I don't get it.
Apr. 24th, 2008 08:53 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
I don't get all the fuss about the 'Open Source Boob Project' business.
Don't get me wrong, I agree that it's skeezy and obnoxious and all. I just don't get why Some Guy On LJ being skeezy at a con is suddenly provoking such a flurry of posting, because my understanding is that there are lots of skeezy people on LJ - quite a few of whom go to cons - and generally it doesn't attract anywhere near this level of attention. If it was Orson Scott Card or somebody else famous (or even Brendan Nelson) I could understand, but not this.
(I think what this boils down to is that a lot of people seem to view the originator of the concept as a Somebody, and I've never figured out what makes him any more noteworthy than all the other folk on LJ who have opinions and aren't afraid to post them. Therefore I just write him off under the "lots of people are idiots" umbrella category.)
Don't get me wrong, I agree that it's skeezy and obnoxious and all. I just don't get why Some Guy On LJ being skeezy at a con is suddenly provoking such a flurry of posting, because my understanding is that there are lots of skeezy people on LJ - quite a few of whom go to cons - and generally it doesn't attract anywhere near this level of attention. If it was Orson Scott Card or somebody else famous (or even Brendan Nelson) I could understand, but not this.
(I think what this boils down to is that a lot of people seem to view the originator of the concept as a Somebody, and I've never figured out what makes him any more noteworthy than all the other folk on LJ who have opinions and aren't afraid to post them. Therefore I just write him off under the "lots of people are idiots" umbrella category.)
no subject
Date: 2008-04-24 05:26 am (UTC)Still and all, I do find your assertion that people who don't like to be touched as "passive aggressive" is rather unfair. Some of us carry baggage, and we deal with it as best we can. I've dealt with mine, and have come to the point where I can accept that some folks are willing to negotiate such an exchange. That's them, not me. And while that can be perceived as prudish, it's a long way from where I used to be. I have a RIGHT not to be subjected to it in a public space.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-24 05:27 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-24 05:41 am (UTC)No. I'm not.
It's a matter of context. If I want to see dominance and submission games I'll go to an SM/BD club. I don't want to see it at an SF/F con.
And I don't want people like you at them because of that very reason; You're going to make me uncomfortable. You're a trap I won't walk into.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-24 08:17 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-24 10:26 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2008-04-24 02:51 pm (UTC)Many geek conventions have a strong perviness element. Men are walking around in tiny French Maid dresses. Women are walking around wearing nothing but liquid latex or tape. Girls and boys are dragging each other on leashes. Furries are wearing their suits. By a lot of standards this is already sexual behavior.
no subject
Date: 2008-04-25 12:12 pm (UTC)But if there is going to be sexual behaviour, I'd rather be prepared for it. I attended a poly conference which happened to have no overt sexual behaviour, but it would have been fine if there were (up to a point). I would simply have gone elsewhere if something had started up that I wasn't willing to be a party to.
That was something I was prepared for, not a bunch of geeks deciding something amongst themselves, and then perhaps attempting to normalise that behaviour in that context - it can be very difficult for some people to assert themselves against certain kinds of peer pressure (although I'd agree that it's useful if people do learn to grow a pair and tell the breast-feelers to fuck off and find a room).