April 22nd, 2008
|11:07 pm - The latest fandom kurfluffle|
Most of you have like encountered this bit of seemingly well-intentioned but offensive bit of idiocy. I can't think of anything to say beyond the fact that I'm a huge fan of touch-positive spaces, but this is an impressively wretched, juvenile, and utterly doomed way to attempt to create one. Despite (or perhaps more accurately, because of) being male, I would feel seriously uncomfortable in such an environment and I can also completely understand the reactions of the many women who are at least equally troubled by this.
However, rather than go on, I instead direct people to comments by two people I have vast amounts of respect and admiration for, which are (from what I've seen) the best comments about all this. Here's rm's excellent and eloquent analysis. Here is what bruceb had to say about all this.
Current Mood: sad
Some of the snark in badgerbag's lj post on this I thought was pretty good (that was the first place I saw someone mention it). What an idiotic and offensive idea.
Apparently, the creator is apologetic.
I have a very high tolerance for being objectified, partly because I objectify others and therefore expect myself to be objectified in return. (In this context, "objectify" means "looking at someone exclusively in terms of lust.")
However, if someone touches me without my permission, I have the right to tell them off or scream for security. Since I was not there, I don't know if I would have liked the idea or not.
This may also because I'm bi and like women as well as men. I think I can understand how men feel about women better than straight women can.
I feel like Ferrett and I have been in a sporadic argument about Feminist theory for about 2.5 yrs. now.
While I strongly disagree with this project, I understand how he got there and feel a bad for him. I've been debating posting about it in my journal because as both a feminist and Ferrett's professional collaborator I should clarify some things, but I don't want to kick him when he's down.
I am also a feminist, and know Ferrett personally (have for a number of years), so I "hear" and get what he was about for this, and that it was not intended to cause harm--and I also don't find any harm in it, but I have different views about objectification (that it can be an acceptable participatory space) and consent. This really doesn't bother me, to be truthful, as consenting adults should be just that...aware and consenting. While the creation of that in a public space begets the problems inherent in assumed inclusion of participatory space, power, etc., I think that you can enter into such a space as the Open Source Boob project (heh) and not be disempowered, in fact, use such a space to claim power and desire through objectification.
But then, I could also just be freaky by most people standards. :)
I'll also add, after reading the update, that this was context specific--and as Ferrett noted, should be taken that way. His final remarks pretty much sum things up well, I think. Fandom, of course, will do what it will with this, and probably go insane. Me, as I said--eh. Reading the full situation, the closing remarks--it is what it was. I am really not offended. (I am more pissed off about Pennsylvania).
Eeks! Kinda freaks me out, but I'm picky about ANYONE touching me
I'm with synecdochic
on it: http://synecdochic.livejournal.com/213567.html
"I can, very easily, see how the Open Source Boobs thing, in context at the convention it happened at, was, for certain participants, a happy mellow laid-back empowering "sex-positive" thing. I can easily see how it could be a way of indicating that yes, I'm touch-positive; I'm looking for other touch-positive people; you can approach me without worrying. In a way, I think it was a fumbling attempt at putting some kind of structure into place where people who genuinely want to be one of the Good People, but who aren't blessed with that same sort of awareness of social cues and body language, could relax a little bit.
The fail, and the reason why so many people have participated in the not-so-invisible dogpile of shunning in this particular case, was in how it was presented to the wider audience. Because the language used, the cues and the framing, had a really strong undercurrent of entitlement. (Whether the project itself
had that assumption of entitlement or not.)"
Also talks about the difference between "sex-positive" and "getting-laid-positive", which I think I'm going to add to my lexicon. All in all, a very valuable post.
|Date:||April 29th, 2008 10:17 am (UTC)|| |
*nods* I saw that essay, and was impressed (and agreed with) the difference between "sex-positive" and "getting-laid-positive"