No. The context and circumstances as described by Ferrett were that an event that originated among a group of friends was then taken into the public sphere and made into a movement by members of that group of friends who asked strangers to participate, thereby sexualizing the public hallway space which con members, hotel guests, and hotel staff were or may have been passing through. I do not grant friendship or intimacy privileges to people attending the same con as I am, or working in the same hotel I am, any more than I grant friendship or intimacy privileges to people by walking down their street, or by working in the same office building they do.

Because male geeks feel welcomed and accepted by cons in a way they don't in the outside world does not in fact obligate female geeks to treat them like friends and family.

There were an awful lot of other people who clearly didn't find it creepy, men and women alike, based on the evidence of the original post's comment threads. It's all down to personal opinion. However, there are now people who are comparing Ferrett to a rapist based on this whole mess. He apparently now feels that he is protecting the public by not attending two conventions. You call that a reasonable position to put someone into for engaging in something like this with other consenting adults?

Poor Ferrett! He is so oppressed by his determination to protect women, whether it be from our denial of our true, breast-groped sexuality, or from our tragic misunderstanding of his nonthreatening male sexuality!

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I'm missing where you or anyone else could not say, "no," "no thank you," or just walk on and not watch if you didn't want to. I'm missing where you're allowing for personal responsibility, here.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Let me break this down for you:

When I am in my office workplace and my coworker touches my breast, I am perfectly capable of saying, "No, fuck you, I am filing a sexual harassment suit against you." When random strangers on the street call out, "Nice titties!" I am perfectly capable of glaring at them or cursing at them -- unless, you know, there's a gang of them, and I am afraid that they'll use the provocation to assault or rape me, which is not an unusual situation. In none of these cases am I denying my own personal responsibility for my sexuality. In all of these cases, men are assuming that *their* sexual pleasure is more important than my safety, comfort, or humanity.

By telling men they may not, by default, treat me as if I am there for their pleasure, sexual or otherwise, I am not infringing on their rights or denying their personal responsibility. I'm telling them they don't get to see me as meat, a teddy bear, a headless silicon model of boobies, or whatever the fuck else they think I am besides a human being. Expecting someone else to treat me like a human being and not ambulatory breasts is not a demand for a special privilege.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Now, in your breakdown, you mention that you could sue for sexual harrassment if a co-worker or especially a boss were to touch you in what a reasonable person would consider a sexual manner. Based on existing case law, you could probably sue if a co-worker even said, "Nice tits." Why is the behavior out on the street different there? Legally, because you're in a position where in the office, you're under compulsion to be there. In the street, you can walk away. There IS a difference based on circumstances.

Now, were this a rationally-run country or world, rapists would be slowly tortured to death. I am not kidding about that; we don't coddle rabid animals when they bite, so I don't know why rapists ought to be treated any differently.

Who however here has told you that you may not tell others not to treat you like a sex object? Where in any of this flap did someone tell you that you are required to give consent to being touched if asked?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

A lot guys say, "now, rape is bad, and rapists should suffer [insert horrible fate here]".

To which the response is, as it rightfully ought to be: WEV.

Because, in this world (and if you're US, like me, this country) where DESPITE THE EXISTENCE OF A VIDEOTAPE CLEARLY SHOWING A GANG RAPE TAKING PLACE, rapists can go completely free, lip service to the badness of rape is so far short of a good enough reply that it's insulting in and of itself.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

To which the response is: "I wasn't on that jury."

You can take anything you like as an insult. That is something that one could take from this whole Great LJ Boob-Out of '08, in fact, that perceptions differ wildly. As I said, in an intelligently-run world, rapists would be executed. That many or even most of them are not is not an indictment of the sentiment, nor does it mean that, given the opportunity in government, I would not apply capital punishment to rapists. It is perhaps an indictment of the criminal justice system as it currently stands, but that's not the topic at hand.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Wow, way to miss the point.

It doesn't actually matter that you, one singular, specific male, would have voted to convict rather than acquit on that case. What matters is that the men (and, presumably, women) who were actually on the jury did not. What matters is that, as society stands now, that acquittal is not only possible, it is a not unexpected outcome. As a woman, I spend my entire life aware that these things not only could but are extremely likely to happen to me. Telling me that, when some guy I wouldn't know from adam propositions me on the street, I'm free to just ignore him and walk away, trivializes and dismisses the very real fear that act causes me.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Uh, no. The situation on the street is different because I CHOOSE NOT TO ENGAGE FOR MY OWN PHYSICAL SAFETY.

There are plenty of women who have been trying to explain male privilege and the omnipresence of harassment for women in many, many, many threads in this very LJ. If you're interested in education, you can read them. I don't have time to engage with someone who doesn't see what's wrong with a man on the street saying "Nice tits" to a strange woman and who consistently places the onus on the women to react and not the man to refrain from being an asshole. I give up on you and your sense of entitlement.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Lady, you don't know me, my background, or what I believe in or support. Your bias makes you see entitlement arguments where they don't exist, and makes you assume that just because I disagree with you that I am uneducated. You show me one place where I've said that anyone is entitled to the right to treat any other human being like anything less than a human being and I'll apologize. It hasn't happened, because I don't believe that for a second, but you've got your crusader helm on and thus can only see a narrow field of battle. Just like in life, you've every right to walk away from a situation you don't want to be in, and more power to you. Personally, I'd suggest you take a long look in a mirror to see the person who is making you think that everyone who disagrees is out to get you.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Well said.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I don't know you from Adam, but I sure as fuck can read.

If you don't believe that anyone is entitled to treat others as less than a human being, why are you defending the practice of yelling "nice tits!" at random women on the street?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

There are two parts to reading: literacy and comprehension. Look back over what I said. I do not defend the practice of catcalling at women on the street. I do not defend anyone who sexually harasses anyone else in the workplace. My point was that there is a legal difference between the two based on the context of environment. Your recourse on the street is to walk away. In the workplace, it's different because you're required to be there as a condition of employment. You can't necessarily simply walk away from someone in the workplace as a reasonable person could do from someone on the street.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

coffeeandink (paraphrased): This is wrong because it sexualizes a public space.
twfarlan (direct quote): I'm missing where you or anyone else could not say, "no," "no thank you," or just walk on and not watch if you didn't want to.

No, you don't literally say "why yes it is perfectly fine to catcall!". You just responded to an argument about why catcalling is wrong with "hey, if you don't like it, you can always keep walking".

But you're right, you're not defending street harassers. You're defending hotel hallway harassers with an argument that you later apply to street harassment. I apologize for misreading you.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Thank you. Well-said.

I'm really fed up with how many men (and women) in this entire discussion absolutely refuse to grasp the sexual politics of the real world that make this "project" a shitty idea, and how they keep insisting on putting the "personal responsibility" on women to say no — rather than on men to learn some social skills and some respect for boundaries. The street-catcalling analogy is absolutely perfect.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

The guy with the truck should have been executed. He committed murder, so he forfeit his life. That seems simple, to me.

I agree that the public sphere ought not to be a place where you can have unwanted, unwarranted aggressive behavior directed at you. The act of catcalling is aggressive, no question, and it is bullying, dehumanizing behavior. I apologize if I have not been clear about this: I do not condone or defend that nonsense, nor do I think that anyone has a right to treat anyone else in anything but a respectful way... directly.

Let me clarify: when a man catcalls at a woman, she is not a passer-by or onlooker. He has directly involved her against her consent and in a very disrespectful manner. He has indeed objectified her, which I find unacceptable. There is no attempt to humanize the contact by addressing the woman like a person who has the right to choose to be involved or not in the exchange. In the original post, I'm not seeing harassment for this reason; the described behaviors involved asking politely and immediately accepting "no" as an answer. Anything else, I'd agree, would be intolerable and harassing. I also understand that this is a matter of opinion, where that line should be drawn.

It isn't an easy question, I do agree. I also agree that our preconceptions and prejudices need to be constantly challenged. It's a painful process, and it doesn't always give us the results we think we want.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I'd love for the expected response for someone harassing you is "No, fuck you", but people get beat up/shot for that, and even if it didn't turn into violence, that person doesn't want to hear me say why I'm offended. What the hell are my choices besides 'do nothing'? "Ignore it an it will go away" is as useless advice on the playground as it is here. Where the hell can I do anything?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I'd love for things like this to not even be an issue, but they are. People are rude and disrespectful in part, I think, because they are ignorant of possible consequences. Shooting a person for verbal harassment is considered an overreaction, and there's no way to have a bodyguard around for every individual so that some jerk-off catcalling doesn't decide to lay his filthy hands on a woman who shouldn't have to put up with his nonsense in the first place.

I don't have a solution to offer that doesn't involve going back to a universally-armed society. It would be a very messy civilization if every rude idiot was gunned down as justifiable homicide due to public disrespect... or at least, it'd be messy for a generation or so. I agree that "ignore it and it will go away" doesn't work on the playground, and that there are a lot of authority figures who don't respond to playground bullying in any rational way. A kid can't ignore someone punching him, but if you fight back, you're in as much trouble because defending yourself is participating and violates zero tolerance rules on violence. (sighs, shrugs) Like I said, I don't have a good answer. I cannot however tell you that it is okay to tell consenting adults what they can and cannot do for fear of potentially causing an onlooker to be offended. I can't see how that is rational, either.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

I cannot however tell you that it is okay to tell consenting adults what they can and cannot do for fear of potentially causing an onlooker to be offended. I can't see how that is rational, either.

So, no limits whatsoever on public behavior, so long as those directly involved (excluding the consent of onlookers/potential onlookers/passersby as irrelevant, as you do) consent, and the actions would not be illegal in a private setting?

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

If the potential passers-by would be limited to adults or those above the age of majority, yes.

Now, before you start crowing in victory, yes, I am well aware that this would still mean that the OSBP would have violated what I just said there because there were potentially kids in the hallways at Penguicon. I won't argue that parents should have the right to address that with their children at the time of their choosing. This is one of the issues I DID have with the situation as described by Ferrett. I wouldn't have chosen to participate in the Project, nor would I have stayed to observe it in action; I would have exercised my option to walk away. Whether I would participate does not affect whether I would defend the principle at stake, nor does it stop me from saying that the circumstances still didn't justify the behavior.

Still, you did call correctly that I consider the consent of potential onlookers (outside of the one stipulated circumstance of being at or above the age of majority) to be irrelevant. We are not guaranteed the right to freedom from offense in the public sphere. If we were, I'd never have to listen to another damned street preacher or suffer the knock on my door from a Jehovah's Witness ever again.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)

Nobody has a really good answer besides 'Keep talking'. And things are changing; there are still things I'd like to redress, but I think that sexism in the dominant culture has gotten a lot more subtle than it used to be. Maybe it's going underground, or maybe people are no longer being raised to think that way as often as they were. (I'm also thinking about the rates of approval/disapproval for gay marriage that show a divide in the issue around age 30).

Like I said, I think I can understand the idea of doing this among your friends where you've mitigated most of the power discrepancies. But Ferrett's a little too optimistic to think that, by taking this public, you'll expand your friendship circle rather than get your boobs taken advantage of.

(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)