open-source boob project

[piranha]

links to the open-source boob project [*] have been popping up on my flist, and i went to see. i started this as a comment in one of the journals linking, whose owner appeared positive about the project:

i have some _really_ mixed reactions to that post. this ferrett guy creeps me out, and the thing reminded me first and foremost of harlan ellison groping connie willis and the resultant comments from a lot of women about unwanted touching that happens to them at cons, and i had to shake that off 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) i am pretty sure it was a special thing for the people who started this, and it wasn't at all as skeevy as it sounded to me when recounted. 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 wish i'd been part of a touch-friendly group when i grew up; i like the idea of touch being less scary, more friendly, of being able to allow some of one's curiosity about other people's bodies somewhat freer rein.

but this project doesn't seem to be what i'd be looking for. 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 ferrett 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. i might wear a button that says "keep your grubby paws to yourself, or i'll touch your nuts with my boots".

[*] the entry has now changed; the original as i read it before all the edits is still available at the very end. all the comments are unfortunately gone. it looks like the writer has now started to understand a little of what was wrong with his ideas.

[ETA 04-23: the comments are back. there is some trollage, there is some over-the-top outrage, but amazingly, much of it is salient. impressive feedback. if i only thought the guy got it, but i don't really think so; he seems to have decided to have a pity party instead.]

Comments

[sabotabby]

That's just the sort of thing that makes me not want to go to cons. I don't like people I don't know touching me, and I have to really, really like them before they're touching my boobs. And I don't think that anyone should have to wear a button announcing that she doesn't want her boobs touched.

cons

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

i've only been to four cons, and at none of them was i accosted for any groping nor did anyone make sexual remarks directed at me. i do know from conversations during harlangate that a number of women have different experiences, but overall i feel that cons are actually safer in that regard than many mainstream spaces.

judging from the backlash against this "project" i don't think it's gonna spread.

[ckd]

I was at the con, and didn't see or experience any of that. (There was a discussion with a few friends about sartorial choices, particularly the combination of "commando" and "very short skirt" leading to "I'm sorry, I'd prefer to at least be formally introduced before seeing that part of you" however.)

This discussion has been a good place for me to talk about how I feel about the whole idea.

The view on touch you express in (b) is very similar to mine. I honestly don't know how "innocent" it was at the time, since I wasn't there, but I can imagine it being just a touch thing. The post facto justifications/discussion that I've seen (admittedly through pointers, since I haven't read the eighteen gazillion comments on the original post) make that harder to believe, though.

Re: open-source boob project

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

yeah, i can imagine it just being about touch for some people. but it clearly wasn't for theferrett.

the more i think about it and go back to re-read his post, the more i am bothered. as russ says below, any movement that wants to walk new places about touch cannot start with men touching women's boobs, i am sorry; no matter how well-meaning and non-sexist and non-objectifying the men claim to be. it's not possible.

Would I like there to be more touch in the world, if getting there involved social pressure to conform to a very male-privileged and heteronormative model of behavior? Not just no but hell no, even though as Mr. McStraightypants I would be in the privileged position.

yeah, exactly. if theferrett showed similar acknowledgment or even some realization of the huge "here be dragons" sign tacked up over the groping hallway, i'd feel more sanguine about this "project".

re: open-source boob project

[jinian.livejournal.com]

Ugh. Yes, that comes off awfully creepy. I like some social mores, thanks.

re: open-source boob project

[eagle]

Mostly I just want to me-too, but the other thing that occurs to me while reading various discussions of this is the sheer lack of comprehension of how fixing hangups works. Assuming for the moment that one wants to desexualize touch (which, in agreement with pleonastic, I think wouldn't be a bad thing at least to a degree), one doesn't do that by revelling in sexualized touch. That reinforces. Pick some body part other than a boob to start with. Of course, that isn't as interesting or sensationalist. Real change usually isn't.

Also, given that women historically get fondled and men historically get to do the fondling, starting with men touching women just doesn't work. Starting with both touching probably doesn't even work; that's just how the way historical privilege functions. Starting with women touching men might, maybe.

I think there are more reasons for body privacy than the oversexualization of the world, too.

Re: open-source boob project

[saoba.livejournal.com]

See, if they wanted to be really transgressive and get people thinking about where their boundaries are and why they could have made up butons for men to wear.

'Will not touch you without a specific and direct invitation.' So, no hugs hello, no matter how often you see each other at cons- unless you ask them. That could start some interesting conversations about touch and intimacy and power and social pressures. Especially if the participants in the project didn't discuss the project unless asked about it.

This? This just struck me as 'let's cut to the chase, can I ask to touch your breasts without getting slapped?'.

Re: open-source boob project

[ailbhe]

Oooooh. I like this comment. (And not the project. Ugh.)

Re: open-source boob project

[redbird]

Yes. Or, for that matter, buttons for men that say "you can ask to touch me," with the understanding that "you" is not gendered. If it's about non-sexual touch and the way so many people are starved for touch, straight men touching each other, and being asked for hugs by other men, would probably be more useful. As useful in terms of non-sexual touch--that's often easier among people who aren't attracted to each other--and maybe more useful in terms of some men getting an idea of what it's like to be asked that sort of question.

I also wonder, if that were how it were done, how some of those men would react to either a man whose touch didn't feel non-sexual, or a request from a woman they considered to be outside the category of "attractive." Not just, say, a blond woman asking to touch someone who only likes brunettes or has a thing for shaved heads--but, say, a much older woman asking to touch a man who believes that in any couple, the man should be at least as old as the woman.

Re: open-source boob project

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

As I understand it, the buttons that were handed out at Penguicon (in connection with what theferrett calls "the open source boob project) were worn by men as well as women. Several men were touched, by other straight men as well, generally on the butt.

The "Yes you may" meant "Yes, you may ask to touch me" -- and some women regularly answered "No", and found that empowering. The "No" buttons simply meant that the wearer was aware of the game but was not playing, so don't even bother to ask.

I think that's a great way to explore touch, gender dynamics, power, etc., among friends and acquaintances in the "safe" atmosphere of a con. I think that by calling it an "open source boob project" and writing about it in a sexualized manner, theferrett has done a great disservice to the women who came up with the idea, made and distributed the buttons, and participated.

Re: open-source boob project

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

yes, he did them a great disservice, in regard to this incident, because it's gotten so soured in retrospect.

however, he's done everyone an indirect service because obviously, even among friends and acquaintances, his kind of attitude exists, and that changes how safe it feels -- novapsyche wrote about how she participated and it felt alright at the time (even though she did feel some pressure, and it wasn't properly explained to her, which raises issues about informed consent), but how she wouldn't have, if she had been introduced to the idea by theferrett.

i continue to think that exploring boundaries, gender dynamics, and touch in a relatively safe environment is a good thing (with associated discussion afterwards), but that there are oodles of related issues to explore that also matter.

starting with "it was the women's idea" -- uh huh. was it really? the subject wasn't brought up by women. it was men who wistfully mused about wouldn't it be nice if we lived in a world where we could just reach out and touch somebody's boobies; completely unaware that many women already live in a world in which this is true for all too many men. and then a woman offered.

i can recall a lot of instances in my life where women came up with "solutions" that offered something of themselves after men complained. i'd be happier about it being "women's ideas" if the ideas arose spontaneously among women without men first complaining.

that said, it's not like women touching women is ok per se either. there is too damn much unwanted touching there as well, from fondling the "strange" hair of women of colour to touching the bellies of pregnant women.

and, the "men were also touched" outcry. uh huh. as if men's butts were the same as women's breasts. i also noted theferrett's coy defense of why his manbits were off-limit -- because that would have been too sexual. hello! women's breasts are sexual! and you were getting a sexual kick from touching them! if everyone had just touched butts and arms and hands and backs, that would have been somewhat equivalent. but no, it was boobs, creamy expanses of boobs (only white women were apparently present), and oh yeah, a couple men's butts -- and few people seemed as eager to stroke his buns as he was to cop a feel of the mammaries.

i am really glad for the many smart discussions being had everywhere. it'd be good if theferrett and co sat down quietly and read all of them and thought about them instead of pulling the pity party trick.

Re: open-source boob project

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

uh huh. was it really? the subject wasn't brought up by women

According to what I've read among people who participated, the original group was mostly women and a couple of husbands of the women. They were talking about touch and sex and how it would be better if there wasn't so much shame attached to desire, so much shame attached to bodies. Someone -- maybe a man, maybe a woman, different people say different things -- said "Yeah, wouldn't it be great if I could just ask a woman 'You have beautiful breasts, may I touch them?'", just as in a con they feel comfortable saying that about hair. And it all took off from there. But women's breasts weren't the only thing being discussed.

Unfortunately, that seems to have been the only thing that stuck in theferrett's mind.

And theferrett is stuck in defending himself, which he should not be doing.

[lizw.livejournal.com]

Yeah. My main reaction was "Where's that hijab I bought a few years ago when I was looking into Islam?" Which requires too much explanation for a comment in a journal I don't normally read, and I am not feeling ready to be more articulate, so I haven't said anything on this elsewhere yet. Nothing like the implication that the world would somehow be a better place if women asserted their boundaries less to make me want to assert mine more.

[desert-dragon42.livejournal.com]

I've gone to a lot of sf/f cons and I have never experienced unwanted boob touching or heck any unwanted touching at all. I've gotten consensual hugs. I suppose I could just be oblivious to all the boob touching going on. As sexual and perverted as I am, I do not invite touch from random strangers.

I think the Free Hugs Project is much more in line with making touch okay. It is all about consent and non-sexual touching.

re: creepy con experiences

[eagle]

As with a lot of things like this, I think different people have different experiences sometimes based on how sure they are of their own boundaries and how comfortable they are enforcing them. Almost no one ever bothers me (even apart from being white and male, which put me into the privileged class anyway), but I've had female friends who have been approached at SF cons in ways that have made them feel uncomfortable and harassed. As piranha says, I don't think cons are necessarily any worse than anywhere else in the world; if anything, the difference isn't in the behavior so much as it's in the style of justification used afterwards. The originally referenced post with its whole "I'm just trying to make the world better and you don't understand" tone is unfortunately more common in the SF community, particularly among those people who think Heinlein wrote a handbook for living.

Re: open-source boob project

[netmouse.livejournal.com]

I was just thinking about the free hugs project in connection to this, this morning, since any woman bearing a FREE HUGS sign or t-shirt is in fact inviting people to touch her breasts (clothed, but all the breasts in the OSBP were also clothed), just not with their hands.

In the OSBP women wearing buttons were in fact promising *less* than in the FREE HUGS project, because they were retaining the right to deny somebody access to take action on their body. But people's assumptions about motives and power relationships and everything are so different that the one is upsetting while the other is not.

Re: open-source boob project

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

disclaimer because we don't know each other:

i really have no problem at all with the women who participated in the OSBP project either the first time when the idea sprung up, or the time with the buttons. i don't think they're somehow "broken", or "traitors to the feminist cause" (*ugh*). as i said in the OP, i am quite certain it was something special for the people who were there. i am primarily taking issue with the specific narration by theferrett, and with making it a "project".

hugs seem different to me from direct breast-touching because a hug doesn't aim for the breasts; it's just that they happen to be there. and the touching in a hug isn't anywhere as highly sexualized (of course any touch at all can be intended to be sexual, or be perceived as sexual by one party or both). not every touch of a breast is sexual either, but because it's used as such a primary sexual symbol, it becomes much harder to separate sexual from sensual.

you're right, the buttons were leaving the women more agency than a "free hugs" tshirt would. (i wouldn't wear one of those either, though i like that movement in general better, but i am not giving up my individual agency.) if it were just about direct agency, no problem. but it's about so much more than that.

oh, and from what i've heard the "free hugs" movement isn't free of criticism either, but i admit, i haven't paid much attention to it. i think people who're not particularly touchy-feely are feeling pressured by it.

[lorres.livejournal.com]

"This should be a better world," a friend of mine said. "A more honest one, where sex isn't shameful or degrading. I wish this was the kind of world where say, 'Wow, I'd like to touch your breasts,' and people would understand that it's not a way of reducing you to a set of nipples and ignoring the rest of you, but rather a way of saying that I may not yet know your mind, but your body is beautiful."

Er... asking to touch a strange woman's breasts *is* reducing her to a set of nipples and ignoring the rest of her.

Walking up and saying: "I may not yet know your mind, but your body is beautiful." isn't exactly the compliment to most women that a lot of people would want it to be, either. Objectification isn't quite respect, after all.

I just bought a button making machine, so I am EXTREMELY tempted to make up your button idea. May I?

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

Walking up and saying: "I may not yet know your mind, but your body is beautiful." isn't exactly the compliment to most women that a lot of people would want it to be, either. Objectification isn't quite respect, after all.

But why is it less of a compliment than saying, "I may not know your body, but your mind is beautiful"? Why is being "wanted" for one's mind less of an objectification than being "wanted" for one's body?

I consider my "self" to be both mind and body, and find "I have no interest in your body; I want to know your mind" equivalent to "I have no interest in your mind; I want to know your body." I know, I'm weird.

[tyroticon.livejournal.com]

Anyone who thinks is weird. Weird is a wonderful quality.

[lorres.livejournal.com]

"But why is it less of a compliment than saying, "I may not know your body, but your mind is beautiful"? Why is being "wanted" for one's mind less of an objectification than being "wanted" for one's body?"

You have added meaning in my words where it does not exist.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

OK, I'm sorry I misinterpreted what you wrote.

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

most people feel their mind represents their "self" much more so than their body. it's their mind that takes delight in compliments, and it's even their mind that enjoys sex (the body plays a part, but if the mind isn't along for the ride it's not much of a treat). it's the personality that feels like it lasts, while the body changes without one having a lot of control over it (i know some of that is llusion).

i'm not a whole lot in favour of mind/body duality, but i do act on it somewhat -- for example i know i get upset when somebody who claimed once to love me stops loving me when my body changes. and i do not get involved with people who fetishize my body type. while with my as-yet-relatively-intact mind i am ok with a person who'd stop loving me if i developed a mental illness that seriously changed my personality.

re: body vs. mind compliments

[eagle]

In addition to what piranha said, those compliments are also different because of historical baggage. Being attracted to a woman for her body has millennia of history, most of it degrading or at least unequal. Being attracted to a woman for her mind more often indicates at least some acknowledgement of the changes in perception of gender equality over the last fifty years.

[post-ecdysis.livejournal.com]

It was fun reading through all of the threads last night, definitely better than anything on television.

The illuminating part for me was that it dawned on me that, even if I don't start a memetic crusade, I've committed the same crime of asking a woman to do X and hoping that conditioning and social pressures would prevent her from refusing me a small discomfort that would bring me pleasure. I imagine there is a distinction to be made between asking a friend for a favor and asserting my white patriarchal powers, but now I'm questioning where that line is.

[serenejournal.livejournal.com]

links to the open-source boob project have been popping up on my flist, and i went to see. i started this as a comment in one of the journals linking, whose owner appeared positive about the project:

I didn't actually have a strong opinion about the project itself. I was mostly just amused at where it took my thought train (especially the place where I wondered what people would think if I just suddenly posted, out of the blue, "If I drop you from my friendslist today, it's because I don't want you touching my boobs.").

[leiacat.livejournal.com]

This sort of reminded me of a particular situation I was in. We were in a mixed crowd of fairly sex-relaxed folks. It so happened that a bunch of girls (me included) had a lovely and utterly silly time of going "Boobies!" at each other with squeezes and giggles all around. Then, a gent meandered over and asked if he could join in. Now, the gent in question was generally on easy bi-directional grope-exchanging terms with a number of us, and the question was as polite as it could be. And yet, the "No!" was just about unanimous and instantaneous. (The rejection was recieved perfectly gracefully, too.)

I don't even know if I can claim that the original exchange was about sex-positiveness - it was about us being comfortable with our bodies and with each other, and whatever flirtatiousness that happened was friendly-casual and fun. The gent's query instantly put it into the sex realm, and changed the tone.

Some things oughtn't be memes. Some things may be perfectly fine in the time and place they originated, but opening it up to the general populace instantly changes it into something else.

I was wondering why TheFerret, of all people, tried this. The Update which is there now (5:30pm Eastern on Tuesday) seems much more his style.

[evilgrins.livejournal.com]

sorry to intrude, just heard about this and I googled it and livejournal and you were 2nd from the top. skimmed Ferret's bit and you were next.

The semi-sexual touching...are you saying that there's no way to do such without it being at all sexual?

the touching of breasts

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

hey there -- you're not intruding.

my reactions were directly to theferrett's post, not to what anyone else might've felt (since they hadn't said so at the time).

i think it's perfectly possible to touch a woman's breast without it being sexual. children do it all the time. :) medical professionals do it. bra fitters do it. and i think it's possible to do it at a party as a consciousness-raising exercise, or in a cuddle pile, without it being sexual. it depends on who touches, how they touch, and how the touched person feels about it.

just that the way theferrett described it, it was sexual, and that's all that was on his mind. this sort of project would cater to a lot of skeeviness if it spread. fortunately it seems dead in the water.