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

[braintastic.livejournal.com]

Personally, I think that the words remain gendered because of the root word & the connections it spawns, if that makes any sense? In any case, I will cheerfully admit to using gendered language, although I try to keep it out of semi-polite discussions. That's for when I'm trapped in a small room with an overwhelming amount of white teenage boys who think being un-p.c. is somehow witty or impressive all on its own. (I could also comment on the casualness of swearing where I'm from, and how I think that it's possibly linked to the lanugage exchange in my city, but that's... way off topic. Point is, communication style leads to clashes, news at eleven!)

Hmm, so you think the haters caught wind of the, uh, somewhat heated discussion and all piled on? Definite possibility. This was linked all over the place. I'd never even heard of this guy before, and I ended up here.

I think the post also hit a lot of instant "HELL NO" buttons (fear, shame, somewhat violent rage...), and that definitely contributed to the level of viciousness, especially since theferrett kind of ... dug his hole deeper as the comments went on.

It's probably a mix of the two, I guess.

* The thing about the "DO NOT TOUCH ME" attitude is that I think it's a legitimate position; if you don't want to be touched, well, it's your body and you shouldn't be touched. (I was like this for awhile, for a couple of reasons, and then I went to a school where people climbed on each other as a regular thing and I was socialized out of it.) I don't think this attitude necessarily makes someone incapable of contributing in a meaningful way to this discussion.

** I also think that if this is someone's first exposure to con culture that it could genuinely act as a deterrent to getting involved with cons. I've never been to a con; it's unlikely that I'd attend a con in the near future; this made me very uncomfortable, and for me it's a moot point. If someone was kind of thinking about going to a con, and this came up and hit all the "HELL NO" buttons, well, I can understand re-thinking the con thing, even if it seems extreme from the position of someone who has actually attended a con or two.