The Open-Source Boob Project

[rm]

When I was 15-years-old I spent a sumer taking classes at Yale and dyed my hair black.

When my father found out we got into an argument in which I eventually said, "it's my hair!"

"No, it's not," he replied and gave me inadvertant confirmation of what I had always known: that as a woman my body is not my own.

I exist in fandom both personally and professionally because it has loved me as much as I have loved it. I have found joy there, but perhaps more importantly, healing, repentence and absolution. In my defense of fandom, I have had to learn a lack of shame.

Which is why I have a certain amount of sympathy for theferrett and his argument for the Open Source Boob Project despite how woefully misguided and steeped in unnoticed privilege it is. But to explain why I so strenuously object, I first have to tell you why I don't.

In my heart I truly believe one of the worst sins that can be committed against another person emotionally is to have contempt for their desire, their affection, their longing. You can denigrate what moves a person, but to denigrate the fact that they are moved - it seems foolish and unnecessary and distracts from the place the intellectual and ethical debate should be occuring. It belittles and implies all hearts share shape and size and nature.

So I get what theferrett is saying when he talks about a scenario in which people could casually express desire towards one another and acknowledge it affirmatively or negatively, but without judgement. Wouldn't it be nice if people could make passes at people without expectations? Or if people could decline such offers without being appalled at their source? And wouldn't it, finally, be nice if people took no for an answer, graciously and with cheer?

Unfortunately, the world doesn't work like that. And we can't make it work like that. And the first clue to those facts is that theferrett made it about men asking things of women.

One key problem with the Open Source Boob Project (and that is the stupidest thing I have had to type in a long time -- couldn't you have come up with a better name?) is its structure somehow makes it incumbent upon women to salve the ego wounds of men, as if we created desire and therefore must assuage it.

If that weren't offensive enough, the problem is also that this does not acknowledge the ego wounds on the fields of sexuality and desire that women also bear. And it certainly doesn't even begin to acknowledge violence -- and not just the violence of abuse and rape (which has also affected men, of course), but the casual violence that comes of a life lived as a woman: people who grope, being viewed as the crazy one when you confront an attacker in public, a push or a shove when you take up too much space, the constant demands that you fill a shape you were not made for.

The Open Source Boob Project has another problem that irks me as well, and that is the increasing dissolution of the idea of personal space both in America in general and in the fannish community in particular. I will never forget a woman I knew choosing to tell people I was mentally ill because I do not kiss and hug people hello in greeting and adieu. This is something I do with a few people I am very close to now, but that has been an earned intimacy.

My reasons for this are many.

For one thing, I like the formal world because the formal world makes more small things beautiful, startling and intimate: the brush of fingers, an accidentally revealed crescent of skin, the sound of breath, the fall of hair. I think the loss of certain formalities robs us of the ability to easily see small beauty.

For another, I am, despite being a very public and performative person, an introvert. Human contact exhausts me and this extends to physical contact with those I do not consider my good friends. I am profoundly tactilely sensitive, and, if I am worn down, touch can be upsetting. This is not the legacy of any terrible experience, but the legacy of the way I'm wired: some of it surely related to the nerve pain, tingling and misfiring that comes with my celiac disease.

But the reasons ultimately don't matter. I don't like strangers touching me, and I shouldn't be obligated to even address physical contact with people not my intimates beyond a handshake: not because of my gender, not because of how I'm dressed, not because I'm speaking on a panel, not because of who I know, not because of what I do for a living, not because of how many people I've had sex with, and not because of something you read on the Internet (and yes, every single one of these things has been used as an excuse to me about why I should let someone touch me and/or hug me and/or kiss me and/or have sex with me).

I've learnt to be gracious about it: it's in everybody's best interests, and it conforms to my own ethical code mentioned at the beginning of this. Sometimes, I even push through it and do the hug thing, because in some circumstances the cost is smaller to me on a given day than another.

I love my body, and I am lucky to. It has tried to betray me often. I have been the most beautiful girl in the world and the least. I've made a poor man and a dashing boy. And I have trained this flesh brutally to heed my commands against all odds and at times poor skill.

I dress to serve my flesh so that my flesh may serve me. When I fence every inch of me is covered except for my right hand and the back of my head, but I have also walked naked through a major motion picture.

I have no interest in wearing a sign giving or forbidding you permission to desire me. I am offended by the idea that succumbing to some random social pressure to do so will make the world a better place. I think I have finally learned enough in life to take well-meant desire kindly and to refuse politely (and all the gods know I've been a huge clod about such matters in the past); if you trust me with a question, I will trust you with an answer.

But fuck you and the horse you rode in on if you ever try to tell me that I or anyone else is obligated to heal you (medical and counselling professionals, clergy and even some gods, however, are appropriately obligated to try in logical contexts). The hardest, most brutal, grief-filled lesson I have ever had to learn is that only I could make myself finer with fire, only I could salve my wounds, only I could grant myself peace.

For me, fandom was a big part of the right place for me to do those things, because there was (all my complaints about personal space aside) space there for me to do what I needed to do how I needed to do it. That people were kind and gracious to me and saw beauty in my layers of clothes and sadness and loss was a gift. But it was not one they were obligated to give or even address the possibility of.

So while I get where theferrett is coming from, I think he's misguided; I think his ideas were put forward in an inherently misogynistic way; and I think he is sadly missing both the beauty of the worlds around him and the potential of his own power.

I was 15-years-old when my dad flipped out about my dyed hair. And you know what? He had a right to do that, because he's my dad and that's what parents do. But this flesh was never his, and I'm grateful that he taught me that through such a stupid, nasty accident of a remark. With any luck some good will also come out of the Open Source Boob Project, if only in the form of private lessons in self-possession.

Comments

[redstapler.livejournal.com]

I agree with and understand everything you've said, but I think you're more taking umbrage with Ferrett's words and word choice (which were pretty awful, I'll agree) than the idea itself.

I'm very frustrated with this whole debacle because on their side, they took a "special time, special place" situation and tried to make a commodity of it. On the rest of the internet's side, it's turned into a huge clusterfuck of misunderstanding, bad word choice, and feminist theory misapplied to varying levels.

I dunno. The whole thing makes me angry, and has had me reexamining a lot of my experiences and I don't know what to do with any of it anymore.

[rm.livejournal.com]

I agree with and understand everything you've said, but I think you're more taking umbrage with Ferrett's words and word choice (which were pretty awful, I'll agree) than the idea itself.

Absolutely. Which is why I'm naming names more than being all "don't treat me like an object at cons!" -- that's a different fight. I think this brings up important issues about why you have to say what you mean and mean what you say as well as fannish behavior/norms and tremendous issues of peer pressure that I didn't really address here but are deeply relevant to actions on multiple sides of this debacle.

[winterknight.livejournal.com]

I think three things really set me off -- one, the assumption that this, carried out in a public place was actually opt-in; two, the underlying push to make this spread to other cons without consideration for the consequences; three, that it was ultimately located in women's bodies, their breasts. The idea that we should express our longings without shame and without damaging others is a beautiful one. But don't make the cure come from the Cosmic Titty.

[weyrdchic.livejournal.com]

As usual I love your ideas and I love how elegantly you express them. I think you're very right here, and the only times I think I got majorly angry in that whole thread were when people called dissenters 'prudes' for not getting it (because way to show exactly how this could be abused), and when women who had a positive experience with the 'project' (I refuse to take that stupid phrase out of quotes) called oppression because they weren't taking the time to consider people who might be triggered or uncomfortable. No, sweeties, you're the ones being oppressive. You can take your social experiment to a private room and invite as you see fit.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

As someone who greatly enjoys physical contact with people I like and who very much enjoys highly touch-positive spaces, I'm nevertheless in complete and total agreement with you. The entire set up of this bit of nonsense is one of commodification and objectification.

This situation is also an almost perfect microcosm of both the sex-negiative puritanism so common in the US, and the common "free love" reaction to it that often includes both a sense of (especially male) entitlement to sexual favors, combined with a total lack of understanding that wishing does not make something so. From my PoV, both sets of attitudes are deeply and equally screwed up.

In any case, thank you for writing the best piece I've yet read about this nonsense.

[gaaneden.livejournal.com]

Bravo! I've been pondering how to deal with this one. Especially since I have a convention coming up. I don't want to seem like a prude but 1. I don't want randomly classify myself based on the criteria. 2. I will be a month married and that means something to me. Eventually, I think I will make a post about it all but thank you for your eloquent words.

[heron61.livejournal.com]

The idea that we should express our longings without shame and without damaging others is a beautiful one. But don't make the cure come from the Cosmic Titty.

Yes.

[angelcityblues.livejournal.com]

I'm with you on this. That kind of trust and intimacy is earned with me, not freely given to anyone who reaches their arms out. For that, sadly, I've been branded an ice princess by the outlying members of my social circle - the ones whose opinions I rarely care about, until they start poisoning the wells of those that I do care about.

[featherofeeling.livejournal.com]

Because summer's almost here, I've also been thinking about what we lose by showing more of our bodies. I think that our eyes go to the places where bare skin meets cloth, no matter where that border is drawn. We wonder about the places covered and admire the places uncovered, no matter where they are. I believe that desire centers around those places and changes over time. So when the only parts of someone left to the imagination are those associated with the crudest and most basic kinds of sexual gratification -- when eyes go all the way up the legs like they've already become entitled to that part of the body -- our desire gets reduced to access to genitalia. And then other really beautiful and sensitive parts of the body are taken for granted and already possessed.

When people wear more layers, the sight of bare skin can be thrilling, and the startling feeling of a breeze, of another person's clothes brushing against you, or of smooth sheets on bare skin all take on more importance, as you said. So I guess we've become a more sexual society, but I don't think it's a more sensual one? And maybe we've traded a sense of possibility (and yes, all the inequality that goes along with it) with a need for more visual stimulation (which seems like it still ends up with men owning the sign of women's bodies more than vice versa).

I didn't mean to sound constricting to the sexual revolution or whatever, but that's kind of how this is ending up...

[rm.livejournal.com]

I totally agree with you. I love that I have the freedom to wear skimpy/tight clothes because it's easier and more comfortable a lot of the time. But that it's expected, that people see prudery in different forms of beauty -- these are things that deeply discomfort me. I think we also lose something in personal body language/awareness when we no longer wear clothes that require we know how to move them.

[tsarina.livejournal.com]

I think what annoys me more than anything is acting like the whole thing is some goddamned hippie revolution instead of just a dumb idea/game/jerk off fantasy/poorly orchestrated event.

[rm.livejournal.com]

There was a whole seperate rant about that that I didn't want to short-change.

There's a brilliant moment in one of the Kushiel books where Imriel says something about how Love as thou wilt should mean more than careless freedom. It's said with a nasty edge, and he has issues, but I was like, oh, yes, my boy. Someone gets it.

[featherofeeling.livejournal.com]

I think we also lose something in personal body language/awareness when we no longer wear clothes that require we know how to move them.

I've never thought about that, but it makes so much sense.

And yes, it's when wearing not very much (or seeing people who aren't wearing very much) is expected that it gets me. And it's not even seeing prudery that bothers me, but just completely overlooking different forms of beauty because they doesn't measure up to the threshold we're supposed to have crossed all together. That bothers me, with the loss of little touches like you were saying.

In celebration of form

[punzel.livejournal.com]

You said, I think we also lose something in personal body language/awareness when we no longer wear clothes that require we know how to move them.

This seems analogous to the passionate depth of expression which is possible when one has a greater awareness of the structures and forms of a given language (or convention), coupled with the creative inspiration of having only certain tools at hand. I agree about clothing -- experienced this directly when I worked at a renaissance faire for many seasons: indeed, costumes were props. I appreciate this also in sonnets and in what can be said without spoken words at all.

There is something in the striving, and in the details, that purchases sincerity.

[mme-furiosa.livejournal.com]

I think the loss of certain formalities robs us of the ability to easily see small beauty.

I echo this sentiment entirely. After 3 months in Southeast Asia, where men and women don't so much as hold hands in public, and women routinely wrap themselves in 9 YARDS of fabric, being back here has been strangely uncomfortable.
Today I saw a girl on campus in such tiny, little shorts that I wondered whether her boyfriend was proud that everyone else could see exactly what he was getting in private.

It makes me shy, all of it, makes me long for an era when bodies were expressed to one another behind closed doors, and the brushes of fingertips passing a dish could make one's blood boil.

[tsarina.livejournal.com]

Well, you know how the hippies give me foaming-at-the-mouth rage.

Rigor!

[kathrynrose.livejournal.com]

I don't know if you saw, but he's owned the really bad idea-ness of this. http://theferrett.livejournal.com/1087686.html

[marzipan-pig.livejournal.com]

a scenario in which people could casually express desire towards one another and acknowledge it affirmatively or negatively, but without judgement. Wouldn't it be nice if people could make passes at people without expectations? Or if people could decline such offers without being appalled at their source? And wouldn't it, finally, be nice if people took no for an answer, graciously and with cheer?

Unfortunately, the world doesn't work like that. And we can't make it work like that.

I don't fully agree with this; I think some parts of the world can work like this, some parts do, and that we (as individuals, as subcultures, as groups) can work towards better communication on these issues. Wearing buttons isn't going to do it though; better communication and practice and respecting people's choices (including wanting to be touched and not wanting to be touched) is a whole lot better of a direction to go than having to do some kind of hankie code at cons.

[rm.livejournal.com]

Too bad the owning was:

a) passive-aggressive
b) focused on women being afraid as opposed to women having the same rights to bodily integrity as men, regardless of whether they are afraid or not. I am sick of women being told they are afraid when they merely unprefer something.

[elionwyr.livejournal.com]

I just went and read theferrett's 'oh I screwed up' post, as well as the initial OSBP post.

What it reminds me of is one of the most awkward haunt conventions I've ever attended...a group of men were standing by the entrance to the hotel bar, offering free t-shirts to any girl that would flash them.

For context: This happened at TransWorld, which was still at the time the largest professional event for haunt businesses. At the time, I was still on the IAHA board of directors, and the last thing I expected was to have someone half-block my path past the door to ask me, "So, what are YOU packing?"

I shot him a Look. "What am I packing?"

His father, who knew me (everyone knew me except- apparently, his very drunken son), grabbed the fellow by the elbow and muttered/hissed, "Leave that one alone."

The shenanigans stopped after that, but truth be told I've never forgotten the moment. And while I understand the energy behind what the OSBP meant to the people that participated, there is a huge part of me that is cringing over the very concept.

I can be very touchy-feely. But ya know..I was seriously creeped out when a fellow took me by the hand at Arisia a few years ago and pulled me out of the con suite, telling me he really wanted to give me a foot massage. I have enough submissive issues as it is; the last thing I want to deal with at a convention is sorting through all the crap in my head about permission and touching while someone is overstepping boundaries in this manner.

..I am not articulating this well.
I'm very appreciative that you did a better job than I just have. *laugh*

[upstart-crow.livejournal.com]

Excellent, Racheline. Yours is definitely the most thoughtful post I have seen on the subject, and far more thoughtful than I could have made as I wasn't able to force myself through all my PTSD triggers around touch.

About personal touch: I actually like giving hugs to people I get along with, regardless of whether we've just met or if I've known them for quite sometime. I wasn't able to in the past because I thought most people found me disgusting both physically and personality-wise, so being able to do it now is actually a source of healing for me. I try not to offer, though, and to only give if the other party opens his or her arms, because I don't want to offend or make introverts uncomfortable. But I understand when people feel differently and respect their wishes without question or judgment.

That was my biggest problem ultimately with this 'project.' How it didn't take into account women (and maybe men) who might not find this 'liberating' or healthy.

[ladyofthelog.livejournal.com]

I actually feel much the same way as you do about touch. Sometimes I have trouble explaining to people that yes, just because I gave you a hug, does not mean that I want you all over me. Not even groping. Just too much touching.

Reading theferret's post made my skin crawl. :( Which is not to say that was the intent, but still!

Feel free to delete this comment for asshattery

[wurmwyd.livejournal.com]

Hi there!

My only defense is that men Just Don't Get It.

I know this because *I* just don't get it.

I guess I'm just defective, or stupid, or an idealistic hippie, but I -like to be touched-. To me intimacy is something that is enjoyable, that is ... pleasurable. When I actually go so far as to have sex, it's enjoyable times 1,000. But even the little intimacies, a quick caress of the cheek, or when a woman puts her hand on your shoulder to lean in close and whisper you a secret? That's just magical to me. And it's not that any time a female comes within breathing distance of me I suddenly forget that she's a human and start thinking of her as a walking hole to stick something in. I fall in LOVE with that person. Yes, I know that it's not REAL love. It's some kind of stupid fantasy of an evolutionary impetus to reproduce with as many different people as possible. But what it is NOT, is a dreadful, fearful thing. I don't get terrified at the very suggestion of intimacy. That just sounds so much like a societal throwback to some kind of puritan anti-sex theology.

Just about every year at my job, we're required to re-take a sexual harassment awareness test and send the certificate to human resources. The test always bothers me because it seems to treat women as a bunch of insecure teenagers who must not even be made aware that sex exists. If two men tell a dirty joke at the water cooler, that's fine. Because apparently men are mature enough to accept the humor of a dirty joke without being offended. But if a woman is near, both men must immediately silence themselves or be guilty of harassment. That just seems so ... SEXIST to me. Worse than that, it seems to undermine the impact of ACTUAL harassment, such as when a male supervisor refuses to promote or even threatens a woman for failing to put out. Men like that really do deserve a kick in the balls. And it still happens. But when men have frank discussions of sex and sexuality around each other, there's no malice intended. Guys never ask each other: "Is it okay if I talk about this TV show I saw last night? It had some sex in it..." because it's ALWAYS okay.

Perhaps a better analogy would be to start a kind of Open Source Gay Project. A lot of guys absolutely WOULD object to having another male come up to them and say: "Hey bro! Is it okay if I grab your dick? No sex, just a quick feel". Some guys would get their teeth knocked out for asking that. But I don't agree. I am totally okay with a guy grabbing my crotch, as long as I always have the option of saying NO. Some guys are nervous even KNOWING that another guy is checking them out, as if the other guy's "Gay rays" are going to force him to suddenly start listening to Barbara Streisand and wearing gold lamme hot pants. It's ridiculous, but I've seen it happen. I am always okay with being seen as a sexual object, whether it's by a guy, a girl, or a monkey. As long as I always have the option of saying no, and as long as that declaration is respected.

I just think that that's what this silly-named project was doing.

Re: Feel free to delete this comment for asshattery

[rm.livejournal.com]

This comment has made me really really angry.

I guess I'm just defective, or stupid, or an idealistic hippie, but I -like to be touched-. To me intimacy is something that is enjoyable, that is ... pleasurable. When I actually go so far as to have sex, it's enjoyable times 1,000.

Did you really read what I wrote and then decide that I hate being touched and hate sex? By sarcasticially noting that maybe it's weird that you like to be touched, you imply that I'm weird because I prefer to limit whom I have physical and sexual contact with. This was rude, and offensive. It doesn't take into account the specifics I offered: introversion and an unsettling nerve condition and practically obligates me to tell you about how sexual my partner and I am. Rude and dismissive.

Just about every year at my job, we're required to re-take a sexual harassment awareness test and send the certificate to human resources. The test always bothers me because it seems to treat women as a bunch of insecure teenagers who must not even be made aware that sex exists. If two men tell a dirty joke at the water cooler, that's fine. Because apparently men are mature enough to accept the humor of a dirty joke without being offended. But if a woman is near, both men must immediately silence themselves or be guilty of harassment. That just seems so ... SEXIST to me. Worse than that, it seems to undermine the impact of ACTUAL harassment, such as when a male supervisor refuses to promote or even threatens a woman for failing to put out. Men like that really do deserve a kick in the balls. And it still happens. But when men have frank discussions of sex and sexuality around each other, there's no malice intended. Guys never ask each other: "Is it okay if I talk about this TV show I saw last night? It had some sex in it..." because it's ALWAYS okay.

Again with the apples and oranges. Can you not see the difference between sexual harassment laws about what you can and can't say in front of a woman (or a man and btw, women aren't allowed to say those things in front of men or other women either) and a guy who intially seemed to feel that the world would be a better place and men would be happier if all women were ready and prepared to salve the male ego with their flesh?

Perhaps a better analogy would be to start a kind of Open Source Gay Project. A lot of guys absolutely WOULD object to having another male come up to them and say: "Hey bro! Is it okay if I grab your dick? No sex, just a quick feel". Some guys would get their teeth knocked out for asking that. But I don't agree. I am totally okay with a guy grabbing my crotch, as long as I always have the option of saying NO.

This statement comes from privilege. You know if you say NO your NO will probably be met with a limited number of consequences. A woman doesn't. A woman's experience tells her she may face social ostracism, public humiliation or violence she does not have the pphysical strength to respond effectively to.

Some guys are nervous even KNOWING that another guy is checking them out, as if the other guy's "Gay rays" are going to force him to suddenly start listening to Barbara Streisand and wearing gold lamme hot pants. It's ridiculous, but I've seen it happen. I am always okay with being seen as a sexual object, whether it's by a guy, a girl, or a monkey. As long as I always have the option of saying no, and as long as that declaration is respected.

Do I need to do an unscienfitic poll on my journal to see howman y women here have been touched in ways they didn't want by strangers, acquaintences and even those they thought were friends for you to grok your privilege. My NO may mean NO, but your NO is more likely to be respected.

Re: Feel free to delete this comment for asshattery

[wurmwyd.livejournal.com]

Hi there!

And again, I'm really sorry to have caused offense. I just thought that the whole point of the project was that if you opted-in, it was okay to ask, and furthermore that your NO would be respected. If women were being asked if this were okay, and then guys went ahead and groped them anyway, then those guys really need to have their balls slammed in a car door. Unquestionably. But to me, asking is always okay.

Again, I'm really sorry to have made you angry. :(