Welcome to the Harlan Ellison Memorial Personal Boundaries Club

[james_davis_nicoll]

Sad male fan capitalizes on way to be even more creepy to female fans.

As seen on a wide variety of LJ accounts. I have to say there's a clear consensus on the idea of treating women's bodies as public commons and it's not heading in the direction of commutarian touching. Who could have predicted that outcome?

Comments

[daedala.livejournal.com]

FWIW, some of your posts have read to me as trending towards "but some women like it too [so it's totally ok!]" I am not saying the reading is fair, but it's the one I had.

[arielstarshadow.livejournal.com]

Well, here are ALL of my posts on the subject from other threads:

In response to the following: Why, if only Connie Willis had been wearing a green button when Harlan Ellison reached out his hand!

I'd say that the SFF crowd doesn't have any problem with presuming the right to touch women's breasts.

I said: Whoa, whoa, whoa - don't push the loutish actions of one man (well-known for his misbehavior) onto the entirety of the SFF crowd.

Which generated the following exchanges:
Because women have never been groped or sexually harassed before at cons? It's funny how they have.

Me: Your statement has nothing to do with making generalizations about the behavior of every single person involved in SFF.

In other words - the truth that women have been groped or sexually harassed at conventions does not thereby make it true that every person in SFF has or will make presumptions about what they are or are not allowed to do.

Yes, the rest of you just want the women to be pre-screened and clearly labeled before you molest them. None of this "loutish" groping willy-nilly. Perhaps you could have an entire rainbow of buttons for sexual behaviours so that you can shorthand that whole nasty business of getting to know women at all.

Me: I beg your pardon?

1. I am a woman.
2. I have been raped in my life.
3. I have been sexually harassed in my life.
4. I have been groped in my life.

My point is, and continues to be, that it is wrong to condemn a population for the actions of one member of said population, or even a percentage of said population. It's very much akin to such vile statements as "All Mexicans are lazy" or "All Black are criminals." It's offensive, and incorrect.

My statement does nothing to belittle anyone who has been sexually harassed or groped, but instead simply states "Don't make blanket statements."

And my point is that what this subset of said population proposes is WORSE. They aim to codify behaviour which is normally unacceptable and often actually illegal, not to mention just plain rude.

How about if a group just proposed that all members who wanted to be hugged by other members wear a button?

Do you not think that there might be members of that group who are VERY uncomfortable with hugging who might wear the button anyway to avoid questions or possible ostracization. I mean... come on-- it's only HUGGING!!

I'm really shocked that with your history you'd approve of blurring the line like this-- opening up the possibility for misunderstandings and real crimes that can be blamed on "misunderstanding." And who would be liable then? The con?

Me: Why should it shock you that an individual would think...individually? What's more, my thoughts and feelings are just as valid as anyone else's.

Stop and look at what you just said to me - that because of my past, how DARE I not feel X, Y and Z about this? It's a thinly veiled attempt to make me feel "bad" or "guilty" because I had the audacity to say "Hey, don't immediately say that the entire SFF crowd wants to sexually harass women just because one person did."

Note that I didn't even offer an opinion on the topic. A simple statement about not jumping to conclusions and making assumptions, and yet I've got people snarling at me for making a simple, sensible statement.

Part II in next post

[daedala.livejournal.com]

I do not care about the entire set of your comments. I'm simply reporting how I read the few I saw. I'm not saying that you intended that; in fact, I rather think you didn't. I offered the information because you might not be aware that someone read your comment that way.

[arielstarshadow.livejournal.com]

The reason I posted them is because I'm trying to fathom how anyone (not just you) could make any conclusions on my opinion on the buttons/touching by my comments.

I'm not upset at you personally, but rather at the number of people willing to jump to conclusions on this subject.

[james-angove.livejournal.com]

My point is, and continues to be, that it is wrong to condemn a population for the actions of one member of said population, or even a percentage of said population. It's very much akin to such vile statements as "All Mexicans are lazy" or "All Black are criminals." It's offensive, and incorrect.

Fandom is a voluntary association who's membership can be reasonably be held to account for its prevailing social norms.

Race, nationality and sexual orientation, to take some examples, are immutable characteristics individuals, and are not voluntary.

Please cease to conflate these things. Additionally, please note that I have made no response to the rest of your post. Thank you.

[arielstarshadow.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry you don't like my analogy, but it stands as-is.

[dlganger.livejournal.com]

Merely asserting a thing does not make it so.

[winterknight.livejournal.com]

I agree with this comment. While I object to the generalization (I have felt safest in the company of geeks, dorks, and fanboys), I think the analogy is terrible. We CAN require that the members of our subculture behave properly or be ostracized, and I have seen it happen successfully.

[dlganger.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately (at least in my experience), the instances when it happens successfully stand out because they tend to be the exception, not the rule, in fandom. The Geek Fallacies -- and an unwillingness to be perceived as somehow "exclusionary" -- prevent a lot of otherwise decent folk from ostracizing people who aren't just poorly socialized, but are actively anti-social and will continue to be so because they can get what they want that way.

[winterknight.livejournal.com]

Yes, that's an excellent way of putting it. And, many of the people involved in the community suffer from poor self-esteem and don't want to risk exclusion themselves as a result of standing up against anti-social behaviour. Being an "angry bitch" who doesn't give a shit about approval helps loads, there. It's more stressful position to maintain than most people think; I understand why people don't do it. I find a fair amount of Nice Guy TM (passive-aggressive, entitled, sex-driven, etc) behaviour among geek men. The ones who are just misguided or socially programmed tend to be more inclined to listen and learn, though.

[arielstarshadow.livejournal.com]

On another thread, in response to: I'm sorry, there's something I'm confused about:

Why are conventions which dictate that sexualized touch should be individually negotiated oppressive to the human spirit?

Why does it change anything even if we do pretend that the human spirit is about 95.4% male and sexually oriented toward women?

"Individually negotiated" means "The people involved must actually work out amongst themselves how this contact is or is not going to happen, usually around the time that the contact is considered as an option."

What is so healing about finding new ways to divorce sexual accessibility from personality? Don't we have more than enough of that already?

I understand that for any convention, there can be an intense rush of excitement or euphoria in having a time set aside in which to see what the world would be like if the restrictions did not apply. I've just ended my own personal three-day ritual of that kind, which did not - oddly enough - involve anyone touching my breasts. But a very similar rush can be achieved by the experimental doing-away of almost any deeply restrictive tabboo. Why does it have to be women's breasts?

What I think is interesting is that the account clearly shows that it was the limited-time up-ending of the entire convention which gave the rush. It was precisely because the men involved could touch breasts but not do any of the further sexualized behaviors which would normally go along with touching breasts that it was so "amazing." I don't think the participants would believe me if I told them they could get a very similar rush from all wearing exaggerated stereotypical "nerd" clothing and letting their inner nerds out to be communally loved and swooned over, but it's true.

But that's not what comes to mind, apparently. Apparently what comes most readily to mind is a combination of a euphoric and slightly daring experimentation with changing the rules for a weekend and a fourteen-year-old boy's wet-dream.

What abysmal poverty of imagination.

...no offense to fourteen-year-old boys intended.

Me: I've been slowly working my way through the comments over there, but after two pages' worth, my understanding is that there were just as many women participating as men, if not more?

How then, can we reduce what happened to a "fourteen-year-old boy's wet-dream?"

I'm genuinely confused on that aspect. I can certainly understand people not liking the idea, but when both male and female are participating (and touching one another), then I think it's important we not make blanket statements that it's all about the objectification of women.

and then I also said: I'd really urge you to read the responses so as to gain a better perspective from both those who participated (both male and female), and the dissenters - it's also helpful to get clarification on the original text.

And the reason I said the latter is because the person I was responding to had made assumptions which were, in fact, incorrect. Why? Because they hadn't read any of the comments.

I bring up the fact that women participated because people are ignoring the fact or blowing it off, and it's an important aspect of the discussion.

the open-source boob project

[pir-anha.livejournal.com]

the comments have been deleted, so it's impossible for people to go and read them for further information.

disclaimer: i have no problem with a group of friends at a room party deciding that they want to touch each other; none whatsoever. i've been in cuddle piles and group hugs, and would be quite willing to participate in exploration of boundaries, affection, touch, and even sexual aspects of that with a group of friends in a safe space. i also don't want to besmirch the magic moment -- i am quite sure it was magic for the people who participated (well, possibly not for the women who were accosted before the button idea popped up; i'm talking about the original participants). i wouldn't have said anything, if it had not become an "open-source boob project".

i agree with you that it's an important aspect of the event that women participated -- in fact a woman started the actual touching -- if it weren't for that i would be a lot more cutting in my assessment. but it's not so simple that that fact alone changes the dynamic away from juvenile boob-gropery. women initiated and participated _after_ a discussion with men bemoaning lack of access. that in itself will bring out people more feminist than me, who'll point out that once again here we have men desiring and women providing sexual kicks. i give women more agency, but i don't deny that this can be a factor.

moreover, the person talking about the sexual thrills, and endeavouring to advertise this glorious "project" is a man, and from his initial post, a man woefully ignorant of the baggage that comes with the proposition, nevermind how completely NOT new and transgressive and revolutionary the concept of touching women's boobs is. also, women touching women's breasts in the full sight of men, with men being more enabled by that to ask whether they can also touch? how is that NOT an N-year-old boy's wet dream? hot bi babe fantasies, anyone?

and while the project was allegedly not just about touching boobs, but men's butts, and other body parts were also gropeable, it was named the "open-source BOOB project". i find that significant (as i did the continued protestations about how of course few people would want to touch theferrett's butt, and how men's balls would be "dangerous" because "little elvis" might ... *nudge*nudge*). where is the post from one of the women glorying in the experience? i went to look, but it seems none of the women present felt moved enough to make a public post about it like theferrett's post. maybe there are 20 flocked ones; it's possible. all the public stuff i saw was defensive. and i am quite curious about how the women truly felt.

the cluelessness about gender politics on the part of theferrett boggled my mind. it made me think the "boob" project was actually aptly named -- for a different kind of boob. and i hope the project as is dies a flaming death (though again -- in a room party, with flyers advertising, and no pressure on anyone; why not.)

oh, as to why people might be reading your comments in ways you didn't intend? you're missing acknowledgment of the others' points as your first step, and that can make it sound like you disagree with everything the other poster said; it makes your comments feel somewhat adversarial.

[dlganger.livejournal.com]

I read most of the original posts and comments, and I still came away with the strong impression it was a thinly veiled 14-yo wet dream. Here's why:

The Open Source *Boob* Project.

The biggest class of people I hear use the term "boob" on a consistent basis is adolescent males. If it was all about *equal* access, the naming and terminology (and yes, I read the comments where after-the-fact it was revealed that males were being touched and that other areas were being touched) should reflect that. But, no -- straight to the chest, and the original post was all about the wonders of groping female breasts.

Combine that with the whole "not getting to touch breasts in high school" line of commentary, and yeah, it *does* come off with a distinct whiff of adolescent masturbatory fantasy. All the hasty add-ons and affirmations from other people aside, that spect still stands out in theferrett's writing. He may have merely done a poor job of writing up this wonderful idea, but (in my experience) "from the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks."

[winterknight.livejournal.com]

That whole high-school healing thing gave me the creeps on a huge level. It still makes me nauseous. My breasts are not the all-healing Cosmic Titty for some guy who didn't get to touch breasts in high-school. To be wounded by not getting the opportunity implies a sense of entitlement. There's so much wrong there, I can hardly start.