I'm certainly not outraged by it, nor do I have feelings one way or the other about the people who participated. But I did have a comment on it. I wrote:

I get that this was something that happened in the socially nonconformist atmosphere of a con.

I get that the women involved were full, consenting participants.

But as someone who's always been very picky about who touches me -- whether it's a hug, a hand on my arm, or a rub on my elbow -- the entire thing strikes me as yet another variation on the "if you're cool you'll let me touch you/let me rub your shoulders/join in the puppy pile/engage in the orgy" attitude that runs rampant in certain fannish/con circles.

You say that there was no peer pressure involved in this. And you claim that there was nothing skeevy about it. I can't argue with that, because I wasn't there. But I will say that I feel that the contribution that this "project" has made to the objectification of women is unfortunate.

And I disagree.

the entire thing strikes me as yet another variation on the "if you're cool you'll let me touch you/let me rub your shoulders/join in the puppy pile/engage in the orgy" attitude that runs rampant in certain fannish/con circles.

I don't go to cons, but, again, if this makes you uncomfortable, don't participate. It is entirely your choice. "All my friends were doing it" ceased to be a viable excuse around kindergarten for most of us. If you don't like the way people you hang out with behave, don't hang out with them.

But I will say that I feel that the contribution that this "project" has made to the objectification of women is unfortunate.

I'm not sure where you're going with this argument. I don't see this as contributing to the objectification of women any more than any other consensual sexual exchange between adults in or out of the bedroom.

What bothered me about his post, at least my admittedly skimmish reading of it, was it felt like the act was somehow some clever, culturally advanced, nouveau enlightened act, instead of some people at a geek-con doing what people at a geek-con do all the time at geek-cons.

If openly expressed (albeit usually conforming to local legal standards of decency) sexual acts bother you, you should be wary when attending geek-cons.

The Ferrett also, in my view, framed his original post poorly. Many people seemed to assume he was suggesting that we newly liberated, newly enlightened beasts go forth and approach women on the street and offer to stroke their mammaries. If he was really suggesting that, he's even sillier and out of touch than I thought. :D

Hmmm. Maybe I'm unclear or something. I'm willing to admit that's possible.

I have no problem saying no to peer pressure, either. And of choosing to not participate in something. Hell, I've only been to three or four cons in my life, for that matter. My point was that there is peer pressure in these situations, and an attitude, especially towards women, that if one chooses not to participate that one is frigid, or humorless, or uncool, or all of the above.

And, yeah, I do choose to not hang around people like that. But when I see that celebrated in a manner like Ferrett's post ... well, I find it icky. I'm not going to march in the streets or demand a head on a pike, but I reserve the right to air my opinion that it's creepy, it smacks of entitlement, and that despite what Ferrett says, it's another situation where people are inflicting themselves on others under some sort of rationalization that it's a "social experiment" and that everyone involved is a willing participant (I'll put forth that any woman who was asked if she could have her breasts fondled who didn't appreciate that interaction wasn't a willing participant at all.)

And really, you don't see how relating to women purely as people who have breasts to fondle is objectification? And how inventing something called The Boob Project isn;t objectification? Really?

SRSLY.

This is right up your alllllllllllllllllley.

That guy isn't on my friends list so what was the hubbaloo about? People posting pics of their boobs? Who cares? Gah, people always find something random to complain about. =/

I just really wonder who's liable when she's wearing an "Ask Me" button. He asks, she says no, he says but you're wearing the button and fondles anyway. Does she sue the con? Does he sue the con?

It's just completely ridiculous, I don't care if everybody's doing it and everybody's happy about it. All it takes is one misunderstood communication and we're talking assault. Why make things more complicated and sexually charged than they already are?

Are these people really that desperate to connect that they need to codify fondling? You can do it IF she's wearing a button and she says yes. Can you fondle if she's not wearing a button and says yes?

That's something that demiurgent said. And I also agree with it.

As with any other social gathering, there are rules being observed. Some of those rules have been codified as laws; others are simply observed because that's what we do at social gatherings.

The choice argument I'm making cuts both ways: the Boob Project decided that, for a subset of the people at this gathering, one of the rules would be different than it normally is. The people who choose to participate in that subset are assuming the risk entailed by their participation.

That's my view, at least.

A lot of people seem to think that you can either objectify women or appreciate women as humans, but not both. This is silly. Objectification can often be insulting and degrading, but it doesn't have to be.

Excellent! This is just the point I wanted to explore.

Is the objection people seem to have to this that it objectifies women as sexual objects for the pleasure of men and nothing more (which I think we'll all agree is bad) or whether it allows women to conceive of themselves as sexual beings in their own right? To be certain, it is possible for the touching to be arousing and pleasurable for both the toucher and the touched. If the touching is invited, isn't the change from object-qua-another's-desire to self-actuated sexual being a way for women to shed patriarchal notions of chastity and virtue, that women cannot (or should not) enjoy sex where they dictate the terms?

I suppose the problem is that unscrupulous people would exploit the choice of others to share their bodies; but as long as people retain the right to refuse, this problem seems like it could be minimized.

I think I'm just kind of eyerolling at the idea this is such a Groundbreaking Social Experiment. Good heavens! Some girls let some guys touch their boobs in a small relaxed setting, and they enjoyed it! Nothing like this have ever happened before in the history of sexuality! Certainly never at college campuses, house parties, and dimly-lit bars across the country! Clearly we must all learn from their infinite wisdom, and society shall be reborn.

Maybe that came out a little snottier than I intended. Good on them and all, but not a big deal.

I think what most of us object to is having the sexual inadequates in question trying to claim it's empowering and all that nonsense. If a group of geeks find women with low enough self-esteem to be bullied into this and nobody involved minds, fine, but they shouldn't try to pretend it's anything else.

My beef wasn't that people chose to participate, it's espousing participation under the guise that THIS is the change the world has been waiting for! and the unspoken (but certainly conveyed) that if you don't agree, maybe your view of the world isn't what it should be. I liked the post about open source punch to the face.

and the unspoken (but certainly conveyed) that if you don't agree, maybe your view of the world isn't what it should be.

I didn't see any such implication in what he wrote. The way I read it was "Hey, we did this thing... we thought it was fun, and here's what we took from it."

I liked the post about open source punch to the face.

I thought it was nonsensical and not particularly funny because it was a lousy analogy. The boob thing was a confluence of two groups of people: a) people who wanted to touch others' body parts in a mildly transgressive but consensual fashion, and b) people who wanted their body parts touched in a mildly transgressive but consensual fashion.

I think it's disingenuous to write "Not for creating it, but for posting about it--because, as an even moderately careful reader will notice, he didn't create it."

A moderately careful reader will notice he repeatedly takes credit as part of the group who turned the moment of boob touching into a Project: "We talked about this. It was an Open-Source Project, making breasts available to select folks. (Like any good project, you need access control, because there are loutish men and women who just Don't Get It.) And we wanted a signal to let people know that they were okay with being asked politely, so we turned it into a project:

The Open-Source Boob Project.

At Penguicon, we had buttons to give away."

That's ownership. Moreover, Ferret admits as much. That he wasn't the girl who first said "touch my boobs" doesn't matter. He was part of those who turned it from a moment of mutual transgression in a temporary safe situation into a formal project with badges and rules. And it's the latter which got everyone worked up.

I'm not saying you're argument is totally invalid, but in making the case, be honest about what was actually written and the entire sequence of events.

Yeah, he was part of the group; however, I think the level of responsibility is much different when there is a vetting group present.

And it's the latter which got everyone worked up.

Not everyone. A lot of the objections I've seen stem from the activities that occurred before the buttons became involved, and those are the ones that I find a lot more convincing.

do you have a link?
What community was this in?

The original post is here, after the <hr>.

Well said!

I'd address this directly, but audacian and coffeeinhell have already got it covered.

I will ask, though, if you really don't have a problem with the sort of mindset that spawns opinions such as:

And your response seems to come from a personal mindset of, "My body is something so special to me that only people I have firmly vetted and talked to and invested in should be allowed to touch those areas." Which is fine. It's a way of saying, "I only want people I find attractive and/or nice to want me," which is in fact the prevalent societal attitude.

But that also involves an interview process, and the attitude that your body is a vested space that is, by nature, exclusive. That's fine. But that doesn't mean it's the only way to be, or that it's always healthy.

It gets to why I'm bothered by the OSBP thing and why the fact that people like you defend a self-absorbed repulsive man like him (and that he has such a wide readership in the first place).

Why would I have a problem with it? It's accurate. You might not like how it's expressed, but you can hardly disagree with its accuracy.