Fragrance Free Confusion
15Gordon Seidoh Worley
17EKP
3Gordon Seidoh Worley
5Alwayed
2Gordon Seidoh Worley
4jefftk
2jefftk
3Karl Krueger
3EKP
3RationalElf
4EKP
3J Thomas Moros
3EKP
New Comment
I'm consistently confused why contra dance people are so concerned about events being "fragrance free", however the policy is implemented. This is something I encounter no where in my life, I go out and do plenty of things, and only hear about it from people who attend contra events. Is this just a random local norm that reached fixation? How do these chemical sensitive people go shopping or otherwise live their lives in places that aren't fragrance free? I'm not trying to be rude here, but I'm confused why there's such a strong norm at such a niche event that I never see even attempted anywhere else.
I'll add one other thought: contra expects or even requires very close contact with everyone in the room. Experienced dancers can sometimes swap with their partners in real time to avoid certain moves that prolong contact, and in large halls folks can try to stay to lines that avoid folks they prefer to avoid, but barring agreed-upon deals where, say, two folks only dance in different lines after a breakup, you should expect to be touching everyone in the room for potentially multiple minutes a night and have their face within 1-2 feet of yours for multiple minutes a night. I've even had a caller come and physically walk me from the line I was in to the line containing someone I had been trying to avoid.
I think this is relatively uncommon in other public situations, even other dance forms. Usually you have more discretion about who touches you or breathes on your face. An exception might be a very crowded bus or subway car, but in my experience skin to skin contact even there is fairly rare.
I think this expectation of universal semi-extended close contact does rightfully change the social norms a bit.
1Ah, this is really interesting and helps explain why low fragrence would become important in contra dance but not so important elsewhere!
I live in Europe and I regularly see signs asking people to not wear perfume/strong scents. These signs are placed in public transport, locker rooms at gyms, and even the toilet at my workplace. Based on that, some level of sensitivity to scents seems to be common in most contexts.
(Usually the signs I see are more like "avoid strong scents" than "fragrance free", so they avoid the confusion about scented soaps and shampoos. I don't know if the contra dances mentioned here actually want people to avoid all possible scented products or just perfumes.)
In any case, dancing in close contact with someone who's wearing a perfume is clearly much worse than going to a shop where some other customer wears a perfume. In a shop you can just walk away if the smell is too strong.
Where in Europe, if you don't mind me asking? There's a lot of variation between countries in Europe so I'm curious to have a more specific data point.
I don't understand either. It's common within the contra world (ex, from one of the central organizations) to claim that these policies are needed by 30% of people, but as far as I can tell this is a massive overestimate.
My guess is that this comes from having a strong desire to be welcoming and open to all, and the people convincing dances to adopt the policies not being clear about the scale of the request they're putting on the attendees. And probably some sense that there's no amount of minor inconvenience to some people that outweighs preventing harm to other people.
massive overestimate
Added something to the end of the post based on a survey I did a few years ago.
Is it a founder effect? What this would look like: Some subset of the people who started this dance community had a strong preference or need, and because they got it fulfilled there, that made the community accessible to others with the same need. The community ends up with a much higher density of people with that need, because of who started it.
How do these chemical sensitive people go shopping or otherwise live their lives in places that aren't fragrance free?
For what it's worth, I know multiple people with fragrance sensitivities strong enough that there are chain stores they categorically avoid because they know they'll have a really bad time if they go there. (And their friends know that they need to take measures if they're going to spend time together, after the friend has spent time in a high-scent-level house.)
I'm aware of at least one prominent community member (travels for many events a year, well known and well liked, etc.) who is sensitive to fragrances and takes many steps to make things as safe as practical. I don't think this is founder effect, exactly, but something related.
Is it related to them being really obsessive about maska relative to other groups? Are they people who are unusually obsessive about health and negative externalities that people can have on one another?
Presumably someone for whom the "low fragrance" Beantown Stomp policy was insufficient would not show up in the Beantown Stomp registration data. They would have opted out of Beantown Stomp. There is no option on the survey for "this policy is insufficient for me and I will not be registering because of it" (and the registration form would be a weird place to capture non-registrants anyway).
Have you considered that the policies are working correctly for most people with a "normie" communication style? I agree that they should be clearer. However, when I read your description of what they are saying, I think the rule makes sense. It isn't that everything must be entirely fragrance-free. The intended rule seems to be nothing strongly scented. For example, I've met women who use scented shampoo, but you don't notice it on them even when you are close to them. I've also met women who you immediately smell the scent of their shampoo from 3 feet. It seems they are basically asking that people use reasonable judgment. That may not be sufficient for extremely sensitive people, but it will address a lot of the problem. By having it in their code of conduct, they can ask people to leave if it is a problem.
Your Beantown Stomp statement seems to be the proper way to communicate the actually intended policy.
Just an anecdote: I've looked with envy at some of the Pinewoods week advertising and wondered if there is a way I could Tetris a Pinewoods week into my life for some future summer. Then this year I read a friend's post about the steps to replace every product in their routine with an unscented version in the lead-up to Pinewoods and all I could think was that I simply don't think I will be able to Tetris Pinewoods in for many summers into the future if this additional task is a requirement. I don't know what a reasonable estimate is of the burden. 5 hours and $200? More? Less?
I'm fortunate to have relatively forgiving skin, hair, etc. If someone handed me a bag of unscented products to start using a week ahead and use through Pinewoods I would not be feeling or looking like my best self (I prefer the feel of the sunscreen and lip balm and lotion I'm used to, I prefer how I look with my normal conditioner, etc.) but I could manage. Maybe I could pay to have this shipped to me? That's the only way I can imagine making it work for me as a time constrained and slightly budget constrained rule-follower who would be maxing out on spoons and flex time to get to Pinewoods itself at all. But many people would be much more uncomfortable than me committing to using products someone else issued them.
