(no subject)

[serene]

So I followed a link in a locked post to the Open-source Boob Project, and here's how my thinking went:

1) Wonder if I should post to my friendslist "Yes, you may".

2) Well, but should I friends-lock it?

3) Well, but then I should really remove anyone from my friendslist that I don't want touching my boobs.

4) Well, no, because I can say no to them. But wouldn't it be funny to just post an open post saying "If I drop you from my friendslist in the next day or so, it's because I don't want you touching my boobs"?

Anyway, Yes, you can. Ask, that is. I'm likely to say "You can touch my boobs; it's no big deal."

Comments

Re: the Open-source Boob Project

[sistercoyote.livejournal.com]

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.)

Re: the Open-source Boob Project

[hel]

Why doesn't this newbie just ask someone what's up?
Anyway, besides that, the same argument could be made for a lot of things that happen at cons. I don't think 'it might make someone (or X percentage of the group) uncomfortable' is a good reason to say 'so you can't do it'. That leads, in my mind, to regulating things to death. Just because some portion of people don't like something, is not a reason to not allow those who do like it to do it. I'm saying that poorly, and missing a lot of the finer details, but the general concept is what I want to say.
I don't read 'I don't know your mind' as 'your mind doesn't matter to me'. Just because I appreciate someone visually, doesn't mean I'm not interested in their personality. It just means I have no idea of their personality YET. I don't think visually appreciating someone is wrong, or necessarily means not being interested in or appreciating their personality. Sure, for some people it does, but for plenty of others, it doesn't.
And, so what that western culture says it's an erogenous zone? That doesn't mean it should be off limits, in and of itself. Erogenous zones aren't bad things.
I guess that's what it comes down to for me. No one is being forced to take part, so it seems to me like 'well, if you don't have to touch or be touched, but you're trying to tell me that it's bad if I do it, then you're saying touching is bad because of where the touches are.' It seems very puritanical and controlling to me.

Re: the Open-source Boob Project

[serenejournal.livejournal.com]

I have to say that the newbie question is pretty compelling for me. (I know I said I wasn't going to comment on the project as a whole; I've either changed my mind, or this particular point feels broader for me). For me, it's not about imposing regulation -- it's about people getting what they can reasonably expect to get, especially when they've paid admission to get it. I think it's disingenuous to say that boob-touching is non-sexual just because the people who are doing the touching declare it so. If there's going to be public sexual touching at an organized gathering, that should be disclosed in the signup materials -- it shouldn't be something newbies have to navigate around, or even ask someone about. Hell, I'm perfectly happy with being nude in public and I'm not shy, but if I walk into a room full of people touching each other's "private parts", I'm not going to feel comfortable going up to them and asking what's going on.

Re: the Open-source Boob Project

[hel]

I don't disagree with that, but....
I dunno. I mean, sure, someone pays to come to the con, and should get what they reasonably expect to get. But, doesn't that apply to everyone? And, why should the actions of individuals at the con have to be included in the signup materials? It's not explicitly in the signup for most cons that people will be having staged or impromtu duels in the halls, but that happens at most cons. I'd have liked to be warned about that before MY first con! And, I've seen public sexual touching at every single con I've ever gone to, and nearly every time I'm around human beings. I tend to just take it as 'people want to touch each other', and I can't understand how it's a problem, so long as they're not pouncing on me without my consent.

Re: the Open-source Boob Project

[waywardcats.livejournal.com]

I gotta say that if I was in a space where this was happening, either with or without my knowledge of the "project", I would feel very uncomfortable.

Re: the Open-source Boob Project

[shadowspar.livejournal.com]

FWIW, at every Penguicon I've been to, they've always put on an "Intro to Penguicon" session, the advice at which has included "Please do not touch people without invitation, whether scantily clad or otherwise attired" and "Just because someone is being very affectionate with their friends does not mean it's a free for all." The program book also notes that some of the evening activities might include things to which folks might not want their kids exposed. It doesn't really address this sort of thing squarely, but it's a nod in the right direction.

[sistercoyote.livejournal.com]

How about if I rephrase my argument thusly:

I have no problem with welcome touching between friends, lovers, peers, equals, or even strangers who are comfortable touching other strangers.

However, inappropriate touching (defined as intentional physical contact unwelcome to the person being touched)* is known to be a problem at conventions (the last major incident that I remember, Harlangate, was the impetus for the creation of the lj community bellwether_talk). I think that inappropriate touching is A Bad Thing. I also think that women's bodies** are often not seen as the possession of the women, but of society at large. It is therefore my considered opinion that "movements" like "The Open-Source Boob Project" encourages an atmosphere in which the problem of unwelcome touching is viewed as "normal" or perhaps given the veneer of acceptability by the asking of a question that purports to allow the person asked the option to say "no."*** I think that there are many psychological reasons that women in particular (but men also) may be uncomfortable saying "no" in a social setting even when they want to.****

As I said, I'd really love to hear the response from the woman in the "revealing" princess gown who was accosted (sorry, not the word I want but the only word that will come to mind) in the hallway by this group as to whether or not she really felt that they were "safe," or if she felt she needed to say "yes" to get past them (there are other options for what might have been going through her mind, of course). That would affect my reading of the situation.


*I am trying to phrase this so as to exclude those genuinely inadvertent touches that can occur in the crowded hallway/conference room/dealer's room of a con/hotel but not to exclude frottage (as an example). I don't think that clothing plays a part in such unwanted touches, but I do think that someone poking me in the breast with their backpack/purse/PDA is different than being poked with a finger.

**Sometimes men's bodies, as well, but in my experience more commonly women's. Consider how many times you've seen someone touch a pregnant woman's belly without her permission, as an example.

***Please note that I am not talking about peer pressure, but rather about societal norms. This one probably does hold true for men to some extent, but I honestly don't know; the plural of anecdote is not data, but most of the men I know have no trouble saying "no," where most of the women will hedge.

****There's also the fact that some of the non-breast/ass touching that went on may have gone on because people didn't want to say "no," so instead said "you can touch my 'x'." However, this is sheer hypothesis with nothing to back it up.

[hel]

Quite fair, and I don't disagree with anything you say, other than "movements" like "The Open-Source Boob Project" encourages an atmosphere in which the problem of unwelcome touching is viewed as "normal" or perhaps given the veneer of acceptability by the asking of a question that purports to allow the person asked the option to say "no."
I think that this project would remove the unwelcome part of the equation, and I don't think the fact that asking is required is a veneer. I mean, sure, there can and often are societal pressures to say yes to things, but...does that mean no one should ever ask for what they want, or all yeses are untrustworthy? I feel like, since there was a 'no, don't ask' button, it was a good way to remove having to say no to a question, or feel pressured to say yes, since it stops the question ever being asked.
Ferret has provided some additional details here. Apparently, the woman in the princess gown was a friend of the woman who asked her. To me, that makes it far more likely her yes was genuine and unpressured, but I could see an argument otherwise, where it being a friend asking increases the pressure.

Anyway, much as I'm enjoying this discussion, I've got a take-home final to do, so I've got to sign off. I won't likely reply to anything for a number of hours.