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

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?

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

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?

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.

Pretty much YUP!

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

As another women with DD boobs, I so hear you. One nice thing about getting older and a little fat is that people objectify me less. Seriously depressing.

whilst strengthening the respect paid to people who don't want that kind of openness in the only way desired - by leaving them alone.

because I never said that, ya know. nope nope nope.

Except by ignoring everything I said in favor of your 'sexual utopia' you went and disrespected it and my perspective. Ignoring the real experience of a woman in favor of something which furthers your 'intellectual agenda'?

Oh yeah, I feel SO respected right now.

I'm sorry - I didn't push one of the most important parts hard enough. the 'default', should be to leave someone the hell alone about their sexuality.

all the opt-in stuff is utopianist maundering. The only thing available in the Real World is the 'default' of leaving people alone, of not attempting to interact with them in any sort of sexual manner.

all the opt-in stuff is utopianist maundering.

You might want to consider that I and others DON'T WANT YOUR UTOPIA.

I don't consider your utopia to be the ideal way to live my life.

I prefer the default in the real world. People whom I don't know who attempt to interact with me in any sort of a sexual manner are considered sexual harassers. Period. End of story.

If anyone wants to interact with me in a sexual manner, they can take the time to get to know me as a person and earn that kind of trust first. I have no shame attached to my sexuality whatsoever, but I choose whom I wish to bestow it upon. My ideal society, my utopia, includes that right, and doesn't include someone else's version of what my sexuality should be.

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.

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.

Agreed, to both points. Which was one of the tenets of the original project, for that matter. That to show your willing involvement in it, you wore a button. It was an easily-understood signal that you were interested in it.

If you weren't interested you weren't required to do anything to show it. It was the default!

I'm probably not going to get this across, but while the original project was a hell-splosion of error and fail, the idea certainly has merit.

The fact is, people were threatened just KNOWING they were at the convention where it was going on.

which is a REAL strong support of the idea 'not being ready for prime time'. The presence of a clear signal of willingness to explore sex on other people should not be threatening or coercive to people who do not share that willingness.

Obviously, it is threatening. And to a pretty large amount of people, judging from the responses to the original OSBP post. Therefore - failure of idea, time to cease pushing it.

You're not getting it. You are REALLY not getting it. Stop for a minute, step outside your expectations of a sexual utopia. BECAUSE YOU ARE STILL PUSHING IT.

'not ready for prime time'?

I am not a fucking child who needs to be protected from 'the EBIL ADULT CONTENT' thank you. Using that phrase? Implies that people who object to it are children.

Which I most certainly am not. Clue in.

The very existence of those buttons and the implications tied to them made women at that convention uncomfortable. This was not some sort of utopian glee club for snuggles, okay? There were people who altered there behavior at the convention so as not to encounter them.

FAIL. Right there, the idea FAILED. The fact that this idea threatened women means that from the start it threatened women. There is no 'oh, it's not ready for prime time' (again, an idea that is so fucking insulting it isn't even funny), there is only 'maybe you meant well, but you still failed right out of the gate' because yes.

women. FELT. threatened.

You want to participate in this crap, find a cuddle party.

A public situation like this? NOT THE PLACE FOR IT. As it is, people are lucky they didn't get busted for public indecency. And what about a woman who wears the button (again I roll my damn eyes) some guy cops a feel and goes too far.

I can't wait to see that trial. Victims of sexual assault already end up having to defend themselves, their sexual conduct, such and sundry in those trials.

Those buttons are a defense attorney's dream. He/she can get up there in court and say "Your honor, she was asking for it." and hold up the button as exhibit A.

theferrett got lucky. He got DAMN lucky. That didn't happen. It could easily have, however, and you can bet your ass if it had spread? It was inevitable.

A convention? NOT the place for it. Utopian discussion? Irrelevant because I live in the real world. You know that discussion about race where people say 'if a black man is walking down the street, do you cross to the other side to avoid him?'

In my case, I don't care what damn colour he is. I don't care if he's walking toward me, or walking behind me. If I don't know him, I cross the damn street. Try living a day walking around viewing every person you meet as a potential to be assaulted. To you, that sounds extremist.

To me, it's my life.

This reminds me of a story Mr. Havoc was telling me one day. Mr. Havoc's father, you see, used to be head of forensics at one of the local police departments. (Yes, just like CSI, only without less ZOMG!DRAMA. Most of the time. I have other stories from Mr. Havoc's Dad about ZOMG!CSI!DRAMA.)

So the thing is, Mr. Havoc's Dad was very concerned that his son not end up, well, dead. Or the victim of a crime. So Mr. Havoc's Dad told Wee Mr. Havoc all kinds of gory stories to impress upon Mr. Havoc that crimes were committed, and one had to be extra super special careful so that he wasn't the victim of a crime.

When Mr. Havoc was telling me all about this, he asked me if my parents had done anything like that, given that my parents' careers were along completely different paths than the careers of Mr. Havoc's Dad and Mr. Havoc's Mom. The implication was, of course, that Mr. Havoc's Dad had done something extremely unusual.

I told him this: "My parents didn't need to do that. I'm female. I learned at an early age just how victimized people can be."

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

no subject

no subject