Quick response to this boob project thing

[sistermagpie]

I'm on my way out, but there was this Open Source Boob Touching thing, details here:

http://theferrett.livejournal.com/1087686.html

And clarification here:

http://theferrett.livejournal.com/1088382.html

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like the deal was a bunch of friends were sitting around and some guy started talking about how it would be so great if they could just ask to touch women's breasts when they felt like it, and some girl said he could touch hers and everybody got into it and now there are these buttons. If you wore one at the con it meant random guys could ask to touch your breasts and you could say yes or no.



Now, I'm not necessarily grossed out by somebody deciding that they're okay with people (men or women) asking that and saying yes to it, or some women or men deciding they're going to ask women to feel them up. But I really don't get what's supposed to be empowering about it except if you really like touching/being touched by strangers and couldn't find a way to make that happen. It's your body, do what you like.

If I had more time I'd probably go on and on, particularly about this sad but unsurprising line:

"By the end of the evening, women were coming up to us. "My breasts," they asked shyly, having heard about the project. "Are they... are they good enough to be touched?" And lo, we showed them how beautiful their bodies were without turning it into something tawdry."

Yeah, read that again. That's supposed to *not* be tawdry, the women hesitantly asking if their breasts were "good enough to be touched", and being granted self-esteem and shown how beautiful their bodies were. That's not tawdry?

Now, I'll just say upfront that I am highly suspicious of feminist rebellions that happen to coincide with a straight junior high boy's idea of the way the world should work. Didn't buy it when Demi Moore or Sharon Stone tried to sell it to me way back when either. (And I don't think they bought it either.)

The "pro" side of this argument that I've seen is that it's feminist because "the man" is the one telling me I should cover my breasts and only let certain people touch them. (Or really the sexual partner of my choosing and my babies if I had any) And also "Why shouldn't I be able to just ask to touch someone's breasts because I appreciate them when I don't want anything more?"

My answer to the first idea is probably contained in the part about the junior high boys. I appreciate not having to say no more often than I already have to do--I am comfortable with "no" being assumed in many situations, just as it is in so many social interactions. And that leads into my answer to the second response, which is that...You (meaning anyone) already do have the right to ask anybody this. You can go up to any woman on the street or in a bar or anywhere and ask to stroke her breast because you find them attractive. Why aren't you doing that now? There's nothing stopping you...except perhaps the suspicion that she wouldn't appreciate it? After all, that's the only negative thing you have to fear.

So imo isn't the gift here less to the touchee and more to the toucher who now has women reacting more the way he wishes she'd react. I doubt there are quite as many women sitting in a bar and thinking, "Damn, why doesn't one of these guys come up and ask to feel me up?" If she wanted it, she could probably ask for it and expect a more positive response than the guy on the other end. I just don't think the general understanding of breast-stroking as intimate act that is therefore restricted to intimate rather than casual interactions is so very restrictive. But the fact remains that there are no laws about not asking. This is more about being able to expect a different answer. Which is more about the reaction that women are expected to have being WRONG because it conflicts with the desire of the person who wants to touch them. Men can already ask; women can already say yes, with both parties being happy.

Even the first explanation up there about it being empowering and feminist says exactly that--if you don't like the idea of a stranger asking to stroke your breast, it's because society has made you think that or because you've made yourself a property of some man and aren't taking ownership of your own body. You might feel like that's what you're doing (since you're refusing someone's request to invade your space when you don't want them to) but really you'd be more empowered if you were more open to it off the bat. Or as someone else in the comment thread said, you give them the power to make the request of you, while you only have the power to refuse or grant it--rather than, say, just going up to someone you want to touch your breast and asking them.

Ack! Am totally late now!

Comments

[ptyx.livejournal.com]

I feel mostly like you about that...

"My breasts," they asked shyly, having heard about the project. "Are they... are they good enough to be touched?"

Ewww. That's tawdry and one of the least feminist things I can think of... I'm disgusted.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

And not seeming to know that it's a horrible horrible thing!

[moojja.livejournal.com]

Or as someone else in the comment thread said, you give them the power to make the request of you, while you only have the power to refuse or grant it--rather than, say, just going up to someone you want to touch your breast and asking them.

Thank you for sharing this quote. It sums up why I think the whole project is stupid.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yeah, even if it had nothing to do with breasts it's like wearing a pin that says ANNOY ME!

[dancesontrains.livejournal.com]

Agreed.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

:-)

[kaskait.livejournal.com]

There isn't an equivalent for women to feel or comment upon men's bodies?

No it only has to be the women giving up personal space. This project is bogus. A woman should be free to walk down the street without anyone wanting to hassle her sexually and not to be an object for men to use.

Just another day in the patriarchy.

And the comment about whether or not this young woman's breast are worth touching is a prime example of how society makes women hate their bodies and invests power in men to pass judgement over them.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

And of course even if it's reciprocal it doesn't have the same meaning, because this is one of those areas where the different genders have totally different experiences. Like the way women hate their bodies and give men the poewr to pass judgment on them.

[horridporrid.livejournal.com]

I'm probably going to come across as terribly old-fashioned, but the bad manners! I mean really! One shouldn't feel another person's body is an available playground. Would you approach someone on the street and ask for a sip of their coffee? Would you grab a roll off a stranger's table? I don't care how delicious that coffee or roll looks, there's personal boundaries here.

And this idea that personal boundaries are a cage? Really? Would it be handy to have to define your boundaries to everyone you meet? There's a reason societies settle on understood standards. Mainly it's so you can get on with your day without reinventing the wheel every time you leave your home.

theferrett is right. This sort of behavior is best kept within groups of people who know each other.

(Of course, I'm pretty big on personal boundaries. Hugs can bug me. Also, this smacks of those "Girls Gone Wild" videos, where this sort of "we're freeing you!" bull is used to exploit the ignorant or the damaged.)

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

There's a reason societies settle on understood standards. Mainly it's so you can get on with your day without reinventing the wheel every time you leave your home.

I know! I just don't think "I don't feel comfortable enough asking to touch boobs!" is enough of a problem for anybody to be worth that. Especially since, you know, there's actually a lot of men out there so comfortable with it they don't even feel the need to ask.

[oselle.livejournal.com]

Women are their own worst enemies. How does getting your tits pawed = female empowerment?

I've heard that back in the '70s, there was a guy with the well-deserved name of "Ugly George" who used to roam Times Square with a handheld camera asking random women if he could film them topless. He actually got some takers. They'd go off somewhere and he'd take a quick reel of them with their shirt off and then move on. It was the precursor to all the "Girls Gone Wild" shit. No doubt, most of those women were just closet exhibitionists who got a sexual thrill out of feeling like a secret porn star for a few minutes. But I don't doubt that some of these women felt they were "empowering" themselves. Yeah right. Letting some pervert film your tits is empowering.

I've heard strippers make the same argument about empowerment. It's all bullshit. You know what's empowering? Getting paid like a man. Being able to feel safe in any part of town, at any time of day. Being judged for your merit and your abilities, not for how young, thin or pretty you are. Will making our hooters available to strangers help us achieve those things? Call me a neurotic or repressed, but I don't think it will.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

That's why this made me remember when Demi Moore was doing Striptease and trying to do the "stripping is empowering!" Honestly girls, you can get some dignity being an accountant too, even if guys aren't whistling at you constantly.

I remember years ago talking to this young girl who had just started temping and was gleefully explaining how after growing up in a conservative place she was flirting with the men at the office where she worked. Because if it got her able to leave early, why not? She was all into the power of it. She was talking to me and another woman and we were both just like, "I would never do that. No. Once you tell people that's who you are, then that's who you are."

I don't have a lot, so I have to take comfort in knowing that everything I have I earned by doing my job well enough to hold it.

[marionros.livejournal.com]

This reminds me of a rant I was spewing today about a British tv show called 'How To Look Good Naked'. Now, we had this brilliant show called 'What Not To Wear' where two wonderfully mad but brilliant women showed women (and sometimes men) who applied for the show what kind of clothes would best suit them, threw out the old clothes, gave the candidate a thousand pounds and let them buy according to their Rules and this was all very empowering. People found that if they dressed in the things that *suited* their bodies, instead of following 'fashions', they would look fabulous no matter what kind of fat, thin, flat, flobby, whatever bodies they possessed.

The show 'How To Look Good Naked', however, not only shows the women (and there are only ever women on this show) what they should wear to feel good about themselves, but it also has them show themselves naked in public. At first they had to model naked for a professional photographer, but the latest series has them flaunting their nakedness in a shopwindow display.

Oh, for some dignity!!!

Look, I don't think that naked bodies are disgusting, quite the opposite. Nor do I think that naked bodies could not be dignified - just watch a documentary about Bushmen or Amazon Indians and you'd see how dignified a naked person can be. What bothers me about this show is the same thing that bothers you about the boob thing; it deludes women to think that they are somehow 'brave' and 'full of selfesteem' and 'empowered' if they fulfill a teenage boy's wet dream.
Of course, the presenter of this show is male. He's obviously bent like a paperclip, but still male. And he is fully clothed. There are scores of semi-naked women in the show (his 'naked army' - I kid you not! see: http://www.channel4.com/life/microsites/H/htlgn/) but the only male, Gok the presenter, is clothed. Now *who* exactly is empowered in this show? The needy woman who has to flaunt her nakedness or the self-assured, fully-dressed presenter?

Of course, Gok the presenter would never undress on tv, as sure as there would never be a male candidate. The public (largely women, strangely enough) has been conditioned enough to believe that a naked willy is silly and gross and obscene, but that naked boobs are somehow *empowering*.

Arrgh!!!

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Oh yeah, I know that show--both of them. I wonder what they would even do with a man--they don't wear bras!

And I do get the idea that people should feel comfortable naked by themselves. But there's not really any reason you have to feel comfortable being naked in public, or look to strangers on the street to make you feel that way.

The public (largely women, strangely enough) has been conditioned enough to believe that a naked willy is silly and gross and obscene, but that naked boobs are somehow *empowering*.

LOL! That sums it up, yeah. This idea seems based on this idea that the body is like art, but how come this part of the body is so special?

[violaswamp.livejournal.com]

ITA with everything you've said, especially about teenage male fantasies masquerading as feminism, and would only add the following:

(1) Surrendering your right to choose what men may and may not touch you is not empowering or liberating,

(2) Surrendering your social right not to be asked personal questions (which "may I touch your boobs?" IS) in public is not empowering or liberating.

(3) Setting up a situation where OTHER WOMEN lose their social right not to be asked personal questions in public, or their right not to be touched, is not only not empowering or liberating but is actually helping oppress other women, so congrats!

If it were going on in a private and clearly marked room, that would be one thing. But it's not, and they were dragging non-button-wearing women into it (like that "princess costume" girl who was "obviously" putting herself "on display," because you know if you dress attractively then you lose the right to be treated like a normal human).


"By the end of the evening, women were coming up to us. "My breasts," they asked shyly, having heard about the project. "Are they... are they good enough to be touched?" And lo, we showed them how beautiful their bodies were without turning it into something tawdry."

This part made me vomit. "Please, sir, are my breasts GOOD ENOUGH for you? Will you PLEASE touch them, if I grovel hard enough? Will you HONOR this unworthy one with your blessed touch?"

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

This part made me vomit. "Please, sir, are my breasts GOOD ENOUGH for you? Will you PLEASE touch them, if I grovel hard enough? Will you HONOR this unworthy one with your blessed touch?"

That quote just so stands out, doesn't it? Especially because it's supposed to be part of the progression showing everyone what a great idea it was, like this showed they were spreading the joy. Rather than pulling them up by thinking--omg, we've totally uncovered something awful!

It's like Kero says below--the more qualifications, the sleazier it sounds.

[ellid.livejournal.com]

I thought the whole thing was idiotic. And if someone had the nerve to do that to *me*, I'd call the cops. Utterly disgusting.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

It's like...if it had just stopped with "Me and my friends briefly didn't something harmless but idiotic" it would have been fine. Turning into into something good for the world was just...no.

[artystone.livejournal.com]

Kids today...

Every time I read something like this I hear, "Stupid kids!" in my head, then I think, "Stop being such an old lady!" Then I think, "Hell no, that's just stupid!"

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I'm sure there were people having these same ideas years ago, and you probably would have thought the same thing!

[marionros.livejournal.com]

I loved this Modest Proposal: http://misia.livejournal.com/1055120.html

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

LOL!

[fictualities.livejournal.com]

I'm with kaskait; this will be empowering when it's equally okay for women to wander up and grab men's asses, and when a guy -- preferably a hot 250 pounds of tanned and well-oiled muscle -- will approach a group of middle-aged women, his eyes cast down, his lower lip trembling, and say: "my ass . . . is it good enough to be touched?"

Until then? This is business as usual.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Hee! That makes me fondly remember that commercial--forget what it was for--that had ordinary men saying cliche women things about their bodies like, "Do these jeans make my butt look big?"

[kerosinkanister.livejournal.com]

I'm not going to judge the situation without being there (well, I still will but). I will say he seemed creepier and creepier the more "clarifications" provided.

And if you weren't a total lout - the women retained their right to say no, of course - they would push their chests out, and you would be allowed into the sanctity of it.

Just that phrasing, allowed into the sanctity of it. *shudders*

Empower women by fetishizing their breasts. He'll prob claim Heinlein sexually liberated women by writing them as vacuous leg-spreading barbies. I don't understand sf-dom's fucked up view of women, even decades later. And some of the misogyny is internalized, at least in HP.

I will say I'm glad I'll never be a woman at a convention where that ferret is at.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yes, the original idea of a bunch of people sitting around and they're friends--that was fine. But like you say, it's like the more he clarifies, the creepier it gets. The sanctity, the beauty of it, the mysticism of it all. My breast fetish is totally non-sexual! Some people do not need more reasons to resent others for making them refrain from boob-grabbing.

[the-bitter-word.livejournal.com]

I'm dealing with a multitude of things at once, so sorry for the scattered response...

My first reaction was, what would I get in return for this? It wouldn't be empowerment, that's for sure. It would be mixed social messages about my worth as a human being. If I could touch some sexualized part of a man's body and judge that it's good enough for me, well... tit for tat, so to speak?

But no. And now I think about it some more, what's the point? Why is it important to touch someone's generally off-limits anatomy on a whim? The only answer I can come up with is power, or maybe juvenile titillation. For better or worse, these are not things I associate with women. It could be a prelude to swinging, but it's certainly not up-front... so to speak.

I read the later clarification that this was a woman-initiated event (??). I kind-of doubt that. But my knee-jerk reaction is that some women walk over others to obtain an advantage with men. Look at reality TV. Still, I don't see the rewards so clearly in ferret-whatever's post. (And I hope fervently this is not the same ferret-something others have been referring to vis-a-vis a certain book.)

I find this kind of social pressure masquerading as empowerment very sad. It takes a rare individual to stand up to it, though, in the face of the usual insinuations. That's where leaving altogether comes in handy, if you can't grope back or just laugh in people's faces when you say no.

Bringing in another arena, this reminds me somewhat of Robin Morgan's statement on why she was voting for Clinton. It wasn't enough to convince me about Clinton, because... I'm not going to vote for someone based on his or her sex or gender. Reading Morgan's statement, however, being reminded how much hasn't changed, was painful. It's the same old double-bind for women.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

ITA--especially at having heard the "it was women's idea!" before and not really being moved by it. I get why the original group of women were happy to let their friends feel them up. I still don't buy that it does anything for me or women in general. I don't feel like I'm missing anything without a button.

[black-dog.livejournal.com]

*is confused* Aren't there clubs for this sort of thing?

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Not any more, baby! Nowadays it's all about the buttons!

[r-ganymede.livejournal.com]

Stuff like this is the reason the word "empowerment" has never meant what it's supposed to in my mind. For the longest time I only ever heard it mentioned in concert with stripping, pornography, "how pole dancing can save your marriage" and so on. More recently, I've also heard it in a work context (employee "empowerment" as a buzzword).

In any event, the words "empower"/ "empowerment"/ "empowering" have always meant someone trying to convince me and/or other people that it would be beneficial to us to do something horribly objectifying or otherwise harmful. The first time I ever heard someone use the phrase "empower women" to mean what it should ("give power to women") I was incredibly disoriented. This actually wasn't that long ago! I still don't trust anyone who says "empower women" without first finding out what they mean specifically, because nine times out of ten they do mean something like "convince them to let strange guys touch their boobs". I never use this specific phrase myself for just this reason.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Heh. I know, how does it always tend to work that way? I guess because it is a good thing in itself, and when women (or men) find things that genuinely do make them feel empowered it's great. But it's just so tempting to make the things that are empowering to the minority the thing that's pleasurable to the majority. And sometimes the two things go together. But it's just not surprising that this kind of female empowerment is more popular with guys than a lot of the other ones.

[nineveh-uk.livejournal.com]

You can go up to any woman on the street or in a bar or anywhere and ask to stroke her breast because you find them attractive. Why aren't you doing that now? There's nothing stopping you...except perhaps the suspicion that she wouldn't appreciate it? After all, that's the only negative thing you have to fear.

And indeed, many men take advantage of this opprtunity - schoolboys, builders, guys in clubs, random passers-by, employers, medical professionals, members of law enforcement agencies... Of course, often they don't get the reaction they want (except they do - because often they no the answer will be No, and it's the reaction that's 'fun'), and sometimes they get called perverts, but surely that's a small price to play for the glorious freedom of helping a woman experience the glory of her breasts in a totally respectful and non-sleazy way?

[go-back-chief.livejournal.com]

I was thinking just that. The only difference with this situation is that they were expecting a "yes".

[anehan]

I tried to read the original post but gave up. I just wanted to kick his balls (cf. The Modest Proposal linked to above).

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

LOL!

[bonstar.livejournal.com]

I agree with everything you've said, and most of what people have said in the comments above this one. I read a book called "Female Chauvinist Pigs" that was all about the new raunch culture in feminism, and how women feel the need to show off their bodies and sexuality in order to feel empowered. It's such a lot of crap. I wish I could make a more eloquent comment than that right now, but to be honest, I don't need to, cos you've already summed it up!

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Thanks! But yeah, that sounds like the vibe that I got. Because I don't think any woman who participated in this is some sort of whore or dirty or whatever. But I also just didn't feel like it was empowering. It seemed more like lots of times when women do stuff like that--nothing new, nothing so very terrible, but nothing very beneficial to women either.

[discordiana.livejournal.com]

I just read up on this. Creepy guys who think women are objects. There's no amount of posturing that makes this about freedom. Making another person into an object is the opposite of freedom. Making it explicit to a group of people who are still fighting against the immediate association of their body with a commodity, that this what their body is, it's the opposite of freedom. It's obstructing that process.

It's so disgusting, the whole sorry mess. I know people still think it's ok to treat women like objects, but what's even worst is the mindset that allows people to come up with "movements" that sell objectification as freedom, that when you tell them it's bullshit, people are so conveniently blind they call clear sight "hysteria" and "prudishness" and "man-hating", that women buy into this because this is the sort of thing we're still socialized into, getting validated by men. It's not new, but every time it makes me nauseous. And every time mainstream culture backs up the hip version of feminism that's all about gathering to men's desire I want to punch something. This isn't what should be heard, but it's not a surprise that it's what patriarchy chooses to broadcast in an attempt to seem progressive and cool. It's the way sexism survives.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

Yeah, it's the "it's a movement for YOUR sake!" that pushes it over the line. I think if he'd done a post about how he loved the con because a lot of girls let him feel them up it would never have been an issue.

[kaskait.livejournal.com]

This story just hit Feministing.com

Yes!

http://feministing.com/archives/009066.html#more

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

This will be good...

[t0ra-chan.livejournal.com]

Others have much better and eloquent responses to this, but here are my two cents anyway. There is now way this started out as anything as "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if we could just ask chicks if we could touch their boobs?" There is nothing empowering or feminist about having guys or girls ask to touch my breasts or any other part of my body. And no, people do not have the right to ask that, no matter how much they would respect my response. What even gives them the idea that this is ever right? Just because they wish it was? Also, the part you quoted is just so sad and disgusting at them same time. "Look at us empowering this poor girl so she too will finally love her body." *vomits*

Also, do these pro-button people ever consider what would happen if they deny somebody who asked them? If someone already has the idea that it's okay to just hit up strangers for some consensual groping, they also might not care what the actual response is or get really angry in a "You let that person touch you, but not me?" way.
And the red buttons? Why not just whip out a big red P for prude, because that's definitely how this will end up being taken for. There should be no red buttons to begin with, if people don't want to participate in this, they shouldn't have to wear anything to signal that.

[sistermagpie.livejournal.com]

I noticed that it was sort of built into the original idea as presented in the post that "if the guy was skeevy" they could say no. Which implied that of course witholding consent from a guy was saying that there was something seriously wrong with him.

I feel like this is some silly thing that a bunch of friends got into one day (feeilng all daring and silly) and just should have stayed between them. The minute the thesis of "this is empowering to women!" was presented, "shut up" was deserved by all.

[elanor-x.livejournal.com]

I read the discussion and commented here and there, but still haven't seen one point being addressed, which was the first to jump into my head after reading his posts.

He said that most touch was to women by women and I had a thought: "Why would a woman want to touch another woman's breasts, if she isn't a lesbian?" I touch my breasts every day (it's hard otherwise to put a bra on & off) and don't feel anything sexual about it. Have women's bodies become so sexualized that women are supposed to find them sexual too? Sorry, but WTF?

The only idea is that they gained confidence by seeing/touching different kinds of natural breasts, like galleries of different breasts, which can possibly really empower by showing that there are many different kinds of breasts and they are all OK. But I didn't see anywhere any proof of that. He described it as if women were all "Your breasts are so beautiful! May I have the pleasure of touching them?". It's understandable since this event's description is from man's pov, but I don't see any reason for women to participate in that.

I read somewhere that sexual organs are covered and considered, well, sexual in all societies. However, this isn't universally true about breasts. In certain African tribes women even don't wear bras. That's logical since breasts are made by nature for feeding infants, not for sex. Our culture, unfortunately, sexualized breasts to such extent that people are shocked (!) and even take steps against... mothers breastfeeding their babies in public. So, if you have a very young child - no long walks/going to a restaurant with him for you. (I read posts about it on feminist blogs.)

I wish we lived in a society, where most of human body wouldn't be considered sexual at all. Zero. Except sexual organs themselves. That way women wouldn't have to worry whether a shirt shows too much cleavage or a skirt is too short. That would be really liberating, not sexualizing our bodies even more! Unfortunately, I won't live to see it happen here, but everybody can have a dream, right?

[marionros.livejournal.com]

Doesn't work that way. Sorry. If we lived in a society where breasts were not considered sexual, but, say, ankles were, we'd walk around totally naked with ankle-bras on, and no doubt theferret would then propose the Open Source Ankle Project and go around wanting to grope ankles.

[elanor-x.livejournal.com]

Now, thanks to Rage Against the Man-chine, I have a clue why women would enjoy touching other women's breasts.
http://rageagainstthemanchine.com/2008/04/23/pornpart6/#comments

This series of her posts is really good, imo.

[marionros.livejournal.com]

Ooohhh, good link!