serene | (no subject)

I'm failing linguistically today. I simply could not come up with (and am still having trouble coming up with) the word I wanted other than "accost," because I am perfectly cognizant of its negative connotations. "Approach" is closer, but still not quite what I'm going for.

If the questioner is polite, as your phrasings in other comments have been, and if there is no pressure (which every person is going to define differently, so I'm not going to try) to say "yes," then I don't have a problem with a woman (or man, for that matter), saying "yes." cf. my comment about However, as I mention elsewhere, unwelcome touching with or without initial inquiry is a recorded problem at conventions, and this does nothing to dissuade those already possessing the attitude that "persons exist for my pleasure to touch as I wish" from following that inclination. I also disagree that "...the sort of people who normally attend cons...would be more open to such actions," and I definitely disagree that this sort of objectification of anyone should be expected, let alone condoned.

There's a difference between a PDA and some random stranger coming up and asking to touch someone. For me, it's a huge difference. It might not be quite so large for someone else, but there's still a difference. I can't stop anyone from making my body the object of their fantasy, if they are so inclined, but I do object to the idea of being asked to a) know that said person is fantasizing about me, and b) consenting to being reduced to a physical embodiment of that fantasy instead of a person.

Now. That said, if you and I were having a stimulating and somewhat flirtatious/erotic conversation and you popped this question, or if we knew each other previously, it would change the context of the request significantly and change my reaction to it. (Although I'm not sure: If we were just chatting and you asked the question as you phrased it above out of the blue, I might start to wonder if you had just been talking to me to get your hands on them.)

Again: I have no problem with PDAs. I have no problem with what people do with their own bodies. I just think that the OSBP is poorly thought-out and I really, really hope it doesn't spread. Between friends? Fine. Between strangers who are trying to get in each other's pants? Fine. As a movement towards "sexual freedom"? Bull.

i don't presume it. that's how he described it. i am taking issue with his post and his idea of this "project" much more so than with the event in question; i wasn't there.

real quick, because i am very busy today and can't give your comments the attention they deserve:

i feel some degree of passion about the subject, and i tend to argue forcefully. i am not upset at all, and your comment did nothing to make me more upset; no reason to apologize.

i am primarily taking issue with theferrett's post and his ideas of this "project", not with the event, and how other people perceived it -- i wasn't at the event.

i cannot count the times in my life that i have been accosted by men who made sexual suggestions (and i am transgendered, not conventionally attractive, nor do i dress sexily). i am sorry, but being asked whether somebody can touch my breasts is not revolutionary and new to me (though i assume it was done with more class in this case, though really, there were some incidents in my life where people weren't crass about it either). it's not affirming, it doesn't make me feel more desirable (my partners do that). coming from relative strangers, it reduces me to a provider of bodyparts and sexual kicks. and that's not counting the power play and the potential threat (because i believe they were generally not issues at this event, though i wonder how the woman in the princess dress felt -- accosting her was just plain WRONG).

sexism and the objectification of women cannot be overcome by doing more of the same old. i'm all for exploring new avenues (as i said, i really would like a society in which more touch is ok, isn't sexualized, and in which even sexual touch isn't the big deal it is now), but this is so totally not new.

*ack*, i gotta go. i'll be back later and try to point out which parts of theferrett's post made me feel the way i do.

I had one thought.

Seeing how theferret had to clarify the original situation and relate that the person who first asked to touch was a woman (apparently the assumption was that it was a man who had asked), and that the woman who asked the woman in costume was a friend of said woman, I wonder if the "project" would have been perceived differently if one of the women in the founding group had posted the journal entry.

You say "while I see a number of people saying how they've found affirmation and personal growth through this or similar ways to express sexuality while avoiding some degree of the common social dangers of such". I find myself perpetually surprised that so many of the ways that women are told they can express their sexuality happen to be exactly those things that straight men (like me) want them to do in the first place. And I think that the peer pressure thing actually works in the opposite direction. Making it public will make the pressure worse, I think.

If it were a little less overtly sexualized then I'd feel considerably less skeeved about it (for example, women at a dance wearing a badge or pin or something that says "I love to dance! Ask me!" doesn't set off any alarm bells for me).

I realize I'm pulling one point out of context and I apologize for ignoring the rest of your argument (and I can't believe I'm arguing against the feeling of women's breasts).

Popping in via I don't remember the link, but the part that bothers me most is not the 'boob', but the 'open source' bit. I mean, Open Source is an approach to coding where everyone is free to see the code, edit it, improve on it, and distribute it, (sometimes with some rights, like attribution, explicitly reserved.) How does this apply to my boobs!? People should feel free to offer critiques of my boobs? Um, no.

Speaking as the person to whom that comment was originally addressed, as someone who found in extremely upsetting, and as someone who has spent an unfortunate amount of mental energy contemplating it and trying to find a more positive reading than what I'm actually getting, grammatically (because I used to consider Ferrett a friend, and would like to still, but am struggling)- what he SAID, literally was:

"The attitude that your body is a vested space... is fine... but it is not always healthy."

Please bear in mind also that Ferrett said this to me, someone he knows to have a generally healthy happy sex life and body image, in response to my position on his project, so we are not talking here about him referencing some extreme of social isolation or psychological trauma or speaking in hypotheticals. He's talking to me about how I feel. As the non-hypothetical addressee of the comment, I found it really disturbing and not at all fine.

He ALSO said, earlier in the same comment to me, that my saying "My body is something so special to me that only people I have firmly vetted and talked to and invested in should be allowed to touch those areas" was REALLY a way for me to say that I didn't want people I didn't find attractive/nice to want me. Which is funny, because as myself I can assure him, and everyone else, that when I say that that only people I have firmly vetted and talked to and invested in should be allowed to touch those areas, that is in fact EXACTLY WHAT I MEAN.

Although I don't say that phrase exactly, because those are his words and frankly they are dripping with all sorts of judgements about how women make decisions on who can touch them and they creep me out more every time I read them.

Basically, I've spent quite a bit of time turning those words around, and honestly, they DON'T say what you're reading. He may have meant to say what he literally said, but what he said was not "Allowing people access to your body is sometimes healthy". What he actually, literally said was "Considering your body yours to control is not always healthy." I can't seem to put a positive spin on that, no matter how hard I try.

You'd really have to go a long way for me to suddenly find you creepy.

Just thought I should clear that up. ;)

If she had used similar language to/the exact same language as theferret, I doubt my reaction would have changed much. It's the suggestion that anyone, anywhere, should be able to question my right to my bodily integrity because it will make the world a happier healthier place with butterflies and Bambi and bunnies ejaculating rainbows that got my hackles up, I think.

If, on the other hand, one of those two girls (or even theferret himself) had said something along the lines of: "At the con, we were talking with friends and the subject of boobs came up. I said they could touch mine, and then my friend came along and they asked her and she said 'sure,' and the whole thing ended up being kind of surreal and fun for the group," then my reaction would have been YKIOK. I'd rather not have to see anyone fondling someone else's boobs at a con or other public event (unless it's in a consensual situation for all involved), but in the context of a group of friends at a convention it wouldn't even reach my weirdness top ten.*

People should feel free to offer critiques of my boobs? Um, no.

It's not like they don't anyway. I like to wear low-cut tops because I get hot, not to show off my cleavage, but even when I'm in a shirt that buttons up to my chin people still feel free to critique my boobs. And the rest of my body, for that matter.

Well, obviously, the important part about other peoples' bodies is how they strike our aesthetic sense! That's why it's okay to randomly say of celebreties, "I don't like her jaw" or "her nose is too long" or "something about her just doesn't work for me." I mean, obviously, peoples' (by which I mostly mean women) are for our (mostly het-male viewpoint) pleasure!

Um, sorry serenejournal, I got feminist-rage all over your lj.

I was just going to add this to that comment:

(Today has been a big day for me not finishing my thoughts in my comments.)

Instead of working toward a society where we can cheerfully touch anyone (with permission), how about we work toward a society where judgments about anyone's body without being asked are considered with disdain?

And I've been getting stuff all over Serene's journal all day. ;)

Hi there,

you wrote: It's the suggestion that anyone, anywhere, should be able to question my right to my bodily integrity because it will make the world a happier healthier place with butterflies and Bambi and bunnies ejaculating rainbows that got my hackles up, I think.

YES! This is what I was getting at above. I didn't get the chance to reply to folks earlier because I was at work and umm... working, but this is exactly the issue. My bodily integrity and yours and yours and yours come first. All the rest of that stuff comes afterward, and if that's something that makes some folks sad or upset, then they might want to look at their senses of entitlement a little and see if there's something to examine there.

I can't believe I still have to argue this point in 2008, but in situations like ferrett's post, I do have to. Thanks for the comments above, and may I friend you?

And it's still taken me all day to get my objections focused down to that paragraph you quoted.

Thank you very much, and I'd be delighted to be friended. Most of my posts aren't this exciting, though. ;)

That first bit is where I eventually came to rest, as well. If it had just been "there was this thing at this con, and here's how it went, and it was really cool..." then I think that there would've been one *tenth* the drama, if that.

It's the bit about calling it a Project, and using all this language that sets it up to be a movement that turns it into a skeevy thing. Because then it's not just an isolated incident that happened, it's something that some subset of people are going to try to make happen *again*.

If it was just one event, then I think all but the most strident objectors would've just said "you're weird" and wandered off again. But if people are trying to make a movement out of it, it really forces people to raise all the issues of consent and peer pressure and normative behavior and all the other completely pertinent objections.

Personally, I think, had I been there, I would've gleefully participated. I think that now, should I encounter it somewhere, I'll quietly decline, and be grateful that I'm not really the target audience, so nobody's gonna *care* if I quietly decline.

Rereading my comment, I need to edit for grammar/clarity: "He may not have meant to say what he literally said, but what he said was not "Allowing people access to your body is sometimes healthy". What actually said, the literal meaning of his actual word choice, was "considering your body yours to control is not always healthy". I can't seem to put a positive spin on that, no matter how hard I try.

Thank you for providing your insight as one who was involved. It's helpful.

Exactly. That is EXACTLY what he wrote, and I am so tired of people making excuses for guys and saying, oh he didn't mean that, he meant this other much more reasonable thing; and you're like, but he did! He said that! I can point to it! What the hell ass balls do you get out of flat refusing to see what is in front of you?!

I read a quoted bit of his comment - the same bit quoted above with extra - and my own wall of judgement against him came down because that is one of the damned sleaziest, most underhanded, horrible arguments to make to a person -- he was saying that HE understands better than YOU do what would be healthy for you to do with your body, and that that healthy thing would be for you to let him touch your boobs. "Considering your body yours to control is not always healthy" is still putting too nice of a spin on it. I read it very much as what rushthatspeaks pointed out: (http://the-red-shoes.livejournal.com/1263869.html?thread=12469245#t12469245)"The way he is using 'oh, people who do not see awesome in this are uptight and unhealthy' as a shaming statement really gets my goat.

Because I don't think it's unhealthy in the slightest not to buy into his juvenile 'utopian sexual vision', but. Even if it were?

He is using 'uptight and unhealthy' to mean 'not worthy of being listened to'. Because of course people who are 'uptight and unhealthy' have forfeited their place in the public discourse."

So it is a multi-layered ATTACK on your agency and on all women's agency.

Yah. It's so healthy and proves you're liberated!

So grodily Heinleinian!

I cannot get over HOW HEINLEIN this whole thing was from the beginning.

Or: why I hate Heinlein!

Right down to the tone of the writing and the shining faces of the women, their shy assent, their perky happiness!

Probably one of them was his MOM!

Wow, thank you for clarifying. I had thought that particular remark of his was horribly condescending and sleazy, but now it's just even worse....

he was saying that HE understands better than YOU do what would be healthy for you to do with your body

YEAH, and he's pulled that before, repeatedly -- he likes to set himself up as some kind of guru. This is partly just a really big manifestation of that, I think.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH MY BRAIN

(no subject)

Re: the Open-source Boob Project

Re: the Open-source Boob Project

Re: the Open-source Boob Project

no subject

Re: the Open-source Boob Project

Re: the Open-source Boob Project

Re: the Open-source Boob Project

Re: the Open-source Boob Project

Giving your question careful consideration

I heartily agree

Re: I heartily agree

Re: I heartily agree

Re: Giving your question careful consideration

I had time to rant today

Re: Giving your question careful consideration

Re: the Open-source Boob Project

As, I dunno, formal and tacky as this sounds

Re: the Open-source Boob Project

Re: the Open-source Boob Project

Re: the Open-source Boob Project

Re: the Open-source Boob Project

Re: the Open-source Boob Project

Re: the Open-source Boob Project

daddy knows best!

or his auntie!