Posted under Tag/Wiki Projects and Questions
https://e621.net/wiki_pages/16695
So, currently, this wiki isn't very fleshed out, and upon getting a complaint regarding a tag fight that stems from a scenario with sleep sex, we need to decide how the consent levels here work.
Should this imply questionable consent? Should we consider it rape? Or just another scene on a post? The wiki will need some community building and a a consensus on how this tag should be treated needs to be came up with.
As a starting point, I think it should be labeled as questionable_consent by default unless there's something in the image that confirms consent status.
Basically, if there's explicitly_stated_consent, especially written_consent, that removes all questions of consent.
Conversely, if there's explicitly_stated_nonconsent within the image, that should make it qualify as rape.
I don't think it should imply anything about consent. There's too much variation in scenarios and includes scenarios that have explicit or implied consent or are too complicated and unrealistic to make a call.
atomicblaze21 said:
As a starting point, I think it should be labeled as questionable_consent by default unless there's something in the image that confirms consent status.
That's a slippery slope if we start assume questionable consent due to the lack of explicit consent. Consent, as far as the tags go, is about the character's will and not any legal standard. If there's no indication one way or the other about whether a character wants something or not, we assume they do. Only when there's visual indication they may not want something should questionable_consent be tagged (and forced/rape only if it's clear they don't want something). Otherwise if we assume a character may not want something without any visual indication of such, then there's no reason stuff like BDSM, young characters, and ferals shouldn't also be assumed to maybe not consent as well.
In any case, it definitely shouldn't imply questionable consent or rape since there can be clear indication that it's not those things in some cases, making it a mistag.
I think sleep_sex implying questionable_consent is more than fair in the case of TWYS
nin10dope said:
I think sleep_sex implying questionable_consent is more than fair in the case of TWYS
That wouldn't apply when consent is explicitly given or non-consent is explicitly stated, causing mistags.
As it is, it seems sleep_sex rape is highly overtagged without any visual indication of rape/force. I know people have in the past gone on tagging sprees adding questionable_consent or rape to sleep_sex posts without any visual indication of them, and without having discussed such tags' applicability, which is clearly debatable.
watsit said:
That wouldn't apply when consent is explicitly given or non-consent is explicitly stated, causing mistags.As it is, it seems sleep_sex rape is highly overtagged without any visual indication of rape/force. I know people have in the past gone on tagging sprees adding questionable_consent or rape to sleep_sex posts without any visual indication of them, and without having discussed such tags' applicability, which is clearly debatable.
A visual indication would be the fact that they're unconscious. Naturally there's exceptions to nearly all things.
nin10dope said:
I think sleep_sex implying questionable_consent is more than fair in the case of TWYS
It's not though.
Fell asleep during (assumed consensual) sex:
post #5366655
Both partners are asleep:
post #5448165
Explicit consent:
post #4695450post #4177160
I think ultimately the moderation team should come to unanimous agreement on their opinions of sleeping consent, then each image can be a case-by-case basis according to that
Edit: Because I will self admit that I've been one of those users who'll add those varying consent tags to sleep sex in random sprees. Although I'm pretty sure I've never went back to check to see if they stuck or were removed. I don't do it anymore because someone made a convincing statement on assumed consent
nin10dope said:
A visual indication would be the fact that they're unconscious.
Being unconscious isn't a visual indication of non-consent, it says nothing about the character's will to engage in sex, just that they're sleeping. If they were knocked out or unexpectedly put into a daze, not simply sleeping of their own volition, then in that case sure. But otherwise, you could make the same argument for intoxication, something which inhibits a person's decision making and could be said to be a visual indication of missing consent. But we don't assume a drunk character fooling around is being raped or is questionable consent, unless they were unwittingly put into a drunken state by some external force. So too we shouldn't assume a character simply sleeping is being raped or is questionable consent, without something more.
nin10dope said:
I think ultimately the moderation team should come to unanimous agreement on their opinions of sleeping consent, then each image can be a case-by-case basis according to thatEdit: Because I will self admit that I've been one of those users who'll add those varying consent tags to sleep sex in random sprees. Although I'm pretty sure I've never went back to check to see if they stuck or were removed. I don't do it anymore because someone made a convincing statement on assumed consent
I created this forum for community consensus. While we do enforce how certain tags must be used, ideally most tags are based on what the majority agrees makes the most sense. Quite frankly, we're not gods of knowledge. I don't have extensive knowledge about the topic or what the best options might be.
versperus said:
I created this forum for community consensus. While we do enforce how certain tags must be used, ideally most tags are based on what the majority agrees makes the most sense. Quite frankly, we're not gods of knowledge. I don't have extensive knowledge about the topic or what the best options might be.
That's fair
It's just that the easiest argument for the questionable/forced/rape implications is the same argument that the law uses. And the easiest one against the implication is referring to the definitions of the consent related tags. They seem like two sides of the same arbitration coin.
As someone who enjoys sleep sex artwork I’ll weigh in that I don’t think it should imply any sort of consent tag due to the various flavors of sleep sex.
There are sleep sex images that are questionable consent of course, but there are many where consent is willingly given, either in dialogue, writing, etc. there are also some sleep sex images that are explicitly rape.
I would hate if all of them implied questionable consent as some one who loves consensual sleep sex art
manitka said:
As someone who enjoys sleep sex artwork I’ll weigh in that I don’t think it should imply any sort of consent tag due to the various flavors of sleep sex.There are sleep sex images that are questionable consent of course, but there are many where consent is willingly given, either in dialogue, writing, etc. there are also some sleep sex images that are explicitly rape.
I would hate if all of them implied questionable consent as some one who loves consensual sleep sex art
I'm with you on enjoying the tag. In practicality, I think they should not have a blanket implication. It's all context-based
nin10dope said:
It's just that the easiest argument for the questionable/forced/rape implications is the same argument that the law uses.
On the contrary, that makes everything messy and complex. If we go by the law, every feral or young character having sex is rape, regardless of how into it they may be (or even if they instigated it). We're also not lawyers or judges, we can't say what would actually be questionable or rape under the law if it happened in the real world (where a subtle seemingly inconsequential difference in scenario can vastly change the outcome). Since we're dealing with fantasy and sci-fi artwork, there are things the law can't have an opinion on as they'd be impossible in reality. And also, the law isn't some global standard, it's different in different places (some places consider all anal and oral sex to be rape). And some laws are only as they are as a result of trying to be fair to the accused vs accuser given incomplete and/or conflicting information being sorted after the fact, and can take into account a person's state of mind or past history, which isn't applicable to artwork depicting the act that's tagged as TWYS.
Alright man it's not that deep
While not implicating questionable_consent, I think it should be fair to assume it unless there are visual indicators suggesting otherwise
Implications are only applied if it's 100% true in all cases (or 99.99%, depending on your philosophy to tags). With this case I don't think it fits that criterion, since there are ways to show it's definitely consensual with the examples @regsmutt gave
I certainly don't think there should be any actual tag implication here (aside from the ones it already has), but I do think that it should generally be considered questionable_consent outside of indications otherwise.
scth said:
I do think that it should generally be considered questionable_consent outside of indications otherwise.
I feel that would set a bad precedent, and worsen searchability and blacklisting. Questionable consent is supposed to be for when a character seems to potentially doing something they visually don't want, but can't quite say for sure it's forced. If we assume questionable consent by default for sleep sex, how would you look for posts of sleep sex that have no indication at all about consent, for or against? If consent is assumed to be in question without any visual indication the character being unwilling, then the only way out of tagging that would be with explicitly_stated_consent or explicitly_stated_nonconsent, meaning questionable_consent is covering instances of a character's willingness being visually in question and instances where there's no indication either way. So if someone blacklists questionable consent because they don't like posts where it appears the character may be doing something they don't want, that would catch sleep_sex where there's no indication the character is ambiguously unwilling, and there'd be no way to make a blacklist to allow that since questionable_consent would also be on posts where there is such indication. Similarly if someone wants to look for instances of sleep sex where it appears a character is ambiguously unwilling, they'd get results where there's no indication of the character's will; they'd only be able to reliably search for posts where it's clearly/unambiguously non-consensual.
In contrast, if someone doesn't like sleep sex because they feel it's just too questionably non-con for them, they can add sleep_sex -explicitly_stated_consent to their blacklist to get the same effect as assuming questionable_consent for sleep sex. So by not assuming sleep sex is questionable consent, we get more flexible search and blacklist options.
watsit said:
I feel that would set a bad precedent, and worsen searchability and blacklisting. Questionable consent is supposed to be for when a character seems to potentially doing something they visually don't want, but can't quite say for sure it's forced. If we assume questionable consent by default for sleep sex, how would you look for posts of sleep sex that have no indication at all about consent, for or against? If consent is assumed to be in question without any visual indication the character being unwilling, then the only way out of tagging that would be with explicitly_stated_consent or explicitly_stated_nonconsent, meaning questionable_consent is covering instances of a character's willingness being visually in question and instances where there's no indication either way. So if someone blacklists questionable consent because they don't like posts where it appears the character may be doing something they don't want, that would catch sleep_sex where there's no indication the character is ambiguously unwilling, and there'd be no way to make a blacklist to allow that since questionable_consent would also be on posts where there is such indication. Similarly if someone wants to look for instances of sleep sex where it appears a character is ambiguously unwilling, they'd get results where there's no indication of the character's will; they'd only be able to reliably search for posts where it's clearly/unambiguously non-consensual.In contrast, if someone doesn't like sleep sex because they feel it's just too questionably non-con for them, they can add sleep_sex -explicitly_stated_consent to their blacklist to get the same effect as assuming questionable_consent for sleep sex. So by not assuming sleep sex is questionable consent, we get more flexible search and blacklist options.
I agree with Watsit on this one.
Watsit has basically already stated all this, but I do agree with them. Unless drunk sex or any non-feral involvement with ferals is automatically implied to be rape or questionable consent, sleep sex should not be either. Implying almost all sleep sex posts to being nonconsensual without explicit context will make searching for them useless.
watsit said:
I feel that would set a bad precedent, and worsen searchability and blacklisting. Questionable consent is supposed to be for when a character seems to potentially doing something they visually don't want, but can't quite say for sure it's forced. If we assume questionable consent by default for sleep sex, how would you look for posts of sleep sex that have no indication at all about consent, for or against? If consent is assumed to be in question without any visual indication the character being unwilling, then the only way out of tagging that would be with explicitly_stated_consent or explicitly_stated_nonconsent, meaning questionable_consent is covering instances of a character's willingness being visually in question and instances where there's no indication either way. So if someone blacklists questionable consent because they don't like posts where it appears the character may be doing something they don't want, that would catch sleep_sex where there's no indication the character is ambiguously unwilling, and there'd be no way to make a blacklist to allow that since questionable_consent would also be on posts where there is such indication. Similarly if someone wants to look for instances of sleep sex where it appears a character is ambiguously unwilling, they'd get results where there's no indication of the character's will; they'd only be able to reliably search for posts where it's clearly/unambiguously non-consensual.In contrast, if someone doesn't like sleep sex because they feel it's just too questionably non-con for them, they can add sleep_sex -explicitly_stated_consent to their blacklist to get the same effect as assuming questionable_consent for sleep sex. So by not assuming sleep sex is questionable consent, we get more flexible search and blacklist options.
The only question I have is how you'd be able to differentiate sleep sex scenarios where the sleeping character is ambiguously unwilling, thus warranting the questionable_consent tag by your reasoning. If they're unconscious, they're not able to give or revoke consent at the time of the act (regardless of prior consent), and by extension, are not able to be actively in a state of ambiguous consent.
atomicblaze21 said:
The only question I have is how you'd be able to differentiate sleep sex scenarios where the sleeping character is ambiguously unwilling, thus warranting the questionable_consent tag by your reasoning. If they're unconscious, they're not able to give or revoke consent at the time of the act (regardless of prior consent), and by extension, are not able to be actively in a state of ambiguous consent.
Maybe a character showing some discomfort while asleep but also not resisting. Or perhaps some BDSM play while asleep, like a character starting out asleep, then being bound in such a way that we can't tell if they've woken up while also unable to resist if they were, but we can't tell if they're trying.
I've added a link to this thread on the wiki page, so hopefully more users can find it and weigh in.
upon getting a complaint regarding a tag fight that stems from a scenario with sleep sex
I'm currently on the side of not implying anything, but it would help if we had more context on this. What was the tag fight and complaint? What arguments did they make for why it should or shouldn't imply questionable consent?
Personally, I don't understand what the issue is? Surely people can just blacklist sleep_sex if they're uncomfortable with it?
I'm a semi regular questionable_consent searcher and I can assuredly say that a looot of sleep_sex posts scratch that itch.
Again: No Implications, but a fair assumption to make
beholding said:
I've added a link to this thread on the wiki page, so hopefully more users can find it and weigh in.I'm currently on the side of not implying anything, but it would help if we had more context on this. What was the tag fight and complaint? What arguments did they make for why it should or shouldn't imply questionable consent?
Personally, I don't understand what the issue is? Surely people can just blacklist sleep_sex if they're uncomfortable with it?
It was a fight over whether a post was rape or not because one of the characters was asleep. Or is, staff action still pending.
Updated
versperus said:
It was a fight over whether a post was rape or not because one of the characters was asleep. Or is, staff action still pending.
I mean I guess that's the point of this thread then? Because technically speaking, unless there's context showing/hinting otherwise, one character being asleep does make it rape. Unless we get a unanimous agreement that consent for sleep_sex should be assumed instead. But I would imagine that most artworks depicting it wouldn't show any signs of discomfort or disgust by the person asleep. Forget about looking for signs of struggling or that it's forced, because we'd have to agree that the sign of being forced/unwanted is the fact that they can't act otherwise unless artists really love drawing people thrashing in their sleep.
nin10dope said:
I mean I guess that's the point of this thread then? Because technically speaking, unless there's context showing/hinting otherwise, one character being asleep does make it rape. Unless we get a unanimous agreement that consent for sleep_sex should be assumed instead. But I would imagine that most artworks depicting it wouldn't show any signs of discomfort or disgust by the person asleep. Forget about looking for signs of struggling or that it's forced, because we'd have to agree that the sign of being forced/unwanted is the fact that they can't act otherwise unless artists really love drawing people thrashing in their sleep.
There were no signs of discomfort on this post, the sleeping character was even smiling.
nin10dope said:
Because technically speaking, unless there's context showing/hinting otherwise, one character being asleep does make it rape. Unless we get a unanimous agreement that consent for sleep_sex should be assumed instead.
There is nothing in either rape or sleep_sex's description or intended usage that makes this true. We assume consent for any act by default, where consent is determined by the character's will and not the law, unless there's something showing they're possibly not willing. Being asleep by itself says nothing about a character's will for anything. So as things are, sleep_sex should not be tagged questionable_consent or rape without something showing the character's will is being violated.
This is a bit of a tough one. I can agree with arguments on both sides.
If I had to judge a real life image based purely on what I could see on the image and I wasn't allowed to take any additional context outside of the image, I would probably judge it questionable at best because I think it's good to err on the side of caution when it comes to consent (but obviously not jump to conclusions).
However in the context of E621 I think Watsit has a decent point on assuming consent by default unless it's clear otherwise because it's not like a real-life person will be harmed by you assuming a fictional encounter was consensual. I also agree that it would make the sleep_sex tag less useful for search purposes.
If I were to lean in any particular direction, it would be with Watsit. I don't think an implied consent tag is necessary in this case.
So from the general view of things I think we all somewhat agree on the following:
Does that sound right?
atomicblaze21 said:
So from the general view of things I think we all somewhat agree on the following:
- There should not be an implication of questionable_consent by the sleep_sex tag.
- The status of consent within a post with sleep_sex should only be tagged if there is a clear indication of the sleeping character's will (explicitly_stated_consent or explicitly_stated_nonconsent).
- The questionable_consent tag should ONLY be used with sleep_sex if:
- 1) There is no unambiguous indication of the sleeping character's will, and
- 2) There is a sign of discomfort from the sleeping person, calling the implied positive consent into question.
Does that sound right?
It sounds quite reasonable. It's a "read the room" situation—a classic case of TWYS. Treat it like a post where the character's eyes are closed, rather than assuming they're sleeping and factoring in irl legal considerations, and make your judgment based on the rest of the scene regarding whether consent levels should be considered.
If we're in agreement about this, the wiki does need to be made. I *can* do it, but I'm pretty poor when it comes to wiki construction admittedly, so I can't guarantee it will be the best set up.
versperus said:
If you take a moment to read the forum, the wiki page needs to be updated to reflect that sleeping sex doesn't automatically indicate levels of consent.
I did read the forum. That's why I was confused why you said "made" and not "updated". Don't get snippy with people for misunderstanding you when you write things confusingly.
beholding said:
I did read the forum. That's why I was confused why you said "made" and not "updated". Don't get snippy with people for misunderstanding you when you write things confusingly.
Sorry
I might say something like:
NOTE: sleep_sex doesn't automatically indicate a character's level of consent, so should not be tagged questionable_consent or rape on its own. For the purposes of tagging, consent is determined by a character's willingness to engage in an act (not the law), and consent is assumed by default, so there must be some other visual element for questionable_consent (e.g. the sleeping character having an expression of discomfort, or in some intoxicated state while asleep) or rape/forced (e.g. being unknowingly drugged, knocked out, or waking up during or after the act and declaring non-consent) to apply.
I bit wordy and can maybe be cleaned up, but I think that gets the point across.
watsit said:
I might say something like:
I bit wordy and can maybe be cleaned up, but I think that gets the point across.
I still think the majority of such pieces fit pretty much exactly what people looking for questionable consent are looking for, and those who'd blacklist it would want to avoid. Sure, you could blacklist it separately, but the same goes for literally everything that makes up the rape/dubcon indicators. (Also, a bit trickier for those who do want it to search if you take such a stance, though at least doable now that we have the grouping syntax so you can combine separate ors.)
scth said:
I still think the majority of such pieces fit pretty much exactly what people looking for questionable consent are looking for, and those who'd blacklist it would want to avoid. Sure, you could blacklist it separately, but the same goes for literally everything that makes up the rape/dubcon indicators.
But you can't un-blacklist it. For people who don't consider it questionable consent by default, you can't separate those that are tagged questionable consent because it's assumed, from those that have visual indication that consent is in question. The extra flexibility allowed by not assuming it shouldn't be understated. And if we start adding exceptions to assume potential non-consent for sleep sex because it would be non-con IRL, why not realistic ferals, intoxication, or anything else that would be non-con IRL (which some people have advocated for in the past)?
watsit said:
There is nothing in either rape or sleep_sex's description or intended usage that makes this true. We assume consent for any act by default, where consent is determined by the character's will and not the law, unless there's something showing they're possibly not willing. Being asleep by itself says nothing about a character's will for anything. So as things are, sleep_sex should not be tagged questionable_consent or rape without something showing the character's will is being violated.
So, to reiterate, on this site, a lack of a No (symbolically or literally or any other way) is to be treated as a Yes?
That sounds like I'm being a leading journalist trying to get you in trouble lmao, it's a genuine question that I will remember going forward
I think it's fair to separate the irl non-con comparisons of sleep_sex versus statutory rape on the grounds that those are dictated by the inability to understand the consequences of consent, whereas sleep_sex is the literal inability to give consent despite being an adult. But this particular reply is just saying that for the sake of clarity and not a continuation of the argument.
nin10dope said:
So, to reiterate, on this site, a lack of a No (symbolically or literally or any other way) is to be treated as a Yes?That sounds like I'm being a leading journalist trying to get you in trouble lmao, it's a genuine question that I will remember going forward
Yes. Art is assumed to be consensual unless otherwise shown.
versperus said:
If we're in agreement about this, the wiki does need to be made. I *can* do it, but I'm pretty poor when it comes to wiki construction admittedly, so I can't guarantee it will be the best set up.
I'll ask for one more confirmation from you or other staff before I change the wiki
nin10dope said:
I'll ask for one more confirmation from you or other staff before I change the wiki
Feel free to update it, if things need to be fine tuned after we can tweak it around.
versperus said:
Feel free to update it, if things need to be fine tuned after we can tweak it around.
Donezo
