serene | (no subject)

I would really be wondering what new friendslist technology LJ was about to roll out.

Don't forget... turnabout is fair play...

the "yes, you may" is really referring to the asking, anyway, right? that's how i took it.

thanks for the link.

Ahh, that's what those buttons meant at Arisia. I shall definitely keep an eye out next year :-)

I have the button.

Yes, you may.

i have some _really_ mixed reactions to that post. the ferret guy creeps me out, and the thing reminded me first and foremost of harlan ellison groping connie willis and the resultant quiet movement to make cons safer for women, and i had to overcome that first before i could think about the proposition more sensibly.

the main conflicting thoughts i have are:

a) do we really need more men touching women in semi-sexual ways at non-sexual events? and more fetishizing of boobs? the idea that women end up wearing buttons to make asking about boob-touching not ok repels me so strongly, i don't even have good words for that without descending into profanity. while it may all be sunshine and rainbows for those guys who get to cop a feel, it creates a hostile environment for women who do not wish to be around groping men because they've had their goddamned share of it already.

b) a lot of people are touch-starved, and it would be nice if touch didn't carry such strong sexual messages, and if people could feel more free around touch even if it were mildly sexual. i am all for cuddle piles, and for straight-guy hugs, and for being affectionate with people one meets at an off-line gathering after knowing them for some time online.

i don't like that it's called "the open-source boob project". there is a lot of justification from other people after the initial post -- that it wasn't just about boobs and it wasn't just women being touched. ok, but why the hell isn't it called the "open-source touch project" or the "open-source body project" then? why the emphasis on boobs? is that just the skeevy ferret guy's perspective?

if i went to cons these days i'd probably stay far away from it, even though i am not inherently opposed to sharing some affectionate touch with relative strangers.

Well, it was said in the post, there were women touching women. And said in the comments, there were men being touched as well. Also, there is an edit to the post, saying that after the initial bit, no one not wearing one or the other button was asked at all, for reasons of avoiding creepiness, so that takes care, I think, of the people who aren't interested being involved aspect. I suspect it's called the open source boob project because breasts are socially seen as an especially desirable yet prohibited object, and so they were what the project started with.

women touching women non-sexually makes men touching women sexually ok? women touching women magically removes peer pressure? men being touched (carefully NOT anywhere sexual, because that would be "dangerous", since "little elvis" would not control himself -- oh my eyes, they're rolling) is the same as touching women's breasts how?

the more i've gone back and re-read the original post, the more i am creeped out about the whole "it was magical, bambi danced and butterflies frolicked" attitude that does not, for a single moment, acknowledge that this sort of thing comes with mountains of baggage. i mean, it's ok to feel the magic while one is there; i've been in such situations. but it's long past that day now, and it's become a "project". in the comments people who state that their boundaries don't enjoy groping by strangers are clearly considered unenlightened prudes, and stuff like what's allegedly "healthy" gets thrown around with abandon.

what is it, he's just read heinlein, and is emboldened to explore brave new social avenues? here's news for men like him: it's not brave and new for men to want to touch random women's boobs in public. it's not new for women to have men touch them in public. it's old and tired. it's objectifying. same old same old "men desire, women provide sex". women did it too while men watched? oh gosh, hot-bi-babe fantasies fulfilled. and the cherry on top: the way he tells it, there's but one motivation for the women, a desire for attention. (i am not casting aspersions on them, only on him, since he is the narrator of that particular story).

i am sorry, but women's breasts are not magical parts for healing con geeks' sex starvation. and this ferrett character who's apparently the spokesperson for this amazing movement for our new age in which sexism is magically dead doesn't even acknowledge, or *fuck*, REALIZE, that here be dragons.

WORD. I'm a well-known pervert among my set, but hot damn! do I ever agree with you here.

Holy goddess, my first comment that's too long! Yay, I've achieved new LJ heights! So, my comment is in two parts.

You seem quite upset, and I am sorry for whatever part my comment played in it. I'll try and explain myself better.

My point with regards to women touching women was that your point there seemed to be 'the touching is all very heterosexual', which was not my impression. I got the impression that regardless of gender, the touching was roughly the same mixture of appreciation and sexuality. And, the only place men specifically weren't touched was the genitals, and women's genitals weren't touched either.

The peer pressure is a good point, but, everyone has to live with peer pressure in a million ways everywhere every day, including with regards to sex. In every interaction, it's present. I don't think making it explicit and less mystified and taboo is bad. Human beings have feelings, including sexual ones. Trying to say otherwise is unrealistic and impractical. Accepting biological realities and trying to alter, better, social constructs with regards to them is a lofty goal in my opinion.

I suspect that while you're reading the same words I am in the original post, you're not reading the same thing. I'd be curious as to where you're seeing things differently, I may well be missing something, it's certainly happened before.

For one thing, I saw quite a bit of acknowledgment, in the post and especially in the comments, that yes, here there be dragons, and I saw quite a bit of trying to address that. But, they clearly did feel something like magic, and, it seems, other people can see how it could be magic, and want to try and create that for themselves. I can certainly see how it could be amazing. I often feel physically unattractive, because I certainly don't meet societal standards for beauty, and having something that told me yes, people found me attractive would be great. Sure, it'd be ideal if society didn't tell me I'm unattractive, but it does, and I don't see it stopping any time soon, no matter how much work is done. So, I'd like things that helped me deal with that, and for me, I can see that this really could be such a thing. I can't always give myself all the affirmation I need, so, at those times, if I don't get it externally, I just won't have it. I'd rather have it externally than not at all.

As another point where I don't think we're reading the same thing, ferret does not in what I read 'clearly consider unenlightened prudes those who didn't want to take part'. He states repeatedly in the comments things such as 'you don't want to take part, don't, it's cool.', with further comments which I read as 'we just want people who this speaks to get a chance to take part'. Also, I see numerous comments from both ferret and others against those who are giving people shit about not wanting to take part, and against those who're giving those who did take part shit. So, there's clear pressure to be respectful all around, in what I read.

For yet another, 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 don't see anyone saying that it will work like that for everyone, and if it doesn't, you're unhealthy.

No, it's not new for men to want to touch women's breasts in public. It's as old as the human sex drive. What is new is making it explicit, and putting a social stigma to it (because they did form a small sub culture, I'd say, from a sociological perspective), whereby the men are expected to ASK, the women have absolute power to refuse, and the men are expected to gracefully accept refusal.

Personally, as a woman who likes other women's breast, I'm rather insulted that you'd assume the women who touched other women's breasts did it for the sake of the HBB fantasies of the men present. Maybe they just WANTED to, and appreciated the chance to be able to Just Ask. I know I've gone half insane at times, wondering if some woman I was attracted to would be open to being approached in any way, and wishing there was some way I could tell, or at least know if I could ask without giving offense.

(Continued from above)

I read the entry as ferret ascribing the same motives to all parties, touching and touched. Yes, attention, but more so, connection, appreciation and recognition of it, and a search for some new paradigm of interaction for age old acts.

Breasts are awesome, to those who are sexually aroused by them. (Asses are equally awesome, and I was thrilled to read there was ass grabbing of both genders as well!) If people are willing to CONSIDER sharing themselves with those who find them attractive (it's said repeatedly that just cos one was willing to be asked didn't mean one had to say yes), then how is it bad to connect those who are willing to share, with whose who want to take part?

Yes, sexism exists, women's breasts are objectified, but, how else can it be overcome if not by exploring new avenues of expressing the human urges that aren't going away any time soon? Yes, sexism exists, and any new avenue explored will likely be tainted by sexism, especially initially, but does that mean one shouldn't explore new avenues?

I think that had the post been by anyone other than The Ferrett I would have felt happier about it. Still not unconflicted, but happier. I'm with you, he gives me the mighty creeps. I used to read his LJ but gave up a while ago because of ... something I no longer remember, but it gave me the shudders.

My initial reaction was 'of course I'd wear one of the green buttons', but on thinking about it, from the tone of Ferrets post I'd stick to a 'free hugs' t-shirt instead. I'm not naiive, even that can be sexual depending on the person doing the hugging, but breasts are so much more loaded.

And gah, I need to think more on this and not clutter up

serenejournal's page.

(People I know can always ask and I'm likely to say 'of course, no big deal', making that offer to a convention population in general, not so comfortable with that)

I sure hope this "project" doesn't turn up at NAAFA.

women touching women non-sexually

I'm just curious--feel free not to answer--but why do you presume that all of the woman-touching-woman was non-sexual?

You qrote:

i am sorry, but women's breasts are not magical parts for healing con geeks' sex starvation. and this ferrett character who's apparently the spokesperson for this amazing movement for our new age in which sexism is magically dead doesn't even acknowledge, or *fuck*, REALIZE, that here be dragons.

YES! And thank you kindly.

I might be up for it if this were a deal where I get to walk up to random guyz and ask to grab their cocks, and talk about how that's part of my healing and empowerment to get random access to their bodies. Strangely, that doesn't seem to be something ferrett would be all right with.

I'm really upset by his post, he has managed to hit darn near every space on the sexism bingo card that reduces women to objects and providers of a thing called sex while men are agents who do things and make choices. This makes me sad.

Because I do like some of the more free swinging kinds of touch and gatherings where that can happen. But I don't do that or go there until I've built a structure in which there can be meaningful consent and meaningful yeses and noes. (And I've helped build one place where that does happen and I'm working on another now.) But what ferrett is talking about... isn't that at least not how I'm reading it.

Damn. I'd like that happy fun free swinging world. But it won't manifest till we deal with sexism. I wish we could make sexism vanish by pretending it has vanished, but that strategy doesn't seem to be working for anyone I know.

And serene, this is my reaction to ferret's post. I hope I am clear it's about his post and not about you. I don't want to be telling you what to do with your body, cos it doesn't beling to me. (I was there for that day in third grade...)

I want you to be able to do whatever you want with your body, same as I can do whatever I want with mine. But ferret's context... yeeech. I hadta say something.

he more i've gone back and re-read the original post, the more i am creeped out about the whole "it was magical, bambi danced and butterflies frolicked" attitude that does not, for a single moment, acknowledge that this sort of thing comes with mountains of baggage.

A very big ditto.

Quotes:

Beautiful, from

fengi: "When it comes to my breasts, I'm proprietary software, asshole. My chest is the fucking Apple Computer of limited licensing for outside applications." (http://fengi.livejournal.com/716691.html)

Hideous, from

theferrett: "But that also involves an interview process, and the attitude that your body is a vested space that is, by nature, exclusive. That's fine. But that doesn't mean it's the only way to be, or that it's always healthy." (http://theferrett.livejournal.com/1087686.html?thread=54671302#t54671302)

Here's my question: What about those who didn't know what was going on, and didn't go to the con to see other people being groped/grabbed? How was this any kind of fair to them?

And no, I'm not talking about the chillllldrun, but other adults who weren't given the option to consent.

"But that doesn't mean it's the only way to be, or that it's always healthy."

Um, yes. (And I know you're not agreeing with him.) It is a fact that one's body is always one's own to choose how to handle. Or who to allow to handle.

Serene, I know you know this isn't in any way directed at you. I still have your *smooch* on my wall.

Not to worry. I'm enjoying the discussion. And if I'm being creepy, I want my friends to tell me. :-)

Hmm. Well, people weren't being undressed, as far as I know. So, I'm generally gonna be inclined to go with 'If seeing people touching each other through clothing in public bothers you, look at something else.' I mean, I've seen people sitting at bus stops doing things that couldn't be shown on prime time TV. People have a right to act how they like in public, so long as they aren't breaking any laws. If adults don't like the legal behavior of others, they can express that as adults, by asking for it to stop, or looking/going elsewhere. I'm not big on protecting adults from having to make any effort, at the cost of other people being able to do what they legally can.

Further to not seeing any legal problem, I don't see a moral problem. I'm not going to not express affection with my SO in public just because someone might be bothered by seeing us kiss or touch each other. As long as we're not being lurid, then other people's issues with sex are in fact their issues, not ours. And I don't think the people taking part in the OSBP were doing anything lurid. I'm all about not involving people in sex acts without their consent, including viewing sex acts, but this doesn't strike me as a sex act. I see it more like a hug or a massage, both of which are perfectly acceptable to do in public. In fact, it's said in the comments that quite a bit of the touching was massaging. Personally, my neck is a hell of a lot more of an erogenous zone than my breasts, and a good back massage is far more a sexual act for me than my breasts being touched. So, why is touching someone's breasts through clothing not ok, but touching their back or neck is? Because society says 'zomg, breasts!'?

I'm really curious as to how other people are so clearly not reading the same thing as I am. In ferret's statement, I see him saying 'Don't share your body if you're not comfortable doing so. Some people are comfortable sharing their bodies, which is just as valid a choice as not, and some people find sharing their bodies to be healthier than not sharing them.' Is that not how it reads to you? How does it read to you?

I'm really curious where in that you see him saying one's body is NOT always one's own to choose how to handle. Cos I don't see that. The closest to that I see, is him suggesting that in SOME cases, how people choose to handle their bodies might be less healthy for them than other choices available to them. But, just cos someone says 'X isn't always as healthy as Y' doesn't mean suddenly everyone has to choose Y.
Is your problem with his statement that he's saying some choices aren't always unhealthy? Cos, some really aren't. I mean, when judging as an outside party if a choice is healthy, one has to consider the person, the circumstances, etc, but, still, some choices just aren't healthy. Doesn't mean people can't make them, but the fact that people choose to make them doesn't mean other people can't say 'that's not healthy'.
I mean, take that exact phrase, and shift it from 'who you allow to touch you' to 'who and how many people you get romantically involved with'. I've heard the exact words "But that doesn't mean it's the only way to be, or that it's always healthy." said about being mono any great number of times. Doesn't mean the person saying it is saying people can't be mono.

Well, it's a sci-fi con. I'm willing to bet that a certain amount of partial dressedness was the norm.

We're not just talking about kissing or massages in public. We're talking about touching a part of the body that is, in Western Culture, for better or for ill, an erogenous zone. Also, everyone has their own definition of lurid.

How about this: A newbie to cons in general and this con in particular, sees men (and women) walking up to women (and men), speaking to them, and then touching them in ways that they personally would be uncomfortable being touched. At first, seeing one or two people doing this, they would likely think this was something certain groups of friends/possible lovers did. It would possibly make said newbie uncomfortable, but as their presumptive general philosophy is YKIOK, they would handle their discomfort by looking away or whathaveyou.

Seeing these sorts of requesting going on con-wide, or in unexpected places at the con, could result in their wondering if they were going to be expected to participate. Since our hypothetical newbie is uncomfortable touching strangers or being touched by them, this could result in their never returning to that particular con, or any con, based on that particular experience of con-culture.

Yes, people touch "inappropriately" elsewhere, and no, I don't think that (short of scaring the horses) interpersonal touching should be prevented or necessarily regulated as you seem to be implying in your first paragraph. I'm not remotely suggesting that SOs or close friends should not express affection with each other in public. But my body is my own, and (no more newbie now) I have no desire to be asked if some strange person can touch me, on any piece of my body that might please them to want to touch. "I don't know your mind, but your body is beautiful" is just another way of saying "your mind doesn't matter to me. I only want the parts of you that please me."

(Because we're sharing: the point where my shoulder meets my neck is an erogenous zone for me, and I've had sharp words with co-workers who insist on giving me unrequested massages.)

I'm not sure what you mean by "fair." There are plenty of things that go on, at cons and elsewhere, that I don't necessarily want to see, and I'm not talking about anything touchy or remotely sexual at all. There are programs, classes, vendors, etc. that I don't want to do or see, but would it be fair of me to ask that everything I don't want be removed from the venue? There are even people with too many piercings or wearing odd clothes or the wrong kinds of tattoos or political bumper stickers that I might not agree with, but do I have the right to ask them to leave? Is that fair? Similarly, if people don't want to see breasts being touched, they don't have to look or participate.

And as for being given the option to consent...they did have it, once they arrived at the con. Seeing so many similar buttons around it would be an easy manner to ask someone wearing one, what they represented, and then make their choice.

Edited 2008-04-22 16:39 (UTC)

(no subject)

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

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

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

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

Re: the Open-source Boob Project

Re: the Open-source Boob Project