OH JOHN RINGO NO!

[liz_marcs]

With all the business about this kind of skeevy crap (not to mention the fact there's a massive case of failboat here), is it wrong that I'm perversely pleased that OH JOHN RINGO NO has become a catchphrase (hradzka must be proud!)?

No, seriously. It's not everyday one is present at the birth of an Internet meme and has the commenting record to prove it.

What? Don't look at me like that.

Anyway, Unfunny Business on Journalfen is going a bit of a round-up on the business.

As for me, I only have one question:

Why is it that whenever someone (usually male) decides that it's time to get "sex positive," it's invariably the women who need to "get over their issues" so they can participate? Also, why is it that they're the ones who usually end up at the receiving end of whatever insane little "sex positive" experiment is being done?

Strange how that works, hunh?

Look, if a woman says the idea of such a "sex positive" experiment (read: giving men a free pass on treating female-type people like meat) is skeevy, it does not mean she's "got sexual issues," or "lacks a sense of humor," or is "anti-feminism."

What it means is that she reserves the right to do one or all of the following if you pull that shit on her:

1) Mace your ass

2) Rip your nuts off

3) Call the cops and press sexual assault charges

It also means that she (and I imagine quite a lot of men) don't like it when complete strangers grope any part of their anatomy, erogenous zone or not.

Seriously, what the hell is wrong with some people that they don't get that?

That said, seeing OH JOHN RINGO NO plastered all over this tempest has had me giggling like a loon all day (much love to the_red_shoes for using it first in reference to this).

Comments

[kokuten.livejournal.com]

First time commenter - I think. I may have commented during Strikeout, and I know it's why I'm following your journal, Liz.


I don't get it.

I don't understand why this is a Bad Thing.

My current hypothesis is that I'm coming into this way too late, and not seeing some chronological development on the part of the actual theferret output, that ties this together in a more rage-inducing way.



What I'm trying to say here, is that I would like you to attempt to say something that would explain the badness here to the ignorant, because I'm certainly a member of that category.

[drmercurious.livejournal.com]

I'll take a stab. From my interpretation of the article, any woman who was at all recalcitrant about 'going with the flow' was depicted and 'repressed'. This was an experiment in Peer Pressure. Besides, why just women? Come ON here -- let's have buttons for men's ASSES to be squeezed. ((I might sign up for that one ;) )) Hey, it's the same rationale -- men are uptight about being on the submissive side of the equation, so let's get them to soften up a touch. And get serious -- in a mob-mentality situation like this, how many women without buttons -- or who had the 'No' buttons -- were pressured? I KNOW convention people, been going to them forever and the answer is A LOT.

Interestingly enough, not many have anything good to say about furry conventions but that shit would NOT be allowed to fly at ANY fur con I have been at. In fact, there is a very strict 'no fondling in public' policy -- even between two willing participants.

[kokuten.livejournal.com]

"in a mob-mentality situation like this, how many women without buttons -- or who had the 'No' buttons -- were pressured? I KNOW convention people, been going to them forever and the answer is A LOT."


That right there explains a lot to me - I'm in Alaska, and don't have the cash flow or vacation time to hit cons.

I've been doing more reading since my comment, and I think I understand a bit more clearly.

One of the things impeding my comprehension is that I'd really like that sort of button to be societally acceptable and widely understood, and I'd like to wear one. It's a nice utopianist fantasy, but I don't believe it'd work in the Real World, and I see that it didn't even work 100% in the restricted environment of a 'Con.

Shame.

[zoethe.livejournal.com]

Just FYI, NO ONE was pressured. People want to layer pressure onto this because it being nonpressured is far too challenging - that would imply that this was done by respectful, mature adults, and that's not acceptable.

[liz-marcs.livejournal.com]

See? This is why I ruv you lots and lots. <3

Give it up for the baby brother, folks.

[butterflykiki.livejournal.com]

*applauds muchly*

[zoethe.livejournal.com]

From my interpretation of the article, any woman who was at all recalcitrant about 'going with the flow' was depicted and 'repressed'. This was an experiment in Peer Pressure.

No. Not in the least. I have no idea why people keep insisting on this when the one woman speaking in the journal who took a No button stated clearly and repeatedly that she was never felt pressured (http://theferrett.livejournal.com/1087686.html?thread=54716102#t54716102). There was NO pressure to be involved. In fact, some women asked to fondle participants and then decided it wasn't for them, and there was NO pressure for them to share.

Besides, why just women? Come ON here -- let's have buttons for men's ASSES to be squeezed.

The men DID wear buttons and regularly had their butts grabbed. It was not limited to women in any way.

[butterflykiki.livejournal.com]

In the journal, yes.

Elsewhere? I have a friend who was there, and just being around this made her uncomfortable. Does she feel comfortable speaking up? No. Not then, and not in the LJ later.

Do you get why?

[kokuten.livejournal.com]

Given my involvement in this thread, I'm gonna submit an answer.

Because she was intimidated.


Please to be noting the lack of gender or situational identifiers there. One of the things I had to give up first when I started 'sniffing around' feminism on the internet was that only certain things can be intimidating.

[zoethe.livejournal.com]

I have gotten email and comments from other people who were there and were either completely oblivious or who didn't mind. But I'm sorry that we made her uncomfortable. I don't think there was anything wrong with the project, and it certainly wasn't as blatant as some of the making out and bondage activities in which other people completely unassociated with the project engaged. But because this is different from those rather expected activities, I can see that it would be difficult to accept. The whole thing is moot, however, since we've all decided that the project is not ready for prime time.

[dear-sweet-lana.livejournal.com]

I have been following all kinds of links, so I can't find the place now, but I am 85% certain that I saw a comment exchange between that red-button wearer (fortuna_juvat) and somebody else, where he thanked her for accepting his apology for "spanking" her at the con, and she graciously said "no problem" or words to that effect. I remember being skeeved that she (even if it wasn't the red-button wearer) had to be spanked in public, be graciously forgiving about being spanked, and then be gracious to this jerk again on the internet.

Take it with salt, if you like.

[zoethe.livejournal.com]

Oh, I agree that the person who spanked her was completely out of line! She forgave him because he did apologize profusely and went out of his way to make it clear that he knew he was out of line. He should never have done it, definitely.

However, I don't believe that the spank happened because of the project - the person who did it has a tendency toward grabbiness in general and needed taking down a notch. Cons tend to be places where there are people who do not always have the most perfected of social skills - the same button wearer has been con-stalked in the past by guys who completely lack the ability to pick up on "get lost" body language. Guys like that need more than buttons to catch a hint, and they are one of the reasons we decided that we will NOT take this project to any other con.

When you have something that works really well in a small group of trusting friends, it's easy to forget that the rest of the world is not going to see it in the same way. Ref: gay marriage, Al Gore, and the movies Serenity and Snakes on a Plane. It's easy to get your perspective skewed, and we definitely did that.

[medie]

Well, let me describe my daily experience. I'm a woman with fairly substantial breasts (high DDs) and I'm 5'2". I DO NOT stand in elevators with men behind me. I do NOT like men to stand behind me where I can't see them. When I plan to go out somewhere, when I dress up, I have a moment looking in my closet where I decide what to wear and that decision depends on how much I want to be ogled when I go out. I don't ever think "will I or won't I?" be ogled, it'll be HOW MUCH. Despite my height, I've still watched men having conversations with my breasts. Men who've never once fucking looked me in the eye.

There are days, I'm convinced I could go out dressed like a NUN and still be stared at/objectified all because of the size of my breasts. I'm not a person to them. I'm a pair of double d's and that's ALL I am.

It's threatening as all hell. I hope you never have to feel that sickening twist in your stomach when you KNOW it's happening and there's not a damn thing you can do about it.

My 'freedom' as a woman doesn't depend on my breasts being open sourced. It comes from being able to leave my house and not worry about whether or not I'm going to be objectified that day. The thing about this Open Source shit is that it STILL makes my chest an issue. It isn't. Whether or not I mind complete and total strangers touching my breasts? Hell, I wasn't at the con and I'm still feeling pressured by it. The implication in the comments being if I'm not okay with it then CLEARLY I have a problem with myself, my body, and the world around me. No, I don't. The problem isn't with me and the fact they're trying to make the problem about women who don't agree? Speaks volumes as to the badness. That's pressure in and of itself. If you don't agree, then there's something wrong with you?

How the fuck is that free?

[havocthecat]

Did I mention recently that I love you, Medie? Because I do. So very much.

[kokuten.livejournal.com]

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.


I think that might work. What do you think?

[havocthecat]

What do you think?

I think you've managed to completely ignore everything Medie said about feeling objectified on a daily basis due to her breasts, and go right into your spiel about how you would prefer open and frank discussion of sexuality.

Way to ignore someone's very basic problem with the issue (that it furthers her sense of objectification, which was already a large and overwhelming issue in her daily life) and her sense of anger and hurt in favor of promoting your agenda.

[medie]

Pretty much YUP!

I've got to remember to quit being so damn polite about it. *fume*

[medie]

Honestly, at this point, I'm sputtering. There are situations where that kind of situation already exist and those are events dedicated to that kind of physical interaction. If people want to engage in such behavior, that's where they go. The fact is, people were threatened just KNOWING they were at the convention where it was going on. No ifs, ands, or buts about it. Therefore, it was not the appropriate venue to be holding such a thing.

Translation, "if you want to engage in this kind of situation, this is the venue for you." opt-in only. Not opt-out. No pressure should be put on ANYONE to get involved.

if you want to go with buttons (which, by the way, a more assinine idea they couldn't have come up with if they tried. I already have enough issues with men staring at my chest. I don't want to fucking encourage it!) then have the person wanting to do the touching be the one to wear it. People who wish to participate can then GO TO THEM.

Not the other way around. NEVER the other way around.

and either way, no matter what you do, it is going to be abused. It's human nature. Nothing can be done without it being abused. No matter what it is. The only thing you can do is make it as safe as possible and punish the hell out of the people who abuse it.

And make no mistake. PEOPLE WILL.

[tinylegacies.livejournal.com]

This is pretty much my daily life experience as well.

Unless I wear a turtleneck, I'm going to show cleavage. I consider myself lucky that I currently work in an office that is primarily females and gay males because it means I don't get ogled nearly as much.

The one and only time that I went out to a dance club/bar and didn't feel the least bit threatened was when I went to a gay bar.

It's really and truly a sad world for those of us stuck with large breasts.

[medie]

*nod* and try getting men to understand. It's just *NOT* happening. Until you live that way...

Oh yeah, and if you wear a turtleneck, the design of it tends to pull the shirt tighter across the breasts. Which, *handwave* square one. Right back there.

And yeah, where I work, my uniform shirt is way too big so we're talking hidden. I wanted a smaller one but now thinking about it? I'm relieved. Even if they want to ogle, there's not much they can see. Dark, oversized shirt. \o/

*nods* if I go to a club now, it's going to be "excuse me, where can I find the gay bars?" because *YEAH* I want to enjoy myself and be sure every guy in the place isn't picturing me shirtless.

[faithhopetricks.livejournal.com]

This is a great comment -- thank you (altho it also made me simultaneously sad and FULL OF RAGE). Beautifully put.

[medie]

Thanks! And the worst part is I didn't even get into the really skeezy encounters I've had. And still, they just don't get it.

[honorh.livejournal.com]

Thank you. I'm very large-breasted, and while I'm more comfortable with it now than I was when I was a teen--hellish years--there are still days when I fantasize about finding myself a good plastic surgeon and getting them reduced. The ogling--it makes you feel like someone's using your body for his sexual pleasure, and you have no say about it. No matter how conservatively you're dressed, it still happens. I don't think men get this. Not most men, at least, and the ones who do? More than likely, they're getting the same shit from other men.

[medie]

*nods* GOD I hated it when I was a teenager. I can remember going to the library. I might have been 14 or 15. Dressed fairly conservatively, nothing special going on and getting stared/whistled at by two adult men. Which, of course, was so very liberating, really. And yeah, it's like someone just co-opted you for their pleasure. You *KNOW* they're thinking about it. Which is a whole other level of disgusting. And yeah, any men who are treated to that, it's probably their fellow men that do it.

[britgirlsf.livejournal.com]

Apparently you're my physical twin. Hey there!

And yeah. Little woman, big boobs = tons of attention. I've gotten better at dealing with it as an adult - when it started I was 10 and it scared the crap out of me.

The thing that's really been pissing me off in all of this is the insinuations that women who are not OK with this idea are repressed, not comfortable with their bodies etc. What a joke. I'm a BSDM domme. I've walked around clubs in thigh high boots and hot pants. I'm about as comfortable with my sexuality as it gets and I'm very huggy.

And yet Ferret's post creeped me out, because it was dripping with male entitlement and the idea that women aren't really sexual actors, they're bodies that are acted upon. And then there was the accosting random women in sexy outfits and the suggestion that this should be tried in other venues.

Bottom line - in a private play party do whatever you want with your trusted friends. In a public setting? Hell not. Take a lesson from the BSDM community - there's a reason we don't do that stuff in random public places. It's invasive, it's rude and it scares people.