liz_marcs | OH JOHN RINGO NO!

Current Mood: bitchy

OH JOHN RINGO NO!

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).

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

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.

"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.

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.

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

Give it up for the baby brother, folks.

*applauds muchly*

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.

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?

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.

*nods* Yup. Exactly. I don't think she even got asked, directly, to participate. Maybe everyone there was sensitive enough to pick up on 'go away' vibes. Or maybe it was just luck. But it put her on nervous alert, and took the shine off part of her stay there.

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.

Whew. Yes. Thank you. I get that guys often don't *mean* to intimidate. I will even accept that they are sometimes shocked when they do. But I am most often relieved and no longer intimidated when they just accept that people react like that, regardless of how much sense it does/doesn't make.

Please to be noting the presence of genders in your statement.

Women scare the hell out of me, quite often.

please to be allowing a retraction of earlier comment for a few minutes while I think of a way to make my point that isn't confrontational and smug.

heh. I'm tired, and I didn't get the point of the 'no gender identifiers' in there. So I'll allow/grant/assume/accept that you aren't trying to be confrontational. Or smug.

Are you ever scared women are going to randomly rape and kill you? *is wistful about this* Really? If you are... I'm sorry. We don't (most of us, I think?) mean to scare you like that.

If you're not, well. *sigh* This may be the root of all my hostility.

(edited for clarity of word choice, la)

the point I was trying to make, in plain language, is that men can be intimidated as well as women.

To be bluntly honest, I believe I was setting up for a big, sweeping "This is one of the problems with feminism"

Which would have been both colossally ignorant, and wrong.

In closing, thank you for your compassion, and I'm going to go away for a while and cogitate.

If we're talking PenguiCon, NO ONE was asked. People had to approach us.

What happened at Confusicon? Was that still the case? (For clarification, here, because I've read so much about it that at this point, I've lost track of some of the facts.)

And do you get that you guys' defensive reaction is frightening and frustrating to people? That we don't get why you guys didn't get that this would be our take on it?

ConFusion is where it started, and yes, people were asked because it was spontaneous. It was clear that this was unacceptable, and it stopped after that.

As for our "defensiveness," we are really in a Catch 22. If we don't speak up to clarify, the versions of it get increasingly outrageous. If we do speak up, we are "frightening." We've made it clear that we won't do it again. Apparently, we are supposed to be mute in the face of attack. That's liberating.

(no subject)

butterflykiki.livejournal.com - 2008-04-23 14:26 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

zoethe.livejournal.com - 2008-04-23 14:37 (UTC) - Expand

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.

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.

*nod nod* Understood. And believed, yes.

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.

??? Okay, now you've confused me again. At the con? Or is this a mention above that I missed?

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.

Yup, I get that. I did read enough of Ferrett's post to understand that y'all are stepping back from the idea.

People are gonna be upset for a while. I'm still feeling hostile, even with positive intent assumed by the participants. But mostly, just tired, for a lot of reasons. Not least of which is probably one you share, of having to defend my core assumptions and beliefs, while feeling threatened. And I *really* hope me saying that doesn't piss you off, that's not my intent.

Okay, now you've confused me again. At the con? Or is this a mention above that I missed?

This is just standard con fare. Has been for years. Nothing we were involved with, but my point is that our actions were by no means "out there" in an objective scale.

I am not pissed off at anyone's defense of their core beliefs. For me the exhausting and frustrating part has been that people have assumed all kinds of things that didn't happen, and have treated out beliefs as if they weren't valid, as if, in fact, they could only be held by women who were stupid and victimized. And considering that the originating women are a bunch of the strongest alpha females I know, it's just insulting.

It isn't for everyone. I respect and honor that. I just want the same.

Again, Liz is saying stuff above better than I can, but I am working from the same set of assumptions she is, and the same kind of attitude....

RE: BDSM & making out
This is just standard con fare. Has been for years. Nothing we were involved with, but my point is that our actions were by no means "out there" in an objective scale.

An objective scale of this con, sure, I guess. Although this is the first mention I've seen of it, so putting it in this context is a surprise. But you do know, I'm guessing, that it's not standard for most cons, and most people. People are definitely not working from the same set of assumptions you are. Thus the reaction that you classify as an over-reaction. You didn't expect this, when people heard about it?

I am not pissed off at anyone's defense of their core beliefs. For me the exhausting and frustrating part has been that people have assumed all kinds of things that didn't happen, and have treated out beliefs as if they weren't valid, as if, in fact, they could only be held by women who were stupid and victimized. And considering that the originating women are a bunch of the strongest alpha females I know, it's just insulting.

It's just so bizarre to me. It's so far from my experience. It sounds so completely like a set-up for getting hurt. I can't believe anyone would participate in this with strangers. (Partly because, as I mentioned in my note to you, all sexual connotations aside, I just don't like being touched randomly. Too overwhelming.) I'm not calling you a liar-- I assume that you are telling the truth here. But do you get how, for all these people, the default is this defensiveness? This disbelief? No, we have no frame of reference for this as a positive thing. Most of us have a personal frame of reference for this-- if not for ourselves and through friends, then through the media, every CSI show out there on to the nightly news-- as a dangerous thing. This isn't shame we're talking about. It's self-preservation. So of course you're hard to believe, even when it's true. Yay you enjoying yourself. But the other shoe is everyone thinking you're endangering yourself.

And the other *other* shoe is yes, the catastrophizing that if you're doing that, you're endangering others, because the situation you're participating in pushes the public boundaries of acceptable/safe for everyone else. Okay, let's accept that no one there at that con would've gone to a bad place with this. But to people hearing about it on the internet, it freaks us/them out. It's a precedent everyone else wants to avoid.

You guys are used to playing with these assumptions. Other people get too weirded out to do more than yell 'do not want!' Then resent y'all for making them think they're in danger.

It isn't for everyone. I respect and honor that. I just want the same.

And that, I think, gets back to the point that Liz makes better than I do; the boundaries got misjudged. Definitely of the venue. Overwhelmingly of attitude. People who would be most uncomfortable with encountering this in public would be the least comfortable saying so, for a variety of reasons. (Yeah, I know, blinky 'duh' sign over my head.) People encountering this on the internet, not having been there, but having been to other cons? Rage-ness.

Saying breasts are not sexual, and that people were not actively recruited, and could feel safe to say 'no' in a public exposed place, and that there was respect in your activities-- Man, I wish I was more articulate. But these four things are so basically counter-intuitive to most of us, that even when you say it, we can't imagine it. *I*. can't imagine it. Mustn't speak for all the internets.

but I think you get all this now. Mostly? *sigh* Have I confused the issue still more?

But you do know, I'm guessing, that it's not standard for most cons, and most people.

It has been at the conventions we've attended.

But do you get how, for all these people, the default is this defensiveness?

If you go back and read the comments to the original post, you will also see that there are a lot of people who expressed a wish to participate, so it's not universal defensiveness.

No, we have no frame of reference for this as a positive thing. Most of us have a personal frame of reference for this-- if not for ourselves and through friends, then through the media, every CSI show out there on to the nightly news-- as a dangerous thing.

Certainly it doesn't belong out on the street. A con is a little world all its own, and one of the things it's about is doing things differently.

But the other shoe is everyone thinking you're endangering yourself.

That has been a very small portion of the comments. Most of them have been more in the line of "women who would do this are broken." Very insulting, and willfully refusing to acknowledge that a version of sensuality that is different from societally accepted experience might have any validity.

But these four things are so basically counter-intuitive to most of us, that even when you say it, we can't imagine it.

And that would be fine, if people's reaction was, "Wow, I can't imagine that working." Instead it was, "You are sick and broken people!"

(no subject)

butterflykiki.livejournal.com - 2008-04-23 14:24 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

zoethe.livejournal.com - 2008-04-23 14:34 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

butterflykiki.livejournal.com - 2008-04-23 14:36 (UTC) - Expand

But you do know, I'm guessing, that it's not standard for most cons, and most people. People are definitely not working from the same set of assumptions you are.

Let's see, in my experience? ComicCon, no. Dragon*Con, no. WriterCon, sure as hell no. Maybe behind closed doors, but no where did I see anything like that in public. Arisia? Hell yes. Wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if this boob touching became the rage there. One of the reasons I stopped going because it skeeved me out too much.

(no subject)

butterflykiki.livejournal.com - 2008-04-23 15:21 (UTC) - Expand

I've attended two or three cons a year for the past 15 or 20 years. Mostly gaming cons, but also science fiction and comics cons. I am thankful that any theoretical people engaging in bondage and make-out sessions at the cons I attend have had the common sense and decency to keep it out of the main con areas.

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.

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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only