This document contains a brief breakdown of the gist of the information contained within the

original performing consent post, the content of the discussion meeting held at Shibaricon
2015 that resulted from discussion around the post, and a summary of main points
discussed during said meeting.
Initial idea breakdown:
For the general scene:
Start using the 3 big negotiation questions
Have I negotiated for:
Health issues and injuries?
Placement and preferences?
Sexual play?
Implementing the 3 questions by posting them around dungeons, and including them on
name badges and in con programs. By doing so create a better atmosphere of affirmative
consent through encouraging the use of the questions as a checklist-style personal check-in
before play.
For performers.
Mandatory pre-performance negotiation of at minimum the 3 big questions.
Require all performers who are not a performance team (regular performance partners who
practice together outside of cons) to attend a 30 minute meeting before the performance to
negotiate at minimum the 3 questions. Require that this negotiation be overseen by a con
volunteer, whos only role is to observe, not guide or interfere
Require, post performance the same con volunteer to check in with the performers to ensure
that both feel that the performance went as negotiated.
Should either performer fail to attend the meeting, or negotiate in a way that their partner
does not feel comfortable with, they do not get to perform.
Initial suggestions and feedback for improvements by online response:
I will be breaking down the discussion roughly by topic in an attempt to give some sense of
order to what was a rather broad discussion.
Shibaricon discussion meeting suggestions and feedback:

Responses to the 3 questions model, and explorations of alternative structures:

-Having a 3rd party as witness is potentially problematic, due to a myriad of issues around
legality, pressure due to being viewed as you negotiate, and the ability of the individual to
understand what it is they are supposed to be listening to.
-A possible better solution might be a checklist signed by both parties? No retractions
post-performance can be made, making it a legally binding contract.
-Perhaps a 3 questions model, but including a comments section for particular part that is
negotiated outside the norm so both parties note and have record of it?
-The signing is witnessed by a third party, the negotiation is not as method of reducing the
pressure from negotiating in front of someone?
-solution must:
add value
is easy to put into place
contains nothing superfluous that can be removed
At this point in the discussion around the questions model, conversation turned back to
discussing the pressures such a model might create.
-The problem with the 30 minute meeting with a volunteer watching to confirm it happens, is
there is pressure in the 3rd party watching, and pressure in the writing (feel the need to sign
regardless of how the bottom/Top actually feels about the negotiation)
-Have a pre-contract depressurization, ie the negotiation part of this happens a day or two
before the performance, with the signing happening 24 hours later in order to give everyone
a chance to think about what was discussed?
- Every 3rd party would have a bias, this could be problematic as it might lead to situations
where rather than being an impartial set of eyes, the 3rd party takes action one way or the
other (go on, youll be fine, just sign it)
-Some attendees worry about having to have a professional mediator, or an individual
trained to overhear such negotiations (Tifereth noted here than in her model, as the 3rd party
is a set of eyes and nothing else the ability of this person to mediate would not be an issue,
as their only role is a passive observer ensuring the conversation happens, and reporting to
the event if it did not.)
-Another method of reducing pressure would be to sign the contract a night or two before for
a cooling off period, so should either party change their mind or begin to feel badly they have
more time to bring it up
At this point in the discussion, conversation moved away from exploring the 3 questions
model, and toward a pre-performance model release type statement
-None of this matters from a legal perspective, as none of this is binding and would offer any
recourse for injured parties. Better to lay everything you want to do in performance on the
table.
-Keep it simple: During the pre-performance meeting, the Top says I would like to do this,
this and this bringing their own list. The bottom agrees or not, and they sign.

-Some individuals expressed a liking for the exit interview portion of the 3 questions model,
and would include it in this model as a good move.

Attendees briefly explored the idea of a bottom-focused harm reduction strategy from here.
-Regardless of what model (if any) is chosen, have an experienced performance bottom
have a conversation with new bottoms before they go into the negotiation. Clarify for them
the sorts of activities generally included in performances, discuss fears, etc.
-Basically prime new bottoms to be able to intelligently understand what is being asking of
them, and the risks involved.
-Possibly explore setting up a mentorship program to do this outside of cons?

How can we have a conversation about facilitating people having interactions offstage
before getting onstage?
-events should start by not being part of the problem
-We as performers need to pressure events to stop pressuring performance last minute with
new partners.
-We understand that sometimes there are logistical reasons for needing to do something
with a new partner, but a big part of those logistical reasons are the events refusal to cover
the cost of bringing in a bottom the Top regularly works with.
-We need to pressure events to hire complete acts
-Its up to the performers to choose to refuse the demands of performance, we need to
ensure that performers feel secure doing so, and that their livelihoods will not be effected by
choosing to refuse to perform with someone new, last minute.
-the audience ultimately has the power, as they are who most event organizers care about
pleasing
-encourage the audience to demand better consent practices, empower the audience, and
the demand will make it easier for performers to speak up.

How can we change the culture on a broad scale?:

-improve and encourage the culture of submissives feeling empowered to safeword and say
no
-moving to consent culture, working towards affirmative consent even in performance
-If enough performers say we would like to see something happen, it might move towards
changing the culture at large from the top down.
-Education for bottoms, so they have an opportunity to increase skillsets and a greater
understanding of what they might experience (and the associated risks) in performance and
play.
-Reducing the likelihood of people rushing to perform through mentorship?
-Encouraging Tops to stick to tying experienced bottoms
-Lets not forget that new bottoms can be awesome depending on their background (ie circus
performers, gymnasts, etc)

-We cant overnight demolish the barriers to negotiation

-If we all agreed to insist on events providing an enforced opportunities to negotiate we can
make something happen overnight.
-Should we show the audience our in scene negotiation?
-We as performers and educators need to ensure we always mention the name of the
partners and performance partners, so we raise the visibility of our bottoms from a body to
tie to a person with skills and value.
-pay the bottom!

Overarching risk mitigation strategies for performers

-create a forum for risk mitigation strategies that covers many common situations
-consider a sort of oath or statement, a manifesto?
-create a performer manifesto?
-SECRET PERFORMER HANDSHAKE
-Hippocratic oath exists, and still have problems
-performers union.
Summary of main points covered in the discussion meeting
Feelings on the 3 Questions model were mixed, with specific issues in the 3rd party witness
noted. Issues with liability for the event and performers were also stated.
A strong desire for some kind of performers manifesto was stated.
A strong desire for some kind of performers association was stated.
Mentorship programs as an educational tool for reducing harm amongst newer performers
(in particular bottoms) was generally well-liked
Preference was shown for broader educational tactics to improve consent practices rather
than specific harm reduction tactics in the form of enforced negotiation, etc.