Personal thoughts on some recent hue & cry. (If you haven't heard about it, doesn't really matter.)

[amanuensis1]

Why do nudists advocate nudism?

It's not, I hope, because that way they get to LOOK AT NEKKID PEOPLE ZOMG. It's because they think the cultural taboos on nudity are silly. Who decided what body parts we must cover up? Why are bare buttocks obscene, and bare feet are just feet? Why do some cultures think it's immodest to expose one's hair? Are certain parts sexual only because we've fetishized them to be so? Do we like it better because we have?

If these parts were not taboo, would it be taboo to touch them? To exist in a polite society we have a standard that people are generally not touched without their consent. But we seek that consent often. We extend our hands for others to take them and shake them. We open our arms and lean in for a hug. During meaningful conversation, we seek to deepen communication by reaching to touch one's arm, one's shoulder. We are a society that does touch and considers it acceptable to do so as long as the other person sees it coming, does not withdraw or speak against it, and as long as the touch is on a body part not considered taboo.

So what if we took the taboo off body parts?

If I were out in public with you and you were someone I knew and trusted and you ran your fingers through my hair, I would be in touch-related ecstasy. I would sigh, "Ooh, do that some more," and if you continued, no one would run over and arrest us. They might think we're odd, but because you are not touching a body part considered naughty or dirty, we could have a field day. Fondle my breast or buttock or genitals in public, however, even if they're covered with clothing, and there will be cries of, "Stop that! There are children here! You can't do that in public! Etc.!" Why is that obscene, but the other is not?

If I proposed that we do a social experiment where we treated the public touching of sexual body parts with the same politeness we do non-sexual body parts, would people think that was interesting? Refreshing, liberating? They might. Could there be disapproval? What about people who did not want to participate? Would they fear I might label them as "hopelessly stuck in society's arbitrary rules," and be unhappy at such negative labelling? Might people think I just wanted to get my hands on their naughty bits?

They might. I would be hesitant to propose such an experiment.

Comments

[a-white-rain.livejournal.com]

Nailed it.

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

I can see (because it is my gift and curse) how a well-intentioned person can come up with plans with good concepts at their root, whether or not those were actually their intentions.

[ani-bester.livejournal.com]

If you are responding to what I think you are THANK YOU
This is one of the few posts that hasn't made me wanna strangle people.

Not just because I agree more with it, but it's one of the few I've seen that isn't along the lines of "if you fail to totally agree with my outrage/opinion, you are a brainwashed moron who is killing feminism"

I hate that line of thought.

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

I am not trying to determine what their intentions were, because I don't think I can. I can see interesting thoughts in the heart of the idea; I do not think the women who participated are idiots or non-feminists. They may have had idealist thoughts that the other people involved either shared or did not share. But there's a lot of potential for a hostile reaction to what was done, as you and I have both seen, heh.

[serriadh.livejournal.com]

I do agree, and I don't want to bring Teh Wank to your LJ, but I think what's so upsetting about theferret's proposal is that it completely fails to take into account problems related to objectification and touching without permission (and the difficulties certain groups will find with saying 'no' if they feel socially pressured,and how fair it is to put the onus on a group to say 'no') that already exist, and seem to totally ignore the gender dynamic involved.

It seems to me that the answer to 'being hopelessly stuck in society's arbitrary rules' is not 'let's ignore the rules ever existed', 'I am liberated and the rules don't apply to me' or 'let's unilaterally lift those rules' but rather to ask 'are these rules really arbitrary?' and 'can we change the rules so therre are better ones, rather than just breaking them?'

None of that is directed at you specifically, btw, just my 2pence worth.

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

Naw, this is great; if I didn't accept the risk of wank I wouldn't post about it.

and the difficulties certain groups will find with saying 'no' if they feel socially pressured,and how fair it is to put the onus on a group to say 'no' <==That was a part I had a BIG problem with. If I said, "Um, no, I'm good, I get what you're saying and don't feel the need to participate," would they think I was a big ol' stick-in-the-mud?

[celandineb.livejournal.com]

I like your point: that what is considered sexual/nonsexual, inappropriate/appropriate, is pretty much socially constructed, and is therefore probably worth thinking about and considering whether those constructs are useful, repressive, liberating.

Fwiw, IMO feminism in practice means that women (and men too, for that matter) get the right to determine what's right for them, and not be told what they should like or think acceptable. If someone tells me what my opinion should be, she is no feminist.

[ani-bester.livejournal.com]

If someone tells me what my opinion should be, she is no feminist.

Can I make this a quote sig or something. I quote it on my LJ
Best summary of a billion things I feel!

[calanthe-fics.livejournal.com]

I deliver a protective behaviours course to small children which covers a lot of topics about body awareness and 'safe and unsafe touching'. The course material acknowledges that what feels safe for one person does not necessarily feel safe for another (parachute jumping, tight-rope walking). What we teach is that if a touch makes you get your early warning signs (ie, stomach butterlies, sick feeling, sweaty palms - whatever your 'gut' physical responses are) and you don't like it, then it's completely reasonable for you to want and expect it to stop. I think the same goes for adults, and whether our boundaries are as a result of societal programming or our own learned boundaries, if you don't like the touch why should you have to bear it.

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

whether our boundaries are as a result of societal programming or our own learned boundaries, if you don't like the touch why should you have to bear it.

And while the part before the comma, in that sentence, provokes a fascinating speculation, the part after it has me nodding and wondering who would dare to argue that. Yes.

[towerofwisdom.livejournal.com]

I'm very glad to see a different viewpoint on this issue. Though anger about theferret's post is clearly justified (and I don't want to suggest that anyone shouldn't be angry, because there were things about it that made me very uncomfortable), it often does seem to take a step from indignation into blind mob hatred - which I'm not a fan of, to be honest. So thank you for posting your insights, they were something of a relief.

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

Had I been confronted by this experiment, I have no idea how I would have reacted. I like to think I would have said, "No, sorry, I have a boyfriend with whom I'm monogamous, and even if I thought this was a reasonable experiment I'd want to discuss this with him to see how he feels about it, because if the tables were turned who knows what I would think, so, no thanks." But would I have felt pressured to go along with it for fear of not being thought of as a stick-in-the-mud? I don't know, and I don't like thinking that I might have for that reason alone.

[black-dog.livejournal.com]

I like the way you build your argument, sort of unassailable step by unassailable step, and then, in the end -- like you say, it doesn't add up. There was this sort of utopian naivete to theferret's proposal, and like a lot of utopian notions it just didn't take into account the context of, well, actual human nature and actual social facts. I'm sure that in his immediate circle, it was a fine and innocent thing. I'm not so sure that in the expanded context, with the buttons, it didn't make some people inappropriately uncomfortable. I'm confident he never saw the 100-pound anvil that was falling toward his head, in perfect view for everyone else on LJ.

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

I can't know his intentions, but in terms of the read of the proposal, yes, "utopian naivete" is a wonderful summary of all the things that could go unperceived. Context. Buttons. Pressure to participate. All risky, even if well-intentioned.

[ladyblack888.livejournal.com]

The funny thing? I'd probably be more pissed if someone touched my hair then if they grab my boobs...

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

And someone would say, "But it's just your hair..." And another person would say, "But it's her right not to be touched anywhere she doesn't like..." And another person would say, "But why can't you touch her boobs, then?" And everyone would think they had the right of it.

[phantomminuet.livejournal.com]

And in a nudist society, the societal rules against touching and staring are even more stringent, because of the communal risk that is accepted in removing one's clothing.

My biggest problem with Boobgate is that it just completely misses the point. In fact, it reminds me of a scene in "Pretty Woman" (and I can't believe I'm citing that particular movie in this discussion) in which Edward calls Vivian on the telephone and then mildly chastizes her for answering. The second time he calls her, he again says that he told her not to answer the phone, to which she responds, "Then stop calling me."

I feel the same way about men who mouth platitudes about getting past the objecification of the female form. It's this simple, gentlemen. Just stop doing it. Squeezing the boobs of strangers IMHO is not a necessary step on the way to enlightenment.

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

Can you believe I've never seen Pretty Woman? Watched five minutes, turned it off, bored. Great example, by the way. Boobgate looks like it missed a lot of points it didn't see coming.

[melusinahp.livejournal.com]

I can't find the direct quote, but the part that upset me the most was when he described women coming up to them "shyly" and asking if their breasts were good enough to be touched.

It just made my head want to explode.

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

Tell me why that bothered you so? Not that I can't see why it might, but I don't want to put words into your mouth.

[tekalynn.livejournal.com]

This post is the closest I've seen anyone come to articulating my own thoughts on the subject. Thank you.

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

Oh! I am glad to know others were like-minded, because I honestly wasn't sure if anyone was. Thank YOU!

[melonaise.livejournal.com]

I've read on several anti-circumcision sites that ancient Greeks and Romans didn't consider the penis to be obscene unless the glans was exposed. As long as the foreskin covered the head, a man could strut around naked all day long. Similarly for women-- as long as they didn't spread their legs and their lips, there was nothing obscene about genitalia.

This isn't really related to the whole boob thing, though.

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

It's educational and adds to the discussion I've raised! Thank you! :D

[florahart]

I haven't been willing to bear the wank potential in my LJ to talk about this, though I have said a few things in other people's comments. But yes, exactly this. I think the OP was either hopelessly naive or possibly of ill-intent (or possibly unknowingly having intentions that he didn't recognize in himself)--I can't know this--but I accept the possibility that he actually had in mind, truly, the somewhat poorly-informed notion that demystifying/detabooing boobs was a worthy goal (in the abstract, I pretty much agree with this), and that it never entered his head (again, I can't know why not) that this hue and cry would commence.

Also, I wish to pose a question. Wait, a question and an observation.

First, okay. A guy walks into a bar. He sees a pretty girl he has never met down at the other end. [this here example is a guy approaching a girl because of social norms and because the thing we are talking about mostly was, too] He walks over to her and says hey, can I buy you a drink? Now, I think this is a sort of standard. I don't really frequent bars of any kind, so I have to rely on the standardness of this on TV and whatnot, but I think socially we do not think this is skeevy. However, I also think the unstated intent of the guy is possibly just to chat with a pretty girl, but probably to learn, in the course of a short or long conversation, how she feels about the potential for intimate touching. It's true, he doesn't walk up and say this, but I think I understand this to be a high probability intent or hope. So here's the question: if it is true that both this behavior and the boob-touchy behavior are a guy asking a girl for touchings, why is one perceived as pretty much socially acceptable and the other pretty much definitely skeevy? Side note: the one involving a bar is less direct, certainly, but also tends to involve a mood-changer/judgment diminisher.

Second, I've been thinking about all this a lot as I've seen more and more people talk about their own unwanted touching experiences. Some of them seem quite certain my experience is impossible, which, as Celandine says, um, no. My experience is my experience. I have never experienced a situation which I perceived as unwanted sexual touching. I have, in years past, walked home in the dark not-infrequently. I used to take the bus home at nearly midnight. I have walked past groups of men making general rude conversation which I perceived to be amongst themselves. However, I have been wondering, today, whether my perception is because I experience, all the TIME, unwanted social expectations that everyone else finds totally fine. Because they are nonsexual, my objection is the abnormal part. If I say DO NOT WANT (about girl-bonding experiences like, say, shopping or spa-going or I can't think of other examples in the moment... chatting on the phone for half an hour? hugging on running into each other somewhere?), I am cajoled to stop being such a wet blanket, told I need to get out more, informed it's FUN, etc. However, I don't actually object to very much touching. I am aware of the social standard, but I find it arbitrary and odd, but in terms of someone else touching me, I am fairly unlikely to object, unless the situation is one in which I am expected to behave in some standardized way in return (so, hugging), in which case my objection is mostly about my anxiety about not doing it right. Anyway, my observation is this: it is possible that because I find so much of other people's social expectations to be pressureful and anxiety-inducing, that I have in fact been offered what most people would find inappropriate sexual advances, but I haven't perceived them because they are lost in the noise of all the other pressures. It is also possible that because touching doesn't feel threatening to me, my biggest social problem actually is the expectation of other kinds of interaction predating the touching.

I am still thinking about this. I'm aware I'm the odd one, here.

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

My experience is my experience.

There's one hell of a truth there, isn't it--similar to what I said about my experience at SF cons making me feel less objectified because I'm female, rather than more, in the way it sometimes is in other, non-nerd venues. My experience is not quite the same as yours, but I too can't remember any experience of sexually threatening touching, personally. Sometimes there are people who get in my personal space, what with breath or body odor or distance or an occasional, "They're touching my arm a lot, aren't they. Look, I get it, you don't need to win me over." But not threatening.

[cluegirl.livejournal.com]

I agree, it would be really great if body parts could be separated from the 'dirtiness' that the centuries have attached to them. But humanity being so closely connected to its violent primate cousins, I don't think it would be that simple in a group of people who were not rigidly screened against the kind of triggery twitches and predatory urges that can surface when the masks of social nicety are removed.

This is precisely why I made the decision that I would not run Skyclad circles at my house; because I was running a circle, not a coven, and so I knew I was going to have to work around the Hormone Factor, and the Abuse Trigger Factor, not to mention the Nosy Neighbors Looking For A Reason To Call The Cops Factor. I just decided that nudity AND paganism was just too much to juggle safely, so I didn't allow it.

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

*laughs and nods* That last statement has given me rabid giggles.

And yes, as you say, "the masks of social nicety" are there for a reason. Including the taboo against UNWANTED touching; that's a mask of social nicety, one that most people are very glad is there.

[ook.livejournal.com]

I just finished watching Cloverfield an hour ago. I really like that film! I think it's quite clever.

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

I am halfway through, taking a pause to answer more comments, but already I love it rabidly. I may make a post later.

[adina-atl.livejournal.com]

Echoing something that someone said earlier, I am a nudist (though I haven't been to a nude resort in years) and the strictures against public touching are, if anything, stronger than in textile society. Even kissing is considered--well, a quick greeting is fine, but prolonged tonsil hockey is not. Rubbing sunscreen on someone's back, whether the same or opposite sex, is both necessary and accepted. Rubbing sunscreen on someone's chest, even if the owner of the chest is male, better be for a guy with two broken arms. But what goes on in private is another matter completely, and no one's business who doesn't want to be involved. There is a strong swingers contingent at most nude resorts, which is easy to find if you look and easy to ignore if you don't.

Not all the bodies at nude resorts are physically perfect--at least not as defined by airbrushed anorexic models. Fat, wrinkles, scars, breasts, cocks, muscles, lack of muscles, they're all there and all good. And where else can a nude woman play chess against a nude man without either of them planning to get into bed together?

(And general protectiveness of women against unwelcome advances is at times frighteningly high. One time I went for a short walk with a young man around the edge of the main field while we were talking about something. He was later grilled about his intentions by an older friend of mine. His intentions were to sell me a used car--I was looking and he had one to sell. *grin*)

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

the strictures against public touching are, if anything, stronger than in textile society. And that's something I didn't know but it makes perfect sense, really. The boundaries are so much at risk, while looking at other taboos.

[cyane-snape.livejournal.com]

A very interesting conversation. I've always thought it was interesting that a man can walk around without a shirt, but a woman must cover her chest. Men's chests can be just as erotic as a woman's. Is it ok because they are 'flat'?

I also think that a side track of this is who decides which words are considered vulgar or 'dirty'?

Personally, just my opinion, I think you can take any word and use it with the tone of voice needed and turn it into a 'dirty' word. Americans think shag and bloody are just words, not curses. So is the reverse true? If everyone used 'fuck' in daily conversation, would it no longer be 'dirty'?

Cyane

[lady_songsmith]

Men's chests can be just as erotic as a woman's. Is it ok because they are 'flat'?

It's the reproductive issue. Men's chests don't have any function except to encase their lungs and heart. Women's are used to feed babies, and we all know where those come from!! The breastfeeding icon debacle here on LJ is enough to tell you how strong the feelings over that run, but as much as the pro-breastfeeding side tries to divorce feeding-hungry-baby from displaying-sexy-bits, that's the origin of the sexiness and the taboo. (Whether boobs are sexy because they are taboo or vice-versa is an interesting exercise.) Breasts = fertile = sex, on a basic level. (Or you could go with the 'ick' theory: anything that emits fluid other than normal sweat is private.)

And it is ridiculously unfair, especially in the summer. We can't even walk around in just bras, never mind that your average bra covers more than your average bikini top. But the part I find silliest is when little girls aren't allowed to take their tops off like the boys are, because they're all running around and hot. Or they're wearing the little-kid "bikinis" with a band of fabric wrapped somewhere in the general region of the nipples and usually falling down anyway. Give the kid swim trunks and be done with it!

[violetisblue.livejournal.com]

For me it's not a question of cultural taboos concerning nudity/touching, it was--all feminist issues involved, and the way he phrased himself in the original post and comments subsequent raised a lot of them, aside--a completely visceral reaction of "Strangers DO NOT touch me." I have no abuse or harassment issues in my past, I was raised in a demonstrative household that was easygoing about sex and I hug and kiss people I care about all the time (I do love having to throw in all those disclaimers to discuss this), but there's a wall that goes up instantly for people I don't know as well or relate to (emotionally) intimately on a daily basis and the idea makes me want to hiss like a cat, whether I imagine myself in the original scenario or at a place like MediaWest dominated by women. Other people without those boundaries doing this, your business, I would just deeply resent being put in a position myself of looking like the odd person out, the prude, the Person With Issues, whatever, because my boundaries happen to be more distantly drawn than other people's and I don't take part, and I don't want strangers of any kind in my goddamned face about it or telling me how I've got "shame" of some kind connected to it all. I know myself better than that and hey, guess what, I'm just more reserved, and you're more tactile, and one or the other isn't the default ideal vs. the Position of Shame/Sluttery/whatever.

Does that make any sense? Further disclaimer: Speaking here only for myself and my inner Scandinavian, not declaiming on how anyone else ought to behave in the same situation.

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

(I do love having to throw in all those disclaimers to discuss this)
It's not irony, quite, but it's something "here we go again, I have to defend the point by showing how normal I am," isn't it?

I would just deeply resent being put in a position myself of looking like the odd person out,
Oh, yeah. Big time. Just saying, "I don't want a button at ALL, thank you," would take cojones in that situation, and that makes me unhappy, imagining the peer pressure. Even if you don't want to participate because you feel comfortable and secure in your touch or intimacy issues and don't need the extra validation or whatever, you know?

[melonaise.livejournal.com]

I finally went and read the original post.

I don't know how many people here who have been to conventions like the one he spoke of. I have been to several, and I think it's important to read his post in the correct context.

These conventions are already about social freedom. They're already about letting down boundaries and barriers between people-- sexual and platonic barriers. The "rules" are sharply different from the average world, and even from a nudist environment. The usual social niceties are rarely bothered with. You can feel free at one of these conventions to go up to a stranger, relate your fantasy, and ask if they have any interest in participating. And, likewise, you can feel free to decline participation. There's very little of the pressure you might feel in a more normal situation because there are a hundred other bodies in the building that the proposer can go to if you say no. Shy, bold, awkward, suave, it doesn't matter. Grown men in Sailor Moon outfits, young women in pasties-- we all mingle freely. Need a hug? Just ask. Need to be alone? Just ask. Need to come? Just ask. The first or second person you ask may turn you down, but the third will be thrilled to help. Feel like objectifying someone? Odds are, you'll find someone who wants to be an object. Possibly a piece of furniture, but you'll work something out to mutual benefit.

A, err, convention at one of these conventions is a sticker we put on our badge for different sexual orientations (and not just the "usual" three) including "Not interested." I've gone to these places and sat for hours knitting in the hallway; I've also gone up to people I've never met and asked them to beat me, secure in the knowledge that the dungeon master and the audience will step in if I ask for help.

Anyway. The Boob Project makes perfect sense in that context.

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

Thank you for this insight. Your perception of the tone of conventions mirrors a lot of my perceptions, too. Conventions are the only place I can wear a corset or a costume, for example--if I could I'd wear one to work I would but they'd just think I was odd (or slutty, in the case of a corset).

I'm not sure what to think about the sticker for sexual orientations--I've never been to a convention that asked me that or asked me to wear one, and I'd probably say, "Er, where's the one for 'Find out like everyone else does, by getting to know me until we're comfortable enough friends that you feel you can ask that, thank you very much.'"

[emila-wan.livejournal.com]

It's very much cultural. In many countries in Asia, opposite sexes do not touch in any way. Even a hand on a clothed shoulder is shocking.

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

It is, it is. I agree that whatever makes one uncomfortable should be respected, but, again, why does it make one uncomfortable? Is it innate or learned? Obviously I'm leaning towards learned.

I for one get antsy if I DON'T get enough touch from people.

[differente.livejournal.com]

i haven't read it all the comments above but i think your experiment would make a most interesting art installation.

on another note, in the french speaking europe, people kiss all the time. you even kiss people at work to say hi! since closer than necessary contact with people i don't know make me incredibly uncomfortable, i tried shaking hands, bowing, waving even. it didn't work. my cheeks were left rubbing alien faces all day long, in spite of my reluctance.

i think it's all about norms. i mean, try same gender hand-holding in most parts of the world...

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

I do think that touch and intimacy is learned. There must be some degree that is instinctive; for example, I don't know any culture where brazen boob-fondlage occurs as a greeting, but I still don't know where the lines for instinct do not touch on learned behavior at all. Or if there is any such void.

[geneticallydead.livejournal.com]

It's not as simple as taboo body parts and non-taboo body parts. I don't think it can be broken down so easily as 'if we think the buttocks are offensive and yet can remove the taboo then seeing and touching said buttocks should be fine'. I mean, the touch taboo around breasts, genitals and buttocks also involves issues of consent, gender dynamics and sexual erogenous zones.

So if we took the taboo off body parts, does that mean it's okay to touch a child's genitalia as long as the adult and child know and trust each other? That could never, ever be acceptable. Because a child cannot consent to what is inherently sexual in nature. I mean, sure, you touch a child's genitals when they are incapable of cleaning themselves, when they're still in nappies and so on. But just touching for touching's sake? Wrong. And that has nothing to do with a 'taboo' around that body part, it has to do with what is acceptable to touch and what isn't.

The issue of consent extends into adulthood. What about consent under duress? Power dynamics? A male boss says to a female employee 'we like and trust one another, so let's get rid of this social taboo and touch each other intimately'. There is the possibility of a power dynamic swaying the female employee's answer... if she doesn't consent, will her job be endangered? Will her employer make life difficult for her if she says no?

Personally, I don't like to be touched. Strangers bumping into me is an extremely uncomfortable experience. I've learned to tolerate everyday, generic social touching - shaking hands with a stranger, hugging a friend or getting a pat on the shoulder. It still makes me uncomfortable, even though I've prepared myself when I saw the gesture coming. When people touch me unexpectedly, or I don't see it about to happen, I'm extremely uncomfortable, anxious and unhappy about it. If someone (even a person I knew and liked) were to declare that touching my breasts was only inappropriate because of social taboos and then tried to touch my breast, I would lose my shit completely. Why? Because that's something only a lover is allowed to do with me. It's about the sexual nature of that body part. My breast is an erogenous zone, as are my genitals and buttocks. I don't care about whatever social taboo says that I can't walk around topless. It's not about the possible 'offensiveness' of certain body parts. It's about what that touch means.

Touching children's genitals is innapropriate because of issues of consent and the inherent sexual nature of the act. The exact same is true of me, an adult. It doesn't matter how 'polite' the nature of the touch is. It's how the act can and is interpreted.

[geneticallydead.livejournal.com]

On a side note, from what I've picked up on the fringes of BDSM society, there is a definite thought about lack of consent from innocent bystanders. So say myself and my dominant/submissive/ponyboy/whatever are walking down the street in full latex with a leash on, ordering each other about. Innocent bystanders have not given their consent to be involved in what is essentially mine and my partners fetish/exhibitionist fantasy/roleplaying scenario at that time. If we're parading down the street as part of a scene together, then we are involving those innocent bystanders simply through their observation, without gaining their consent.

Frankly, I don't want to see other people touching each other up. And if I'm in a situation where I cannot possibly avoid seeing this, I'm involved. I don't care if they've decided to set aside social taboos and have decided on a polite policy of touching. To me, it will appear to be some kind of sex or sex-related act. And I don't want to see it. I haven't consented to seeing that. When we go see a movie, we're warned by the rating system if there's nudity or sexual conduct, and we consent to seeing that by staying in the cinema.

To me, such public demonstrations are not by nature obscene. It's the fact that I would have to see it. What adults do behind closed doors is just fine, but doing that kind of thing out in public is involving others against their will by the fact of their observation.

[wilde_stallyn.livejournal.com]

Thank you.

While I certainly think the way the OSBP happened and particularly some of the language used in his description of it was highly problematic, I've actually felt more uncomfortable with a lot of the reactions I've seen on my flist the last couple of days that either out right say, or seem to imply, that any woman who might have reacted positively to being asked if a stranger can touch their breasts and claimed that they were not doing so because of peer pressure was somehow emotionally "unhealthy".

This strongly reminds me of an argument used by anti-porn feminists in the 80's and 90's, when pornography was a big point of contention between various feminist camps, that said that it is impossible for a woman to truly consent to, never mind enjoy, doing sex work. If she claims she is doing it entirely of her own volition, because she enjoys it, either she is lying or she has been so damaged by the patriarchy that she cannot be considered "healthy" enough for her consent to be meaningful.

I can not even begin to tell you how much that sort of ideology infuriates me. I think that anytime you remove agency and the ability to consent from the individual it is a violation of their personhood.

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

Yeah, now you're making my blood boil along with yours by getting on one of my issues, the anti-porn concept. When I have told people that I am pro-pornography they think I want to eat babies and pollute water and hunt dolphin-unsafe tuna.

[pushdragon.livejournal.com]

Nice.

I would be hesitant to propose such an experiment.

But it's a shame you've couched your argument in the first person. Because our extensive surveys show that about 99% of the HP slash fandom would be happy to walk away from the next con with a t-shirt saying "Amanuensis squeezed my breast!"

[amanuensis1.livejournal.com]

*dies laughing*

But of course, as you correctly interpret, that's a little of why I did couch it in first person; people know me, know I am female, might think, "Amy? Ah, she's harmless; if she advocates it, she must have good intentions." And to demonstrate that I really dunno what he was thinking, but can imagine how it might have gone were I thinking it.

There will be NO t-shirts. No Amy-driven groping experiments at the next con, gah! :D

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

I'm still not sure how I feel about the whole thing. I was at PenguiCon, and I wasn't even aware of the OSBP until after.

I'll say this: It's the kind of thing that, while I don't necessarily condemn, I wouldn't take part in. I'm really torn about its philosophical basis -- I despise what Puritanism and sexual repression have done to our society, and think there are many ways in which things could be made better, more reasonable, safer. I'm just not sure wearing a button signaling "You can ask to touch my breast" is one of those ways. Rather than opening up lines of communication, it seems geared to encourage cheap anonymous thrills, that don't even have the saving grace of being very thrilling.

[phantomminuet.livejournal.com]

What he said. :-)