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

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.

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.

Ah. *nods* Thanks.

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.

Mmmm. Okay, fair point.

I think you are still missing some of my points, or don't want to address them, and I'm pretty sure you addressed some of them elsewhere in these threads anyway, although probably never to my entire satisfaction. I fundamentally disagree with you on almost all of this, but I do get now that you didn't intend harm and didn't expect anyone to take it that way. And that you weren't pressured or any part of pressuring. And that the tone of a lot of people's responses have put you way on the spot. Thank you for explaining your reasoning.

Liz still explains the basics of the objectification and bully-situation better than I do, but I'm glad I chatted with you about this (sorry we went on so long, Liz). I hope I didn't offend you, or make the situation any worse, anyway. I think I'll stop now, mostly because I am losing track of the debate (And I suck at it anyway, I lose my train of thought all over the place), but if you do have any other questions, or final points to make, I'll be happy to respond.

I appreciate that you have dealt with me in a respectful manner. However, the fact that there are places on the internet where it has become the latest hyena victim and the humanity of the people involved has been lost to mob mentality means that the whole thing has simply become too painful to continue. I am therefore withdrawing from the conversations.

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!"

It has been at the conventions we've attended.

well, now you know way the heck different. And yes, again, not speaking for everyone, but I'd guess they feel threatened and defensive that you guys are acting like this is the norm. It's not.

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, but I said 'most'. And there are seven pages of people (so far) at Open Source Kick in the Balls who are spitting mad at the whole concept. Ferrett's acknowledgment that he caused fear with his comments, and apology for doing so, have calmed some of this down. But not by much. While a certain percentage are people who didn't read carefully, a larger percentage hate the concept at its base, even with willing participants. But having Ferrett explain it, from a guy's POV without any woman giving her testimony in the original post, was threatening as all hell. We were not over-reacting.

Heck, I do not want to get insulting, but look at all those women from that pseudo-LDS compound. *That* is our latest media exposure to Women Who Love Too Much, and men who say how much they love it. Hell yes, this is our first reaction to the idea of being groped. Maybe at your con the usual con-goers have a good idea of the rules, and experience with you guys to know how it all works. Mentioning it on the internet where neither could be true of anyone reading that post? Easily inspires this reaction.

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.

And one of those is doing this in con suites just among friends. And not bringing it into the mainstream or stomping for it in a public forum(which, again, I can see that you get. Now. People are still going to be mad that you guys didn't get this to begin with.)

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.

And the women outside your small group who would do this? Some of them probably *are* broken. You're very pissed off on your own behalf, and I get that. No one here knows you! Heck, I don't know you. Given the lengthy defense I've given, I'm willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on your motives and lack of fear. But you guys wanted to set a precedent. And we are trained to defensiveness and rejection for anything threatening like that.

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!"

Fear leads to anger, anger leads to insults, insults lead to the Dark Side....

And yeah, there's probably some genuine judgementalness in there. This can't be the first time you've encountered that, either. Especially on the internet. And yes, a lot of people will take your defense of what actually happened as you not getting why they're upset, or thinking they don't have a right to be upset. Or they might think you're implying that this is their problem, and not realize that you guys acknowledge now that this would never work in a larger group, and why. This isn't just Not Ready For Primetime. It's Not Ready for Most of Fandom. (And again the duh sign over my head goes off, but what the heck, it's a new day, re-state points.)

Thank you. For my own mental health, I simply need to withdraw from these discussions.

Understood. Sorry for any upset I've caused.

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.

Yeah, none of the cons I've been to (Star Trek cons and Highlander, and MediaWest) have featured anything like this. And yeah, I'd actively avoid them too, if they did.

Which is probably why there's such a negative response to this; Cons are not 100% safe, but they are safer for some of us, most of the time, and we don't want this to be a public gauntlet we have to deal with, hunh.

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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

OH JOHN RINGO NO!

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject