back to this later.
I'm going to have to point out that the people who find the adequately tagged things and then puke up rage about them? We can't modify rules for them. We can't use them as a metric to build around. They are actively seeking out things to be angry about and lashing out at people over them, and they will not stop doing this no matter what. Overwatch doesn't have any characters under 18, so people who want to puke moral rage over underage characters shifted to the next best thing (characters with age gaps and characters who looked young) and proceeded to carry on as usual. Unfortunately, these people are a problem that can't be solved with undertagging, overtagging, changed tagging, or even lack of fiction which should be tagged. They want something to be angry and righteous about, and they will find it. If it's not noncon, it's something that looks like noncon because the characters didn't mechanically recite the Laws of Consent before having tender vanilla sex. If there's no sex at all, it's the degradation and whitewashing of [insert minority here]. If it's not that, it's plain old ship hate and "how dare you write so OOC" and "what makes you think fanfiction is worth anything anyways". These people cannot be catered to, because they want nothing less. Catering to them removes them an avenue to get righteously angry about, so they get angrier, because they're having to look harder for things to get angry about. Spoiler: rape talk As for defining the tags and people not using those tags because they're undefined-- this is true! A fandom dictionary would be absolutely fabulous, because there are going to be people who don't know what whump is or hurt/comfort or more niche genre things like a/b/o and sex pollen. But would shifting the archive warning system be the way to do this? It would be really handy to have a popup that suggests certain secondary tags based on archive warning tags-- self harm, for one! Or genital mutilation. Both of these would fall under "gratuitous depictions of violence" depending on the writing, but both are also typically very specific squicks or triggers which may not have occurred to the writer to tag. Major character death is another one; a character dying to an illness, a character dying to a tragic accident, and a character dying to a suicide attempt are three very different emotional impacts, and some can be triggers while others aren't. Would it be helpful to split the archive warning system up for these varieties of death, or would a pop up better work for the utility? I think that on the whole, we're all pretty much agreeing about the phenomenon around the issue of tagging! It's just that we all have different approaches to how that issue might be solved, and I think that your idea of five categories is a good one. But imo, I think that something like a pop-up of the different types of thing that would require "archive warning" tags (and suggestions of supplemental tags to go along with it) would be handier than splitting the broad, firm categories into a myriad of subsections that can be pretty confusing even with definitions.
Spoiler: more on the rape discussion I don't think you two (CT and vegacoyote) are communicating properly, from what I can see. To my understanding, @vegacoyote is saying that fics containing a rape or non-consensual sex or sex act scene are not being tagged as such, and that is a problem in which the writer is responsible for fixing. I don't see why that's a point of debate and argument. Rape and lack of consent should be tagged as such, and in no instance are these particular scenes dubious consent, but there are more than a few instances where this is not tagged or tagged incorrectly. I really, really don't see what the problem is here. What sub categories fall under the larger ones wasn't a point of discussion at first. The point was that, if you (the ambiguous reader) come across a fic tagged dubcon and nothing else (nothing being not noncon and not rape), you know to expect at least one scene containing dubcon, however, it becomes a problem, responsibility of the WRITER, if the fic contains a rape or non-consensual scene that wasn't tagged ahead of time. No questions asked. Shit has to be tagged appropriately. I also don't see why 'rape' is an inappropriate tag. If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it is probably a duck. Noncon is a broader term in which rape falls under, but it is not always interchangeable with rape. If someone doesn't understand the terminology, that is their problem, but it is not their problem if the tags imply one thing and they get the opposite. It's like you order a book and receive a DVD. That's the sellers/writers problem and protections should, can, and do exist to protect buyers, or in this case readers, from this situation, whether that's strictly literal, you get your money back, or you get tags to warn you ahead of time of the content of the fic.
As for a solution to the tagging ordeal, I think a tooltip/pop-up sort of thing on websites like archive would do well. Maybe even suggested tags based on what warnings, if any, are selected, or what tags you have already entered. [clippy voice] i see you have entered "self indulgent fluff", try out these tags as well! cuddling, forehead kisses, confessions of love ^ bad example of course, but you probably see what i mean
Spoiler: more tw I don't think people shouldn't be warned about rape in a fic, whether or not the specific word 'rape' is used as opposed to 'noncon' (which means the same thing). I'm saying that just warning for rape is absolutely not enough. Is drunk sex rape? Sometimes. Is underage sex rape? Sometimes. Anything that falls into the category of "dubious consent" may be rape depending on other factors, many of which basically revolve around how everyone feels afterward and whether or not they believe they would have done this had circumstances been clearer. "Sex pollen" in my opinion is definitely rape, only the pollen is the perpetrator and all nonconsenting parties are victims. But I'm not going to tell someone who's okay with it after that happens that they have to see it my way, I'm just glad kireseth does not grow here in California. My point is that no, putting 'rape' in the tags and then saying, 'hur hur, the tags said rape', when people get upset because they were expecting hurt/comfort and got a degradation fantasy, won't cut it, because there are many kinds of stories about rape. Whether or not you agree with me that using a word like non-con is a better fic tag because it really does help a lot with avoiding ugly commenter issues--you still get some, but not as many--I would hope you could agree with me that people should be able to find the kind of content they want, and avoid the content they don't want. "Rape" as a warning does not help people do that.
Spoiler: what is dubious consent anyway? tw rape talk Spoiler: whoops didn't see the request to spoiler I was around ten years ago, though just getting started, and as far as I know, dub con has always meant manipulation/impaired judgment/lack of a firm yes/skeevy shit and non con was/is full out no consent/rape/rape fantasy. The only cases (until now I guess!) where I can think of where someone thought otherwise, it involved inexperienced writers who didn't yet have a strong concept of consent/agency to begin with.
Which fandoms? Spoiler: ancient HP fandom history I'm asking because practically everyone I knew in the dark side of HP fandom used dubcon for bodice-rippers c. 2004. On the other hand, Imperius Curse and love potions were non-con unless you asked for them to be used on you. Gryffindor Tower and Sugarquill folks generally seemed to think everyone at Nox et Lumos and House of Ill Faith were terrible people, but they also didn't allow any kinky shit on their sites so they couldn't propose an alternate convention...and when they ran into each other by accident it led to some truly epic wank. Pornish Pixies and Erotic Elves were also not prone to labelling situations where people were happy about what had happened "noncon".
Spoiler: same damn tw We agree there, but I'm talking more on the bare minimum of responsibility side of things, which is whether or not the fic is tagged to begin with. Are the noncon, dubcon, and rape tags enough? Of course not! Not for most people, anyway. I personally will avoid anything tagged rape, regardless of what comes afterwards, but I know there are people who will only avoid rape in certain circumstances, and these circumstances should be clearly communicated. The way I saw the initial debate was there is a lack of tagging or a case of incorrect tagging going on at the base level, which is undeniably a thing that happens at least a noticeable amount. If that wasn't it, then forgive me, but... yeah. Point is, readers have every right to be upset if they were expecting any vein of dubcon and got any vein of noncon, and the responsibility for that upset falls on the writers. When you tag, you have at least some protections against being responsible, but how responsible/innocent you are depends on what the upset was about.
Spoiler: spoiler for safety? Anime fandom as a whole tended towards OtherCat's definition (FMA, Naruto, Bleach, Kingdom Hearts, fwiw) as did American cartoon fandom when it actually was tagged. American cartoons had a horrific tendency to not warn anything at all, which was pretty awful. Book fandoms were sort of divided, but I don't remember a great deal of noncon in Good Omens, so I might be skewed in my perception of that. I think Tithe fandom just mass warned everything for noncon.
Spoiler: clarifying but same tw So for examples sake, if a reader gets upset that the fic contains rape when it was tagged rape or noncon, that is on them for the most part. (there are a few rare circumstances where it is not, but i cant think of them. something about ratings im sure is what im going for there.) If a reader gets upset that the fic contains rape when it wasn't tagged rape or noncon, and was instead either a) not tagged or b) tagged dubcon, that's on the writer, and the writer should take responsibility. If a reader is upset that the rape scene traumatized the victim and didn't contain comfort or understanding or resolution or whatever, but the fic was tagged rape, that kinda falls into the grey area of "this needs to be cleared up or explained more in depth" but that all falls to whether or not the writer wants to do such a thing. I don't think that'd be the readers fault, though, but it is not the fault of the writer either, just a responsibility they should at least consider.
Spoiler *chinpalm* Please tell me you are not ACTUALLY requesting my bona fides? From my interpretation/experience of being in the Buffy the Vampire Slayer and StarGate fandoms, as well as a few other side fandoms that I was reading when I liked the writer, from 2002 to the present, dub con meant "impaired ability to consent/manipulation/other skeevy shit" and non con meant "rape/rape fantasy, whether or not the victim also got their rocks off." Using "dub con" to indicate "but they liked it, so it's okay" was generally something done by writers who did not have a strong comprehension of consent/agency. I feel using "dub con" to indicate "but they liked it so it's okay" to be an extremely victim blamey and kind of gross thing to do! So I guess it's good I don't have a strong interest in the Harry Potter fandom.
I think we're getting the wrong impression of each other. I'm not doubting that you have been in fandom that long. I just thought we were probably in different fandoms because we were reporting very different experiences. I have no idea what HP does nowadays because I noped out of there a long time ago. (I also lost interest in writing or reading this type of content around 2009. I have no idea why.) I can see why you would think that; I'm not saying that it should be tagged that way. I am saying that 10 years ago, my idea of what was generally thought in fandom and your idea were both skewed by the crowds we were hanging out in.
Oh, here's a standard gripe for the thread though: tagging things as a three person ship and including the polyamoury tag as well and then... turning it into a love triangle which ends with monogamy and one of the triad left out in the cold. That isn't how polyshipping works.
A thing that kind of sort of irritates me in a vague sort of way? "Stream crossing." This would be when two versions of a story are combined. For example, the anime and manga version of a title, when the two mediums are wildly different in plot and ending. (Chrono Crusade manga versus anime: wildly different themes/plots. Please do not squish them together without thinking about what you're doing. Please!) Or when the Marvel Cinematic Universe story suddenly has characters/plots/universe details from the comic (universes). It's just an apple with a slightly different tasting apple situation that I find mildly irritating. Sometimes it's okay, but sometimes I just end up backspacing out of the story because the differences are just too jarring.
In pro writing Lackey did something like that in her Bardic Voices SERRAted Edge spin off. It started out as a promised triad, and then boom, sudden monogamy and the third character getting shuffled off into a different (monogamous) relationship. WHY. WHY Lackey, WHY DO THIS TO ME. I WAS THERE FOR THE TRIAD, I WAS INVESTED IN THE TRIAD, BUT THEN YOU RUINED IT.
Spoiler: Big TW, gritty talk about why people like this stuff and why it matters that it be tagged just right, clarification request I don't think this is what you meant, but I'm gonna ask. It sounds a little bit like you're saying "if a fic is tagged 'rape' and the reader is upset because it's not the kind they wanted, that's on them." I really strongly disagree with that because: it sounds a little bit like you might be saying "if you choose to read fantasy/kinky stuff about rape and you get forced by a writer to confront the ugly reality, maybe you kind of deserve that", which I have a big problem with; and not only do most people only want to read one kind and very much do not want to read the other kinds, some of the people in every category are survivors. There are survivors who use bodice-rippers to transmute their painful feelings into pleasurable ones and freak out if they have to read the traumatic realistic stuff (I may have been one, maybe that's why I'm not into them any more? idk I am a survivor though). There are survivors who are angered or triggered by bodice-rippers and enjoy fics about the healing process. There are survivors who like the degrading fics because they allow them to triumph over their horrible experiences by finding pleasure in something not intended to be pleasurable and they find the bodice-rippers annoying. And so on. So I do think that if there is a way to demarcate which kind of story about rape you're telling, you should do that.
