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

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."

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

*NODS* You learn *YOUNG*. Hell, when I was like five or six (or younger) a friend babysat me. While I was there, her husband took off his shirt. Which isn't that threatening, really, and he *DEFINITELY* never meant it to make me feel uncomfortable, but little!Medie went home and promptly informed her parents she was never going back there again because X took off his shirt.

YUP. You learn *YOUNG*.

Oh, yes. Should I bust out the story of the pedophile that tried to lure me into his car when I was five? Or the creepy babysitter story that tops your babysitter story here and gone? Or the time I was the babysitter and kid!daddy wanted to drive me home and molest me, except kid!mommy knew goddamn well what her husband was up to and would have none of it?

Actually, this is a public post. So maybe let's not. Because victimization stories? I've got a million of 'em, and you already know well enough that I'm nobody's fucking victim.

Yeah, public post, so not, but I suspect a lot of women reading this are nodding along. Sad to say we've all had some variation of these stories. Which, yeah, depressing as *HELL*. I got to thinking about this last night and hit on the times people have followed me home. One guy hit on me at the grocery store (where I now work and believe me I shudder when I see him come in) and then followed me in his car when I left on foot, another guy I remember followed me when I was walking from someone's house to another house at night (a five minute walk at most) which unnerved me so much I pretended to go into another house and hid out behind their shed for about ten minutes until I was sure he was gone before continuing on my way.

And you're right, if you and I tend to be people who don't take this kind of shit from people, and *YET*...*FUME*

Dude. Yes. I once had to drive into the parking lot of the county courthouse to stop someone from following me, and you'd better believe I waited there to make sure they were GONE before I pulled out of there.

I didn't take jobs in college that would've required me to walk across campus alone in the middle of the night. I didn't join organizations that had nighttime meetings.

Every time I have a stranger walk up to the office where I work, I ensure that the male employees are the ones to physically open the door and allow people entrance for their meetings. (I have a button to open the door that keeps me out of range and with a cubicle wall between me and potential attackers.)

I walk up the stairs with a stranger behind me, and I keep an eye on them and mentally plan out what to do if I'm attacked. I don't go in the elevator with men I'm not comfortable with. I have a well-practiced and extremely effective glare that reads Fuck With Me And Suffer Horribly, not to mention a few self-defense lessons under my belt that at least gives me the physical confidence to carry off that look and the body language necessary for it.

I want to hear how many men this kind of thing happens to. You never hear men get together and bitchfest about "that one time I was almost the subject of a Lifetime movie of the week." You never hear about men who aren't paranoid schizophrenics mentally planning how to deal with a potential attacker, or viewing strange males as potential attackers.

Really. When you look at it closely, this is a HORRIBLE way to live. And yet I would say that most women? Yeah, we live this way. It's...normal.

When I was around 13, there was a big public trial in my city. A police officer had pulled a woman over on a dark stretch of road and then raped and murdered her.

I remember my mother telling me that when I was old enough to drive, if I was pulled over by a cop, I should drive to the nearest lit, populated area before stopping the car.

The stretch of freeway where this woman was murdered was named after her as a memorial. Every time I drive over that, I'm reminded that it's dangerous to be female.

Jumping in here. Did you grow up in San Diego by chance? If so, I know exactly which story you're referring to. Her uncle was my high school German teacher at the time. I was 15 and scared shitless to be anywhere near a dark stretch of road after that.

A big part of what pisses me off with many of the male responses (not all) to the OSBP is the pure dismissal of the fact that women have to keep this sort of fear in the back of their minds on a daily basis. From 'how will I be perceived if I wear this top?' to 'If I engage that guy in conversation will he respect what my boundaries are?' It's a doesn't mean living in a state of constant panic, but definitely a state of awareness.

Yeah, it was in San Diego. It's interesting, now that I think about it - that man probably gave a whole generation of women trust issues with men in authority. Sadly, I'm not sure if that's a bad thing.

I remember my mother telling me that when I was old enough to drive, if I was pulled over by a cop, I should drive to the nearest lit, populated area before stopping the car.

We all passed this bit of information around to each other in my high school. All the girls. Whatever happened, whatever we disagreed on, our safety was the one universal concern.

Every time I drive over that, I'm reminded that it's dangerous to be female.

Precisely.

Ohh, ain't that just the God-damned truth. Yes.

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.

If you want to feel offended and angry over the usage of a term that does not imply what you say it implies, go ahead.

simply call it 'not ready', then. Delete the portion of it that is a fucking Saturday Night Live reference. The portion that refers to a time bracket in Television that is highly regulated due to it's revenue generation capability. The meaning doesn't change.

Try living a day walking around viewing every person you meet as a potential to be assaulted. To you, that sounds extremist.

thank you for your unwarranted assumption.

You have multiple times in this thread spat my own words back in my face in an accusatory modus, insisting that I did not make these statements. In conclusion, I believe there is nothing positive I can contribute, and have nothing further to say regarding this, in this venue.

"Not ready" is also troublesome, because again it's suggesting that this sort of thing is a positive, freeing, ideal situation that the real world is just not capable of handling yet, that there are hang-ups and issues that we all must get over to be "ready" for such a thing. Medie's important point (hi Medie, I'm new here, I got her via a link) is that there are already sex-positive venues and organizations in which these things are acceptable and explored--go there and fondle your heart out! But the larger world should not be striving toward this sort of thing, toward the sexualizing of non-sexual events and places. Her point is that the real world is already like this for women; we are sexualized and objectified every day in our daily lives. When we go to a con, we're going there for a specific purpose. Our being female and being present does not make the whole thing sexualized. That kind of thinking is the problem. Rather than staging some experiment in bringing one's fantasies to the fore at a non-sexual/non-sexualized venue, join an explicitly sex-positive community, or start one, and go do it where EVERYONE is opt-in. Where you're not forcing women to confront this at all and have to make a choice, because that kind of thing is what society should be moving away from.

I live in the Bay Area, and we have a huge amount of sex-positive activity. I'm as liberated as they come (though my clarifying that at all is such a sad act, because why do I feel pressured to explain that I'm not uptight over all this, that I'm not "like that." See how the onus is on the women, that the idea is not one of open experimentation but of ultimately making the women who say no into non-liberated individuals with "feminist" hang-ups?). This kind of liberation is doing nothing but liberating guys to voice objectification in a "safe" way, in a safe setting. But those kinds of settings already exist, and the true progressive is someone who wants society at large to be a free place for people to operate as individuals, as people, without being defined by others, objectified by others, oppressed by others. Knowing that I am perpetually on public display in so many men's mind is an oppressive feeling; I can't walk down the street without a honk or an unsolicited comment or sometimes a grope. I am not respected as an individual who may have everything BUT my sexuality on my mind as I move through the public sphere. I am not considered in that equation.

It's fine to appreciate breasts, and it's fine to appreciate my breasts so long as your recognize that they are mine and that staring at them or commenting on them or reducing me to a pair of breasts is dehumanizing and is not in any way progressive or utopic. A utopia is one in which all people are treated equally. An experiment in which women are approached solely because of their breasts and guys' desire to touch them in a free, open manner isn't utopic--it may be utopic for some guys, but I suggest that those guys look into exploring the sex-positive safe spaces in the world that already exist for such things, that they strive to keep those kinds of things OUT of neutral spaces, because as an experiment it just becomes an exercise in doing what you want to do while calling it "progressive sexual liberation."

I'm as liberated as they come! But when I'm at an event and someone asks to touch my breasts, I am sickened and angry and reminded of the ugliness of the wider world. My utopia is one in which I can leave the house without being reminded by total strangers that I am female and therefore someone else's business, someone else's subject matter. That my desires and opinions come with a disclaimer. That they are qualified in some way.

Very well said.

I know you won't reply, but allow me to be a little more blunt since you've been so obtuse in reply to

medie's post.

Have you, sir, ever had a conversation with someone's breasts? What color were their eyes? Or hair, for that matter?

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.

No, it really doesn't and that's the point all these people are trying to make that you are JUST NOT GRASPING.

Women live every single day of their lives being looked at as sexual objects by the majority of the men they encounter. Even the most sexually liberated woman (and I do consider myself to be fairly high on that scale) has had creepy and uncomfortable experiences.

So the reason that this idea has no merit: because men are the PROBLEM, not the solution.

Give it up, my friend. I have not seen a single post or comment about discomfort from a person who was actually at the convention, and these people will continually argue both sides of the coin: seeing people fondle each other through clothes is completely traumatizing, but if you say that it shouldn't be done where they see it, they get furious with you for treating them like children.

In reality, they are angry that people have the temerity not to think exactly like they do about sexuality. It's Not Okay for me to feel that touching and being touched is empowering. This world view says that men can't feel desire without objectifying women, and women can't enjoy being desired without being objectified. It does not allow for a middle ground of gleeful acceptance of sexuality as just one aspect of who we are and something that doesn't need to be repressed.

So you aren't going to win here. The fury about the Not Ready for Prime Time remark stems from the implication that a different version of interaction between men and women might be better, and that is Right Out. If it's any help, there are people who do agree with you. Don't burn yourself out fighting where it will do no good.

How about this angle?

It. Isn't. Polite.

There is a time and place for everything, and a PUBLIC PLACE ISN'T IT.

If you want to do this, then rent a room, join a group, start a club-- don't hand out buttons to a gropefest in a public con then be surprised when people get upset.

People do not pay good money to see random people get fondled or asked to be fondled when they go to a con.

They shouldn't HAVE to.

It is rude, demeaning, uncomfortable, and inappropriate for the venue.

Rent a room.

At one time - hell, to this very day - people would say that to a gay couple: it's all well and good, but don't hold hands in public because some people might not be comfortable with it.

We've already decided that the project will not be repeated, so I'm not willing to get into a long debate about this. But it's worth stopping to think about where the boundaries of "polite" used to be and where they would be if no one ever pushed comfort zones.

Lovely.

You are comparing public groping to a gay civil rights movement.

It would be more apt to compare your experiment to a gay couple fondling their partner's genitalia in public.

Except you have random strangers feeling up breasts.

The thing about politeness...it makes society function. No yakking on your cell on a plane, no pushing in line, no graphic PDAs in the park-- you know basically acknowledging their are other human beings on the planet besides you.

The point of your project, according to you, was to create a comfortable space for people to openly admire breasts. Except for the many, many people who were UNCOMFORTABLE about it, but they don't matter. They are repressed and stuff.

Of course you would immediately twist my point. Forget the gay thing. At one point it was considered shocking and vulgar for a woman to wear pants. Social change comes from people pushing at the limits.

And how do you know that "many, many people were uncomfortable"? I haven't heard from or of anyone who was actually at PenguiCon who has expressed discomfort. In fact, the emails I've gotten from people who were there have all said, "geez, I didn't even notice." We weren't making a scene.

But we are also very much aware that our small group of involved parties was a mature and aware crowd, and that the chances of it getting out of hand are high. What was done, in this case, in a delicate and respectful way would be subject to abuse as more people got involved. And in that case, it would be a situation where people would be made uncomfortable, and they don't deserve that. So we won't be doing it again.

Sometimes you push at the boundaries of the social fabric and find that they are there for a good reason.

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