In an ideal world - which puts us firmly into intellectual construct-land, mind, There would be a recognized opt-in signal for people who were 'open'.
Now, we (generic term implying anyone and everyone with an interest in the topic of sex) could spend eons defining 'open', and it would boil down to personal limits.
So between you and me, I'd like to define 'open' as 'amenable to discussion and frank questioning about sexual limits'.
There's been a lot of attempt to cloak this under buzzwords like 'sensuality' and 'intimacy', but it's sex, plain and simple.
So we've got four important things here. Opt-In, Sex, Open, and Limits.
I believe that the original intent was to attempt to jump-start a societal recognition of the opt-in signal, allowing people who are open to discussing their sexual limits with random people a way to advertise the fact.
I believe that this intent was not executed well, was not expressed well, and has not been researched well or considered well by the lion's share of people responding on LJ.
I also believe that this is an awesome idea - a codification of sexual mores that allows people who wish to opt-in to a more open sexual life the ability to do so, whilst strengthening the respect paid to people who don't want that kind of openness in the only way desired - by leaving them alone.
So. Excellent concept, piss poor execution, piss poor documentation. The reactions of many of the respondents are a prime indication of this - unless you're aiming to start a fight, unreasoning rage is never a good thing.
I believe you should be able to decide to wear a button, and put yourself forward as a sexual being, open to discussion about your sexuality and admiration of same. I believe that you should be able to choose not to make that effort, and the default should be to leave you the hell alone.
That, however, is not the case, in this imperfect hell-world we're stuck in. I can see it as a clause in a set of Con rules, though - people showing this button are amenable to frank discussion of sex and sexuality. People not wearing this button are not.
no subject
Now, we (generic term implying anyone and everyone with an interest in the topic of sex) could spend eons defining 'open', and it would boil down to personal limits.
So between you and me, I'd like to define 'open' as 'amenable to discussion and frank questioning about sexual limits'.
There's been a lot of attempt to cloak this under buzzwords like 'sensuality' and 'intimacy', but it's sex, plain and simple.
So we've got four important things here. Opt-In, Sex, Open, and Limits.
I believe that the original intent was to attempt to jump-start a societal recognition of the opt-in signal, allowing people who are open to discussing their sexual limits with random people a way to advertise the fact.
I believe that this intent was not executed well, was not expressed well, and has not been researched well or considered well by the lion's share of people responding on LJ.
I also believe that this is an awesome idea - a codification of sexual mores that allows people who wish to opt-in to a more open sexual life the ability to do so, whilst strengthening the respect paid to people who don't want that kind of openness in the only way desired - by leaving them alone.
So. Excellent concept, piss poor execution, piss poor documentation. The reactions of many of the respondents are a prime indication of this - unless you're aiming to start a fight, unreasoning rage is never a good thing.
I believe you should be able to decide to wear a button, and put yourself forward as a sexual being, open to discussion about your sexuality and admiration of same. I believe that you should be able to choose not to make that effort, and the default should be to leave you the hell alone.
That, however, is not the case, in this imperfect hell-world we're stuck in. I can see it as a clause in a set of Con rules, though - people showing this button are amenable to frank discussion of sex and sexuality. People not wearing this button are not.
I think that might work. What do you think?