File Under: Stupidest Thing I’ve Read This Year
Jeff VanderMeer • April 21st, 2008 @ 10:49 pm • Uncategorized
The anti-Wiscon? Free-love rampage? Empowering boob-athon? Maybe it is the end of the world, after all.
Jeff
Jeff VanderMeer
Ecstatic Days 
proudly runs on WordPress.
Design ©2007 by Luís Rodrigues. Header art ©2007 by Scott Eagle.
April 21, 2008 at 11:33 pm
“We knew we couldn’t go further, but being allowed inside this area of restricted access with nothing more than a question was somehow amazing.”
Aren’t they just special snowflakes? I’ve always found the hippie free love facet of science fiction fandom to be particularly amusing. There’s probably an anthropological paper in there for someone.
April 22, 2008 at 12:12 am
It’s things like this that make me shy away from considering going to virtually all conventions. People like this seem so emotionally stunted that it’s just baffling to me.
April 22, 2008 at 12:33 am
Strangers asking to touch my breasts without taking me out on a few dates first will be subject to swift pain.
April 22, 2008 at 12:41 am
I read the post and followed the link and felt, as I often do, like an alien. I’m not sure why this is stupid, or, if it is, why it’s worth singling out among all the millions of stupid things on the internet.
Then I read the comments, and I felt like an alien who’d been judged by a guy named Larry.
April 22, 2008 at 2:54 am
Okay, I’m curious,…
Did any of the guys offer their *down-there* man-bits for similar equal-time exploration,
to members of both sexes?
If so, that’s cool. If not, they’re hypocrites.
April 22, 2008 at 4:40 am
Radish, they said a lot of the guys wore the green buttons indicating they were open for exploration, but it was generally decided that man-bits were off limits as that might prove a little *too* titillating, no pun intended.
April 22, 2008 at 7:34 am
One wonders what Joyce Carol Oates’ reaction would be to the same question from, say, Louise Erdrich, Jonathan Franzen, and John Irving at Book Expo America. F/SF is not mainstream, and I love it for many reasons, but it’s got some bizarre traits for someone trying to break into the profession. Random “breast appreciation” does not occur en masse at the American Library Association’s conventions, though some small group fondling may occur. I look forward to attending my first con (this weekend, no less) with great interest.
April 22, 2008 at 8:03 am
“And my Lord, I’d had experience in breasts in my time”
Riiiiight.
Sure you have, we definitely believe you. Let me guess: she was from Canada and you met her on a family vacation and no one here knows her.
April 22, 2008 at 9:00 am
Very disturbing, judging from my very limited con experience. I can’t get rid of the idea of a pudgy Duff-Man asking to feel up any female within close proximity.
I’ve never been happier that my wife couldn’t bring herself to nerd it up with me on my Con-weekend.
April 22, 2008 at 9:45 am
Like to see them try that one at a Xena convention …
April 22, 2008 at 10:34 am
Makes the guy in the skin-tight green lycra suit seem positive normal…
My favorite I think was:
“I wish this was the kind of world where say, ‘Wow, I’d like to touch your breasts,’ and people would understand that it’s not a way of reducing you to a set of nipples and ignoring the rest of you, but rather a way of saying that I may not yet know your mind, but your body is beautiful.”
Oh, so you’re talking about a world where people simply redefine objectifying women.
April 22, 2008 at 10:37 am
I can understand disagreeing with or being disappointed with the concept, but do we have to be dismissive and insulting? Do we have to pick from the basket of the worst stereotypes about geeks in order to make our points?
Jake: The guy is married.
Lane: Read the post more closely. After the initial flurry of questions (which the poster agrees were risky, and put a stop to once the initial sillies wore off) he says the button-wearing was completely opt-in. As far as I can tell, the only person not involved in the original conversation to be asked that question was a woman asked by a woman.
Radish: The boys wore the buttons too, and offered their asses for groping, if anyone was interested.
April 22, 2008 at 11:13 am
True, the post explains that my scenario would not have occurred, but, even with that knowledge, I still can’t purge from my brain the scene of Duff-Man asking to feel up my wife . So regardless of the writer’s intention, he still makes me want to punch Duff-Man in the face.
Also, while I don’t want to perpetuate typical internet message board inanity and pettiness, I think being dismissive is totally acceptable in this instance. I agree insulting is not the way to be, but unfortunately its an unavoidable consequence of the interweb. And Duff-Man totally had it coming.
April 22, 2008 at 11:16 am
I think you mean Comic-Book Guy. Duff-Man is a jock.
April 22, 2008 at 11:29 am
No, I’m thinking of Duff-Man. That “Oh yeah!” after he cops a feel is particularly deserving of a punch in the face.
Personally, I think Comic Book Guy might be a little too meta a costume for a con.
April 22, 2008 at 11:40 am
I just feel like there must be a healthier way for these people to work out their self-esteem and body-image problems…
April 22, 2008 at 11:41 am
Heh. Okay, I’ll grant you that that mental image is indeed a tough one to shake off. ;)
April 22, 2008 at 11:56 am
So did I read this correctly…straight guys wearing the relevant button are happy to have their asses felt by anyone? Including other guys? Or does the drawbridge get pulled up when homosexuality rears its much-maligned head? I think we should be told. And yes, I noticed the comment from the woman about a lesbian friend. In my experience straight women are much happier dallying with gay women now and then than men ever are in a similar situation.
April 22, 2008 at 1:56 pm
John:
I wasn’t there, but based on my experience with cons, I expect guys groping guys’ butts was part of the festivities. I expect you could ask the poster. There’s a lot of male-male flirting (and fondling and hugging and smooching), serious or not, at conventions.
April 22, 2008 at 1:56 pm
I’m going to get an one of those South American ancient civilization foreheads if I don’t stop beating my head against the desk to keep the stupid out.
Sure, also some nudists don’t understand why we all wear clothes most of the day. And I’m not sure I’d equate ass touching with boob touching. In an adult society that is self-selecting and segregating, this behavior could work. In the structure of a larger convention of people, I think it is a very bad idea (pressure to conform, issues of objectification, etc). This is exactly what “Hostile (Work) Environment” means, just saying.
April 22, 2008 at 2:29 pm
jere7my Says: “he says the button-wearing was completely opt-in.”
This is precisely the aspect of it that most baffles and, frankly, infuriates me. So it’s “opt-in”. The implication seems to be, well, YEAH, all the cool kids are opting in, and y’all are just - well - insert dismissive insult of choice here but I suspect that the one in common circulation would be “frigid bitch” - for NOT opting in. I mean, how could you possibly not think that someone waltzing up to you and saying “your breasts are beautiful” entitles that person to groping privileges?
You want to do it, you want to have it done unto you, fine, it’s your prerogative. But anyone who attempts this with me at a convention will get an answer which basically conveys the information that yes, my breasts may be fondled, but only if you want your nuts rearranged in a considerably less delicate fashion.
And frankly I resent being instantly labelled as uncool because I choose not to opt in to what should never have been suggested in the first place.
It actually begs the question - if Harlan Ellison had told Connie WIllis that her breasts were beautiful before the Big Grope would that have made it okay…?
April 22, 2008 at 2:36 pm
I guess my main reaction was, “What? Are we all 13?” And my other reaction was that sexism has become so pervasive in our society that empowerment has degenerated from what I remember it being. I also find it hard to believe that the men involved didn’t see the women involved as anything other than pieces of meat *after* the gropings, if not before.
JV
April 22, 2008 at 3:54 pm
Alma:
Elsewhere, someone says that there were about 40 button-wearers in a con of a thousand. Again, I wasn’t there, but the impression I got from the thread (and I did see your point raised there) was that those who didn’t opt in were not uncool; they were just, well, not opting in. There are a lot of things that go on at cons, and everybody selects some subset to participate in.
Jeff:
I used to go to ConFusion, and it seemed like a pretty frisky and sex-positive con — lots of people being led around on leashes after hours, skinnydipping in the pool, seminude photo shoots, that sort of thing. It’s a very Rocky Horror crowd, if that makes sense. I also got the impression that just about everybody there knows everybody else, since it’s the midwest and there aren’t a lot of other con options; the lack of names in the original post was for reasons of privacy, not ignorance. It’s possible (or probable) that there were some stunted dumbasses there who didn’t look past the boobs to the person, but I don’t think that a semi-public play party necessarily leads to objectification. Personally, I’d be too mortified to ask anybody with a green button if I could grope them, but it fits with my perception of the vibe, or one stand of the vibe, at ConFusion and Arisia and other cons of that ilk.
April 22, 2008 at 4:14 pm
I think Nick M. has the best comments about it all:
http://nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com/1094778.html
And secondly Scalzi:
http://scalzi.com/whatever/?p=650
But mostly, again, it just struck me as childish and also reinforcing–in the post’s use of language, if not in the actual event (I wasn’t there)–sexism. I could also say, “and I’m no prude,” but being a prude or not being a prude isn’t the issue.
JV
April 22, 2008 at 5:19 pm
I was also a little surprised to see Cat Valente in the now-deleted comments of ferret’s post seemingly defending the whole thing.
JV
April 22, 2008 at 7:11 pm
I can whole-heartedly get behind Scalzi’s comments (thanks for the link!), and agree with Jeff that the wording of the post was a little off-putting.
If someone can explain to me what a South American ancient civilization forehead is, I’m good here.
April 22, 2008 at 7:16 pm
I’m glad to have your POV here, too, Jere7my.
April 22, 2008 at 8:27 pm
Jere7my, some ancient S. American cultures would strap slats to their children’s heads (of nobles) to flatten them out and make the them swoop backwards (similar to the neck loops to extend the neckline, ear hoops, etc). It basically means that I’m going to get a flat forehead from beating my head against the desk.
Again, for consenting adults in a self-segregated community, I have no issues. I somewhat (with reservations) agree that we shouldn’t make women’s breasts the objectified sexual images they are in our culture (I don’t think this is the way to change that, though). In the greater culture, or a convention that isn’t specifically centered around this issue, or based from this movement, the reasons why touching a women’s breasts, that the proponents are saying it’s so liberating to get away from, pretty much quash having this being in the open.
First disclaimer, IANAL, I don’t play one on TV. Laws might have changed (I doubt it).
Having worked in Management Consulting in the early 90s, I was around in business when the whole sexual harassment “awakening” happened. To say we attended many mandatory seminars regarding this would be an understatement (everybody was required). So lets make a little test comparison here.
Is there any business conducted at Conventions? Well, of course the answer is yes. There are sales, there is networking, there are connections and introductions made. That right there puts this issue in a unique light.
Okay, so lets make a business environment connections. And here, in all these examples, I am discussing no-coerced, fully consensual relationships (this is also for medium to larger business, family businesses have their own issues, anything coerced, no matter how minor, is right out). There is normally a small amount of flirting in any situation with extended contact between sexes in most business environments. Friendships are formed, people joke about sex. Demeaning jokes, joke that deride one sex, promote “abusive” relationships, etc are still not acceptable. If there is some dating in between the workers, that’s acceptable. At a certain point if enough people are dating, it becomes a problem (as in the environment promotes dating between employees, just to be clear, cheating/adultery, swapping, sharing, etc are right out, and an acceptable level would need to be defined by a court, for argument’s sake lets say much less than 10%)). However, they can’t be in the same power structure, and they need to be of the same strata in the management flow charts. If the two report up the same chain, one needs to be transfered. If one has control/management supervision/is in a position to affect promotion or discipline, etc, that relationship must end by one of them leaving or ending the relationship. If one is a direct supervisor of the other, that (in most businesses) is grounds for immediate dismissal (often of both).
Understand that if there is enough joking, dating, flirting, etc between the employees, that an employee who isn’t even concerned, part of that reporting structure, never even talked to by the people in that reporting structure, that employee can file suit as a “Hostile Work Environment.” They don’t have to be immediately involved, passed over, rejected, made fun of or anything like that and they can still bring suit.
I’ve attended the past two Confusions and I can confirm that there is an open attitude about sex… at certain times, in certain places and circumstances. As I remember (and I’ve recycled the programs, sorry) there are also published guidelines for certain groups attending the Con regarding things from weapons to contacts outside of their group.
What follows is my personal opinion and should not be taken as a reflection on my opinion of the group’s goals.
If I was on a Con’s Staff (of which I’m not), and this came up, my first question would be, “Is this only to be part of private room party?” If the answer was “no,” I would bring it up for a vote and urge members to vote it down (if “yes” I would have more questions). If I was unsuccessful, I would immediately resign and untangle myself financially from the con. Because, IMHO, a suit will be coming. It may be that year, it may be four years down, but it’ll happen. It’ll be messy. It’ll be costly.
Again, nobody will have done anything they consider “wrong.” Nobody will have crossed over in the open-mouth-breathing groping of each other. Nobody will have violated the the “opt-in” or “asking first” protocol.
And yet the suit will come. They will win. Heck, “Your honor, here’s their protocol and buttons.”
I can understand that most businesses have never been through this training so there is now a generation that hasn’t learned these things, yet.
April 22, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Steve–I totally agree.
Also, I like this response: http://rhienelleth.livejournal.com/408763.html
April 23, 2008 at 7:13 am
The more I think about it, the more angry I become about the whole deal. Of course, having worked quite a few years with people who have been physically, emotionally, and sexually abused plays a huge role in shaping that anger, but the entire asking a stranger to touch them is just creepy. Sure, many don’t have the boundary issues that I or many others have, but as many others have said here and elsewhere, this button/touching thing doesn’t reduce sexual objectification, it certainly doesn’t reduce (and rather seems to increase) the notion that a woman’s body parts are more sexualized than a man’s, and the very impersonal nature of it just makes the whole thing so offputting.
And now I feel like I’ve wasted another few minutes of my life even having to write out a defense of a negative reaction to that shit.
April 23, 2008 at 1:11 pm
I think oursin has a very sensible analysis:
http://oursin.livejournal.com/839272.html
Briefly, something can be quite genuinely liberating in context, but sketchy and threatening when taken out of context & promoted as a norm.
April 23, 2008 at 9:57 pm
This guy got accepted to Clarion this summer.
And I bet the group has at least one feminist.
Man, I would like to be a fly on the wall there.
April 24, 2008 at 1:30 am
What would have been the ferret guy’s stand on all this if he had a teenaged daughter?
April 24, 2008 at 7:12 pm
[...] too, posted some knee-jerks to this, ah, person’s Open Source [yes, thanks for hijacking that term and bastardising it in [...]