kaberett | Thinking aloud: scent-free spaces and access clash

Entry tags:

Thinking aloud: scent-free spaces and access clash

(Quick notes to self, more than anything else, because I'm clearly not going to get this done any other way. Self-injury discussion; breathing stuff.)

Scent-free spaces: access requirement for folk with multiple chemical sensitivity, but actively a problem for me because a lot of the ways I manage autism & depression involve scented products (I sometimes actually just... can't leave the house without them; wearing perfume means that if I'm heading for sensory overload I've an easy way out that doesn't involve stimming in ways that look like self-injury, which it's also good to avoid in public in the interests of avoiding triggering people).

I do take care that any perfume I'm wearing is close to my skin, and most people have to actually have their faces within about three inches of my skin in order to notice the scent at all. However I know that I'm sensitive to trace amounts of tobacco smoke most people don't even notice, so "most people don't notice my perfume" isn't actually a defence here; similarly, that I only wear scents I'm not allergic to doesn't help much.

Sophistry and sollipsism encourage me to argue that tobacco smoke is a carcinogen under all circumstances, and perfume ingredients are incredibly strictly regulated. That doesn't actually make any difference to whether I'm causing any given individual migraine/lung damage/etc, though, and if my argument about smoking is that it's all well and good for it to be a coping mechanism but you need to find a better damn coping mechanism in public, because if I self-injure I take great care not to bleed all over other people's shit, then I can't with any degree of consistency argue that it's okay for me to wear perfume outside my own house. (There is perhaps some mileage in the argument that my perfume usage is also much more localised than it is possible to make smoking, but again I don't think that's really good enough.)

Where I'm at currently: not even slightly avoiding scented products or wearing scent (except that our wash powder is as neutral as we could find and the deodorant I use is scent-free) in the general case; not going to scent-free spaces (largely because none of the spaces I go to anyway are declared scent-free...) [while wearing perfume, but I don't actually own any neutral shower gel]; if I'm aware that people I'm going to be spending time with might have problems then I flag up extremely explicitly that I do use perfume and ask to negotiate around whether I'll be safe provided I avoid particular compounds versus needing to not wear perfume at all.

I'm... getting very stuck on the part where it's pretty frequently the case that Specific Clothes + Specific Jewelry + Specific Scent is the only way I can get out of the house, and I work a lot less well if I don't have all three of them. Need to do more thinking. Hrrgh.

Threaded | Flat

I get this: I have chemical sensitivities AND have recently found a deep enjoyment of scents (some perfume, candles, soap). I haven't been able to use my pretty scented candles for months because I've been extremely reactive. And it's hard to figure out how to take care of myself when many of my coping methods are unavailable.

The thing I get most angry at with scent-wearers is sometimes not the scent itself but how much they douse on themselves, so if you're making sure your perfume is close to the skin, it helps a LOT. And warning people you're meeting sounds like a good idea as well. Also scent-free wash powder. Because scented tends to be THE WORST.

I hear you; I have similar issues and am in a similar place with them right now, while not being entirely satisfied with that.

I'm not sure how much it's worth, but I'm sensitive to most perfumes (in a "can't spend extended time in department stores" sort of way, but nothing immediate or severe), and I never had a reaction at all when spending time with you.

I think there are a bunch of these sorts of edge cases that have to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis; it's a bit like guide/support animals and animal allergies. It seems like you're doing a pretty reasonable job of being respectful without getting paralyzed.

I don't have an answer for you, but I remember a convention mailing a couple of years ago that both asked people to avoid unnecessary scents, and flagged up that some people use scent to manage their health issues. It was relatively easy for me, because I use unscented laundry detergent and deodorant anyhow; someone else I talked to said they would buy an unscented deodorant and use it for the weekend, but weren't prepared to rewash any clothes they might bring with them.

What seems relatively easy is for people who aren't using scent that way, which includes a lot of neurotypical perfume-wearers, to do without perfume if asked.

I'm not sure I have anything constructive to add to this, except to say that I was on the train yesterday, and the scent of laundry detergent from my seatmate sent me reaching for inhalers and carbon filter masks.

when people stay at our house, we wash all of their clothes before they get to bring their luggage into the living areas. PITA? yes, definitely. But then I get to breathe so ...

(I continue to think that my only recourse when I go outside the house is a mask; I was going to say I don't use scents for anything, but that's not entirely true (for meditation focus, occasionally) so I think I understand using scent to manage other body issues, etc. and I wouldn't want to be the person who made life hell for someone else either.)

:::hands:::

This isn't the only case where access and different disabilities inadvertently clash. I've yet to meet a wheelie or wobblie who doesn't loathe textured paving, but it's an essential access/safety issue for people with visual impairments. The ideal is to find a compromise that enables everyone to access the environment in question, because the architectural ideal of a universally accessible environment doesn't actually exist.

You're actually spending far more time thinking about this than the overwhelming mass of the population, and their scents will dominate the enviroment. There's probably no more than one or two people in a hundred, if that, give a thought to what the scents they're wearing do to people with sensitivity issues, and probably at least one person in that hundred positively bathing in something obnoxiously pervasive. So until society en masse changes its behaviour and goes scent-free I don't think your general use is anything to worry about - you have a right to go out of the house, with and wearing the things that enable you to do so, scent is no different to wheels in terms of access rights.

And where you're talking about going into a specific environment, where scent is a known issue, you've explicitly said you ask to negotiate a compromise, which is no less than both you and the person with sensitivity each deserve.

Your thoughts and behaviour here aren't a problem so much as a model for the rest of us!

Smoking is unhealthy for everyone, even for those who aren't bothered by it. Scents are health-problematic for a fairly small number of people--and for many of them, it's only some scents, or high amounts of scents, that cause problems. (I have friends with petroleum allergies; they can deal with any level of essential oils, but not most commercial perfumes.)

I have no easy answers for how to balance your needs with those who need not to be exposed to any scents, just some general soothing comments about how most scent-sensitive people are able to cope with others who are trying to manage their own comfort through scent, rather than trying to walk through a cloud of it. (Not all. But this is an issue where numbers matter--if it's a case of "you or Person X cannot comfortably attend the event," you can probably negotiate somehow. You just need to be able to identify Person X.)

(I'm using "comfortable" in the broad sense of "able to attend and enjoy at all.")

When it comes to smoking... Persons A, B and C are smokers and won't be comfortable if they can't smoke. You can't be healthy or comfortable if they can smoke. Nobody else in the group can be healthy if they can smoke, regardless of comfort levels. So for that, while you might have the most extreme reaction, it's not a you-vs-them issue.

"Most people don't notice my perfume" is relevant, mostly because it stands a good chance of being true, whereas "most people don't notice the cigarette smoke in my clothes" is often false--what it really means is "most people aren't bothered enough to complain about it."

What needs to happen: People hosting "scent-free" events need to be more conscientious about their language. They need to specify if it's "no clothes washed in scented detergents" or "no scented oils etc" or "just don't show up doused in Chanel No. Whatever." (And more of them should probably be labeled "scent-reduced: be mindful of your scents and try to minimize their impact on the people around you.") I'd say they need to take a stand on smoking, but I live in California; there's no tobacco smoking in most places anyway.

I'm sensitive to many perfumes, dusts, solvents, blah blah blah.

One characteristic that's important to include in access planning is "does more matter?"

When I'm surrounded by ppl with thick layers of personal scent & washing powder & fumes from petrol-pumping, then just a small increment of more scent can send me over.

But if attendees at an event are truly attempting scent freedom (which includes supplying adequate soap/shampoo to all in attendance), then folks like you, using scent to manage life-interaction, may not affect me at all. It's not a straight line.

I highly appreciate your ethics. To grossly generalize, one of the wonders of knowing autistics is how many think so carefully of ethical implications.

the only scent-free places I know of are neurological clinics actually. well, and some research labs, depending on what they're researching and what might interact with the research. but i don't tend to visit those.

I wish more places would designate scent-free or at least a scent-free zone, which I know doesn't *fix* but would *help* if there were a part of the emergency department where there was a closed door and only scent-free people could enter (except in case of dire medical emergency) because if I have even a hint of a migraine, regardless of what I'm doing in the ER, scents are a huuuuuuuuge problem for me. (mostly food smells though. also, the number of people you can find sitting in an ER eating food, it honestly baffles me.) but alas, these do not exist in any hospital I've visited.

and then there's always That One Employee who wears a lot of a very pervasive scent and says "well I can barely smell it!" and i'm like BUT MY BRAIN IS DYING, CAN YOU JUST SHOVE ME IN A ROOM AWAY FROM YOU TO WAIT FOR THE DOCTOR.

Your effective radius of influence re: scent is likely to be considerably smaller than a smoker. If I have to get close enough to you to interact physically with you before your scent may affect me, that's ample time for interaction and warning in case it becomes relevant. Whereas with a smoker, I may not be able to get within interacting distance before the smoke, smell, or other element impacts me negatively. So your affect of others versus functioning of self has a fairly small sphere of worry, comparatively speaking. And, with the exception of people who don't believe in personal space and boundaries, and workplaces that force people to be in very close proximity, it is much easier for you to be able to enforce distance requirements out of concern.

I think you're doing fine in managing risk to self and others.

Okay to link in a perfume links round-up?

(This is a really important topic and thanks for writing about it.)

Threaded | Flat

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject