![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Considering what I publish and write, it was inevitable that this slice of fandom and Internet drama would cross my path... multiple times.
For those who don't know, the whole story from the source is at http://theferrett.livejournal.com/1087686.html .
As I understand it, here were the rules of the Open Source Boob Project:
(1) There are two buttons involved. One says, "Yes You May," the other, "No You May Not." Anyone not wearing a button is presumed to be a No.
(2) People wearing a Yes button are still allowed to say No to particular people.
(3) What the buttons say Yes or No to is touching- and touching only- of breast and/or butt. Groping and fondling is not included. This includes guys touching girls, girls touching guys, girls touching girls, and guys touching guys.
(4) All touching is clothed only.
(5) The crotch is NOT included. Period.
And that was pretty much it- just a way of, well, getting to touch other people without embarrassment or offense. I can sympathize with that- I was brought up believing that the word breast, unless immediately preceded by chicken, could never, ever, EVER be discussed in polite company, under any circumstances, EVER. We are, in general, a very prudish society, and it would be nice to have a way of, to be blunt, getting cheap thrills without the almost certain guarantee of public ostracism. Clear "Yes" and "No" signs seem, at first blush, like a step in a very good direction.
BUT.
That thought does not take into account:
(a) Not everyone will hear about the rules- or, more important, will hear ALL the rules, or hear them properly... which means miscommunication.
(b) A lot of people believe that rules, in general, do not apply to them. These people will see touching and decide that they are allowed to touch, or more, as they see fit, even if the other person isn't playing.
(c) People get carried away. One of the reasons there's a taboo on touching (and, in my youth, of even acknowledging the existence of certain body parts) is that touching leads to other things which one or both participants may not be ready for.
(d) There will be people who are angry that the person they particularly want to feel up isn't participating, and who will either take out that anger on other participants or, worse, make trouble for the participants- "I can't get what I want, so I'll make sure you can't have it, either."
(e) Booze and/or drugs makes people stupid. Well, more so; stupid is, sadly, the default state of humanity. Stupid people do stupid things.
(f) Some people are just plain assholes, and will abuse any and all situations for their own short-term benefit.
(g) The above system carries with it a good bit of peer pressure to participate. Some people who would be very uncomfortable indeed if touched in certain places by other people might go along, against their better judgement, because all their friends are doing it. (I can especially sympathize with this: I don't like strangers touching me AT ALL, even a handshake or a tap on the shoulder.)
(h) Finally, anything that outsiders might view as being public sexuality is going to cause trouble. Period. No matter how broad a definition of "sexual" or "public" is required.
Now, bear in mind, I do not believe any person has any right to live in an offense-free environment. You can't eliminate offense without some form of mind control. My response to anyone who believes that offending others is a crime is to point out that the very existence of George W. Bush offends me- what do they intend to do about that? No, so long as we have freedom, prudes and bluenoses of other stripes will have to tolerate things that offend them, at least to certain extents.
But just because you have a right to be offensive does not mean you can evade the consequences of offensive behavior. We do not have perfect freedom in this country- in fact, in any matter even remotely sexual, we're a nation of major legal repression and injustice in many ways. It's a sad irony that the same forces that censor sexual content and attempt to ban it altogether are those who continue to structure laws and morals so that women are still presumed to be at least partly at fault for being raped. In these conditions, there will be resistance to any effort to relax cultural strictures on sexuality... which means anything that goes wrong with those efforts will be amplified, exaggerated, and used as justification for more intense repression.
Under these conditions, the Open Source Boob Project was a really dumb idea. It was the equivalent- the direct equivalent- of young fangirls holding up FREE HUGS/KISSES signs at conventions, or artists offering to draw ANYTHING for $X. The difference is that those are individual activities, leading to very unpleasant learning experiences that explain just why you do not do that. The Open Source Boob Project, however, is a group activity... which exponentially raises the level of potential consequences.
The only way this thing could work is this:
(1) The touching has to be done in a strictly private place- PERIOD. Conventions are not private. Hotel hallways are not private. It's debatable whether hotel rooms are private. Anything done where non-participants can see risks the outrage of people who will witness one person touching another's breast and perceiving it as "a wild, uncontrolled orgy of heathen degenerates bent on destroying the morals that made America great". Such people wrote the laws that, most places, make such touching "lewd conduct" and a jailable misdemeanor (or, in some places, a felony). Such people have the power to destroy events, ruining the fun for people who didn't even know the Open Source Boob Project existed.
(2) The activity must not merely be opt-in, but invite-only. In order to function, the Open Source Boob Project would take on some of the aspects of Fight Club- not the massive antisocial and brutal mentality of that movie, but the secrecy and exclusivity. Those who can't be trusted to remain within limits, and those who would be offended by the very notion that the activity exists at all, have to be prevented from participating.
(3) The ability to opt out must be retained and upheld vigorously- even for those who opted in. This, I think, is the ultimate killer for the Project. Humans in general- not just Americans- are so insecure about anything even remotely sexual that we get disproportionately angry when we run into any conflict or inconvenience on the subject. People who are told "No" by a YES button wearer are going to get angry and make trouble. People whose "No" is not heeded will get angry- justifiably- and make trouble for those who had nothing to do with it. Even people who say "Yes" will lead to people getting angry- jealous or disapproving people who don't want "Yes" to be an option.
I considered having an Open Source feature at this year's WLP room party at A-Kon for all of about a minute before deciding against it. I certainly won't know if all the attendees are trustworthy- hell, I can think of a couple who definitely are NOT trustworthy. I can't ensure that OSBP activity would end with the party, or remain strictly within the party room. And I certainly cannot guarantee that someone wouldn't get pissed off about it- in fact, I'd almost guarantee someone would.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
theferrett had one magic moment in which three guys and two girls took a brick or two out of the wall blocking sexuality. That was a good thing. It should have remained there. The attempt to spread that generally was ill thought out, as Ferrett himself acknowledges, and has led to a backlash that threatens to build the wall a little higher than it was at the start. Fortunately, so far as we know, that's all it has done; it could have done a lot, lot worse.
Open Source Boob Project was a bad idea. (For those who say it was an idea whose time has not yet come, I submit that an untimely idea is a bad idea.) It makes some people uncomfortable, others angry. It puts people at risk of things going beyond touching. It doesn't make consent clearer- in fact, it confuses it more. It has consequences far beyond the people who actually participate.
I agree with the man who, with a handful of friends, came up with it: don't do it.
For those who don't know, the whole story from the source is at http://theferrett.livejournal.com/1087686.html .
As I understand it, here were the rules of the Open Source Boob Project:
(1) There are two buttons involved. One says, "Yes You May," the other, "No You May Not." Anyone not wearing a button is presumed to be a No.
(2) People wearing a Yes button are still allowed to say No to particular people.
(3) What the buttons say Yes or No to is touching- and touching only- of breast and/or butt. Groping and fondling is not included. This includes guys touching girls, girls touching guys, girls touching girls, and guys touching guys.
(4) All touching is clothed only.
(5) The crotch is NOT included. Period.
And that was pretty much it- just a way of, well, getting to touch other people without embarrassment or offense. I can sympathize with that- I was brought up believing that the word breast, unless immediately preceded by chicken, could never, ever, EVER be discussed in polite company, under any circumstances, EVER. We are, in general, a very prudish society, and it would be nice to have a way of, to be blunt, getting cheap thrills without the almost certain guarantee of public ostracism. Clear "Yes" and "No" signs seem, at first blush, like a step in a very good direction.
BUT.
That thought does not take into account:
(a) Not everyone will hear about the rules- or, more important, will hear ALL the rules, or hear them properly... which means miscommunication.
(b) A lot of people believe that rules, in general, do not apply to them. These people will see touching and decide that they are allowed to touch, or more, as they see fit, even if the other person isn't playing.
(c) People get carried away. One of the reasons there's a taboo on touching (and, in my youth, of even acknowledging the existence of certain body parts) is that touching leads to other things which one or both participants may not be ready for.
(d) There will be people who are angry that the person they particularly want to feel up isn't participating, and who will either take out that anger on other participants or, worse, make trouble for the participants- "I can't get what I want, so I'll make sure you can't have it, either."
(e) Booze and/or drugs makes people stupid. Well, more so; stupid is, sadly, the default state of humanity. Stupid people do stupid things.
(f) Some people are just plain assholes, and will abuse any and all situations for their own short-term benefit.
(g) The above system carries with it a good bit of peer pressure to participate. Some people who would be very uncomfortable indeed if touched in certain places by other people might go along, against their better judgement, because all their friends are doing it. (I can especially sympathize with this: I don't like strangers touching me AT ALL, even a handshake or a tap on the shoulder.)
(h) Finally, anything that outsiders might view as being public sexuality is going to cause trouble. Period. No matter how broad a definition of "sexual" or "public" is required.
Now, bear in mind, I do not believe any person has any right to live in an offense-free environment. You can't eliminate offense without some form of mind control. My response to anyone who believes that offending others is a crime is to point out that the very existence of George W. Bush offends me- what do they intend to do about that? No, so long as we have freedom, prudes and bluenoses of other stripes will have to tolerate things that offend them, at least to certain extents.
But just because you have a right to be offensive does not mean you can evade the consequences of offensive behavior. We do not have perfect freedom in this country- in fact, in any matter even remotely sexual, we're a nation of major legal repression and injustice in many ways. It's a sad irony that the same forces that censor sexual content and attempt to ban it altogether are those who continue to structure laws and morals so that women are still presumed to be at least partly at fault for being raped. In these conditions, there will be resistance to any effort to relax cultural strictures on sexuality... which means anything that goes wrong with those efforts will be amplified, exaggerated, and used as justification for more intense repression.
Under these conditions, the Open Source Boob Project was a really dumb idea. It was the equivalent- the direct equivalent- of young fangirls holding up FREE HUGS/KISSES signs at conventions, or artists offering to draw ANYTHING for $X. The difference is that those are individual activities, leading to very unpleasant learning experiences that explain just why you do not do that. The Open Source Boob Project, however, is a group activity... which exponentially raises the level of potential consequences.
The only way this thing could work is this:
(1) The touching has to be done in a strictly private place- PERIOD. Conventions are not private. Hotel hallways are not private. It's debatable whether hotel rooms are private. Anything done where non-participants can see risks the outrage of people who will witness one person touching another's breast and perceiving it as "a wild, uncontrolled orgy of heathen degenerates bent on destroying the morals that made America great". Such people wrote the laws that, most places, make such touching "lewd conduct" and a jailable misdemeanor (or, in some places, a felony). Such people have the power to destroy events, ruining the fun for people who didn't even know the Open Source Boob Project existed.
(2) The activity must not merely be opt-in, but invite-only. In order to function, the Open Source Boob Project would take on some of the aspects of Fight Club- not the massive antisocial and brutal mentality of that movie, but the secrecy and exclusivity. Those who can't be trusted to remain within limits, and those who would be offended by the very notion that the activity exists at all, have to be prevented from participating.
(3) The ability to opt out must be retained and upheld vigorously- even for those who opted in. This, I think, is the ultimate killer for the Project. Humans in general- not just Americans- are so insecure about anything even remotely sexual that we get disproportionately angry when we run into any conflict or inconvenience on the subject. People who are told "No" by a YES button wearer are going to get angry and make trouble. People whose "No" is not heeded will get angry- justifiably- and make trouble for those who had nothing to do with it. Even people who say "Yes" will lead to people getting angry- jealous or disapproving people who don't want "Yes" to be an option.
I considered having an Open Source feature at this year's WLP room party at A-Kon for all of about a minute before deciding against it. I certainly won't know if all the attendees are trustworthy- hell, I can think of a couple who definitely are NOT trustworthy. I can't ensure that OSBP activity would end with the party, or remain strictly within the party room. And I certainly cannot guarantee that someone wouldn't get pissed off about it- in fact, I'd almost guarantee someone would.
theferrett had one magic moment in which three guys and two girls took a brick or two out of the wall blocking sexuality. That was a good thing. It should have remained there. The attempt to spread that generally was ill thought out, as Ferrett himself acknowledges, and has led to a backlash that threatens to build the wall a little higher than it was at the start. Fortunately, so far as we know, that's all it has done; it could have done a lot, lot worse.Open Source Boob Project was a bad idea. (For those who say it was an idea whose time has not yet come, I submit that an untimely idea is a bad idea.) It makes some people uncomfortable, others angry. It puts people at risk of things going beyond touching. It doesn't make consent clearer- in fact, it confuses it more. It has consequences far beyond the people who actually participate.
I agree with the man who, with a handful of friends, came up with it: don't do it.
