Is it Gatekeeping or is it Quality Control?

Earlier today I was on a Zoom presentation/discussion with Sir Phoenix Black. The phrase 'Is it gatekeeping or is it quality control' came up a couple of times. This got my wheels a-turning and I want to share what I came up with.

In many communities, organizations, and even industries, there exists an ongoing tension between two seemingly opposing concepts: gatekeeping and quality control. While gatekeeping often carries negative connotations, suggesting exclusivity and elitism, quality control is generally regarded as a necessary process to maintain standards, safety, and cohesion. This tension becomes particularly pronounced within kink communities, where the need to maintain safety and ethical behavior intersects with the risk of exclusionary practices. How can we differentiate between safeguarding a community’s values and practices versus creating barriers that stifle diversity, growth, and inclusivity? Examining these concepts in depth reveals their complexities and highlights the fine line between protecting a community and potentially harming it.

Gatekeeping: Exclusion in the Name of Purity.

Gatekeeping refers to the act of controlling access to a community, resource, or identity, often with the intention of maintaining specific standards or cultural integrity. In theory, gatekeeping aims to preserve the values, norms, or quality of a group by filtering out those deemed “unfit” or “unqualified.” However, in practice, it frequently creates barriers to entry that can be discriminatory, elitist, or arbitrary.

In kink communities, gatekeeping might manifest as dismissing newcomers for not being familiar with specific terminologies, techniques, or social norms. While such practices might stem from a desire to protect the community from harm, they can alienate individuals who are genuinely curious, eager to learn, or exploring their identities. For instance, someone new to kink might be excluded because they lack experience or have not been vouched for by established members. This exclusionary behavior discourages participation, stifles diversity, and perpetuates elitist attitudes that harm the community’s overall growth.

The primary problem with gatekeeping lies in its potential to harm. By setting narrow standards, it may limit diversity, reinforce existing power structures, and prevent communities from evolving. Gatekeeping often prioritizes the comfort and preferences of insiders over the needs of newcomers or marginalized individuals. In its most extreme forms, gatekeeping can become a tool for oppression, silencing dissenting voices and perpetuating inequities.

Quality Control: The Imperative for Safety and Standards.

On the other hand, quality control is a process designed to ensure that communities meet established standards of safety and ethical behavior. Unlike gatekeeping, quality control focuses on protecting the well-being of all members rather than excluding individuals for arbitrary reasons. In kink communities, quality control often takes the form of enforcing rules around consent, negotiation, and communication to create an environment that prioritizes mutual respect and harm reduction.

For example, organizers of kink events might require participants to attend consent workshops, adhere to codes of conduct, or demonstrate basic knowledge of safety protocols. These measures are not about exclusion for its own sake but are necessary to ensure that everyone involved understands the importance of boundaries and ethical engagement. Such standards are vital to protect community members from harm and maintain a space where everyone feels secure.

Quality control, when done right, can be inclusive and adaptive. It recognizes the need for protective standards while allowing room for diversity and personal expression. However, the danger arises when quality control mechanisms are applied too rigidly or when they inadvertently replicate the exclusivity of gatekeeping. For instance, overly complex safety protocols might unintentionally exclude individuals who lack formal education in kink practices but are committed to engaging responsibly.

Comparing and Contrasting: Intent, Impact, and Flexibility.

The primary distinction between gatekeeping and quality control lies in intent and impact. Gatekeeping often focuses on who is allowed to participate, emphasizing exclusivity and purity over inclusivity. Quality control, by contrast, focuses on what behaviors, practices, or standards are acceptable, aiming to maintain safety and functionality without necessarily excluding individuals based on arbitrary criteria.

Another critical difference is flexibility. Quality control tends to be more adaptive, revising standards to reflect changing needs, values, and contexts. Gatekeeping, on the other hand, is often rigid, rooted in tradition or personal biases. For example, a kink community might use quality control to set guidelines for informed consent and scene negotiation, while gatekeeping would dismiss individuals outright for not conforming to specific, unspoken norms.

However, the line between the two can blur. A group that claims to be enforcing quality control may, in fact, be engaging in gatekeeping if its rules disproportionately exclude certain groups or perspectives. Conversely, a community accused of gatekeeping might be legitimately trying to protect itself from harm or dilution. The key is to critically assess both the intent behind these actions and their real-world consequences.

Balancing the Scales: Protecting Communities While Encouraging Growth.

Striking a balance between gatekeeping and quality control is essential for fostering a healthy and inclusive kink community. To do so, groups must clearly define their goals and principles. Are the rules designed to maintain safety, fairness, or integrity? Or are they serving to uphold outdated hierarchies and biases?

Transparency and accountability are crucial. Communities should openly communicate their standards and decision-making processes, inviting feedback and adapting when necessary. Inclusivity should always be a guiding principle, ensuring that rules do not unfairly exclude individuals based on irrelevant or discriminatory factors.

Moreover, fostering a culture of mentorship and education can help alleviate the negative effects of gatekeeping. Instead of shutting out newcomers for lacking knowledge or experience, communities can create pathways for learning and growth. This approach not only upholds safety but also encourages diversity and innovation.

In closing, the tension between gatekeeping and quality control underscores the challenges of maintaining community integrity while fostering inclusivity. Within kink communities, this balance is especially critical given the importance of protecting members from harm while allowing space for growth and exploration. While gatekeeping often erects unnecessary barriers, quality control, when applied thoughtfully, ensures fairness, security, and cohesion. By prioritizing intent, impact, and flexibility, kink communities can navigate this delicate balance, creating spaces that are both safe and welcoming. Ultimately, the goal should be to protect what is valuable while leaving the door open for those who seek to contribute and grow.