The Open Source Boob Project and subsequent stoning

[netmouse]

This morning I find myself asked in email both what my take on the OSBP is and (in a separate message) whether or not someone can quote a comment I made on it elsewhere. People are welcome to quote me, and in fact here I will quote myself.

To me this was really about gender-nonspecific personal connection and permission-granting (or not granting), not women caving to the male power or notions of body-rightness.

A lot of people are concluding it was a "You had to be there" kind of thing, but it's frustrating that people clearly don't understand.

Society has been telling us women all our lives that our breasts are not our own to make decisions about--that they are inherently only for certain approved purposes and we must otherwise cover them and protect them from detailed touch or inspection with things like bras and clothing and moats and lions and tigers, if necessary, because the only person who is allowed to see and touch them is YOUR MAN and you aren't allowed to assert a non-standard set of access permissions yourself.

This project stood that on its head. It was in fact a fine case of feminist rebellion, combined with general rebellion against socially defined rules and toward opt-in interpersonal intimacy and appreciation.

I am really sorry that at least one track of the widespread online discussion of this project was headlined with mean disdain and an association of it with the thousands of creepy, unsanctioned gropes and feels that many women have suffered over the years, especially at conventions. The way the people who started it have been attacked for the pure pleasure they found in opening themselves to this idea and in thinking that their thoughts and feelings about it could be shared with a larger group is nothing less than horrible. Clearly it isn't for everybody, but they never *said* it was for everybody. They also didn't claim it was without flaws, and obviously one issue with it is that people may have chosen to participate due to perceived peer pressure, and/or without understanding that the little buttons meant "I may say no" just as much as they meant "you may ask."

I also think the name of the project is not quite right, since "Open Source" traditionally means no barriers, anyone can play, and while anyone could join this project, it was about permissions and consensual contact, not about making your body a public resource or about taking away your right to control access. As I said above, it was rather the opposite.

And I think it was a good thing, and I admire my friends who started it, and I stand by them, and I am not ashamed that I was pleased to take part.

Comments

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

The thing that has angered me about the way this is being discussed is that so many people are treating this as "men sexually exploiting women" and refusing to even acknowledge the fact that it wasn't a project started by men, nor was it one dominated by men.

This doesn't really matter. As someone else on LJ said, which put into words something that had been percolating inchoate in my own mind, is that the men who were involved could have been using the women as access. Which, when you read theferrett's original post, sounds perfectly plausible.

Also, as someone else pointed out, this whole thing could have been "performative bisexuality" on the part of the women involved. Or, some of the women could have been truly bisexual, which means that the whole project could easily boil down to being sexual and not some "liberating touch" thing.

And while I have spoken out about this on my own journal, it's not just about what did happen, but what could happen. As someone who participated and was still confused, I could see this type of act unconsciously pressuring others into participating, especially if the group just went up to people and asked (as theferrett said they did).

[davehogg.livejournal.com]

This doesn't really matter.

Yes, it does.

If people are claiming that this was *strictly* a case of men exploiting women, and there are people claiming that, then it does matter that this wasn't a bunch of guys deciding to come up with an excuse to grope women.

You're arguing that, even if it was a female-organized operation, men could use it to gain "access" to women. For that argument, I agree with your point that it doesn't matter who started it.

But that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about people that were claiming it was *entirely* about men getting access.

And while I have spoken out about this on my own journal, it's not just about what did happen, but what could happen.

You said that men could have used it to get access, that women could have taking part in "performative bisexuality" and that some of the women could have been truly bisexual, so it could all be about sex.

All of those statements are true. Those things could have happened. But did they? Because if we're going to start condemning activities because they *could* be turned into something exploitative, we're going to end up canceling a lot of con activities.

[novapsyche.livejournal.com]

If people got the idea that the project was male-dominated, it was due to the poor description of the project in the first place. However, even if the project was mainly women but still had people (no gender prescribed) who took part in it from the perspective that was offered as definitive, then there is still a problem.

Right now, we're arguing about something that isn't going to take place in the future, so there's nothing to argue about. My point was that there definitely were aspects of potential social pressure that should be thought about, both in the feelees and the feelers.