A debate in which I am almost completely neutral (now there's a novelty)...

[avevale_intelligencer]

...or rather, torn between passionately agreeing with both sides, which I suppose counts as neutral. Both posters have given their permission for me to link to their posts.

On one side, we have Eleri.

On the other, we have Mamadeb.

Civilised debate is encouraged. I'd really like to see what the consensus of my flist is on this. If there is one.

EDIT: and the consensus, if there is one, appears to be HELL NO. With a side order of Not This Century. Which is entirely understandable, I suppose, given the past and present nature of my technical gender (which I loathe and repudiate)...but I join with Eleri in being rather sad that we're still so far from a world where even a suggestion like this wouldn't be seen as an attempt at sexual predation or colonisation.

I believe a change will happen. If we survive at all. But I'm guessing none of us now alive will see it. Which is sad.

EDIT AGAIN: and I want to make it clear that I am fully aware that some people regard touch as invasive, and I will never under any circumstances knowingly infringe their boundaries, however I might feel about it myself.

Comments

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

I've read both pieces. It seems that the catch is the phrase used in Eleri's: "without shame, threat, or implied demand."

Mamadeb IMO correctly points out that there is *no* *way* such a request can possibly come across without threat or implied demand to most women raised in this culture (or, I add from myself, darn near any other culture the human race has yet produced). So would it be great if it were possible to make such a request with no pressure or demand implied? Sure. *Can* it be done with no pressure or demand implied? I don't think so, and I don't think we can make fandom a culture in which it becomes possible -- the people at a convention were still raised in the real world, after all. In the interests of keeping a reasonable level of safe space, better not to go anywhere near that idea unless and until the entire society turns to safe space for it, which I don't expect anywhere in the next millennium.

[eleri.livejournal.com]

See, I actually *agree* that, sadly, many women have been raised to see such a thing as a threat. So what do we do? Keep on agreeing that such a thing must be a threat, or start letting there be room for another frame of mind? That is why something like this is SO important, so that the shift can start to be made. It's allowing women who DON'T see it as a threat to say so openly. It's allowing people who don't see it as a threat to ask openly.

Safe space doesn't make itself, it has to be built, bit by bit, by people who are willing to make a change.

[eleri.livejournal.com]

While I'm thinking about it, I'd like to clarify why I find this so important: People are afraid of touching bodies. We even teach our kids not to hug at school anymore, so it can't be construed as sexual. We're becoming tactile eunuchs.

Male and female bodies can, and should, be touched consentualy without it being anything but a sign of appreciation, honor and respect. It's not just coping a feel, or trying to get into someone's pants. It's admiration for a beautiful work of art. How many people lean in closer to get a good look at a painting? How many people have run their fingers revrently along a marble statue?

So why can't people feel the same way about other people's bodies? That they can be touched without it conveying any other privliges.

What people are missing in this, is that those little green 'yes you can' buttons aren't saying "YES! Walk right up and grab my boobs without even an introduction!"... they are saying "Yes, it is OK for you to ASK me if you can touch my boobs (or ass, or whatever part you've decided is 'open source'), and I reserve the right to say no." It's helping to remove a layer of fear and shame that has wrapped us up.

The act of asking should not be a crime, should not be assumed a threat. The act of giving consent to be asked should not be labeled as skanky or slutty. When we start saying that to even ask is wrong, we cross into some very sad territory, where even getting to the point of consent is out of bounds.

[mamadeb.livejournal.com]

I agree and disagree here. I do think that there should be some touch that is non-sexualized, but that needs to be negotiated between the parties *and* culture and background must be considered. Touch does not need to be sexual to be disturbing. And it does not need to be sexual to feel good.

My husband and I have never sat down and negotiated this ourselves, but after nearly two decades, we know what kinds of touch are affectionate, and what kinds are sexual, and we also are able to tell the other if there was a miscue without problems - "Please do" and "please don't" work for us.

I'm an Orthodox Jew. While I do NOT perceive it as sexual, I do not want to be touched by a non-related man not my husband, outside of a very few very dear friends. On the other hand, I have no problems with kisses from women I barely know, and I think that skin-hunger is a very real thing.

And I do think that leaving some touching as sexual is a good thing. I like that having certain parts of my body touched is arousing. I wouldn't want to lose that - perhaps that's selfish of me.

If the body touching thing occurred in a private space, then maybe, over time, it might change things slowly. But right now, until we live in a world where a woman's no means "no", and when she feels free to refuse something as innocuous as a sip of soda or a non-sexual touch, women are going to perceive this question as a threat.

It's not the women who need to change to make this possible.

[siderea]

The act of asking should not be a crime [...] When we start saying that to even ask is wrong, we cross into some very sad territory, where even getting to the point of consent is out of bounds.

Incorrect. Asking was never forbidden in general and getting to the point of consent was never out of bounds. It is contextualized, such that under some circumstances it is forbidden to ask and in other circumstances it is permitted. What the OSBP tried to do is remove the contingency of context and make it permitted in all circumstances.

Every spam you receive asks you something -- that's what spam is, solicitation for your attention and money. Does that make plain why asking, itself, is sometimes an imposition and therefore typically regulated by mores? And not just asking for touch or other sexual access: asking for help, asking for money, and asking for favors are all typically mediated by social rules across human societies.

[singlemaltsilk.livejournal.com]

"It's admiration for a beautiful work of art. How many people lean in closer to get a good look at a painting? How many people have run their fingers revrently along a marble statue?"

Apples and onions. I am not a thing, not an objet d'art. For me, touch is an intimacy in and of itself and, as such, a privilege reserved for intimates. I have absolutely no problem whatsoever with the buttons or those who choose to wear them, but making 'it's ok to ask' the default setting would require me, and others like me, to enter into unappealing exchanges with virtual strangers. This is not about fear, or shame, and I resent the implication that it reflects some inherent dysfunction on my part.
No, thank you.

[cleverthylacine]

The problem I see is that the attitude you have toward the human body (as a piece of art) isn't normative and I'm getting the sense that you feel it should be. I'm not a statue. When someone's hand is on my boob I can't not feel it. That's not a degree of intimacy I want to have with a stranger and it feels strangely dissociated to me to hear people say they regard it as being the same as touching a statue.

I personally don't want strangers to get in my personal space. I especially don't want them touching me THERE. A painting or a marble statue doesn't feel anything when you touch it (although there actually are good reasons why you shouldn't touch certain works of art, from a conservationist standpoint).

My breasts are nice and I'm not unhappy that other people think so, but I still don't want anyone that I'm not in a committed relationship with to touch them unless they're a doctor and checking them out for my health. If I were going to have kids, it would be OK for them to touch my breasts, for obvious reasons, but I can't and I'm not. I don't feel this way because I'm scared to be touched or ashamed of my breasts. I feel that way because I don't want to share my secondary sexual characteristics with people I don't love, and I have to say, a lot of the pro-OSBP comments make me feel as though people think there's something wrong with me just for feeling that way.

(I am scared by people who are so oblivious to social norms that they'd ask such a question, but that's because I don't know what ELSE they might do, if they'd ask such a question without thinking of how I might feel or how it would look. From you it wouldn't scare me because I know where you're coming from even though I disagree, but a 300 pound six-foot man I don't know from LJ or anywhere else? Yeah scary--I have no idea how he'll react if I say no, and I don't wanna find out.)

[siderea]

I agree, on the face of it, with both of them.

Eleri is exactly right about how touch needs to be rehabilitated in our culture and about the centrality of consent.

Mamadeb is exactly right about how pernicious this is set loose in Fandom.

There would have been absolutely nothing wrong with this if it had its own dedicated, bounded time and space.

This was an experiment is changing social norms. As such, it involved the entirety of the society involved -- in this case, the specific con, directly, and Fandom more generally. That society, clearly, was not solicited for its consent and did not give it, and it should come as no surprise it lashed out in indignant anger. On a sociological level, this was not safe, was not sane, and was not consensual.

I think experiments in changing social norms are fine and wonderful things; I have even participated, myself, in spaces not so unlike the one the Ferrett imagines with his OSBP. But they were bounded and unambiguously marked, such that any person who would enter that liminal space had to give unambiguous consent to participate. A signed legal document, backed legal ID, actually.

And above all, they were spaces that weren't imposing upon some other community. Setting such a thing loose in a convention meant that all the people there who entered consenting to one set of norms, who encountered this social phenomenon, suddenly found the rules suddenly and radically changing. It was not what they had consented to. At the very least, that wasn't very nice to do to them. And they, too, have a right -- which they are exercising, loudly -- to establish the social norms they prefer.

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

Thank you. The part about not being consensual on a sociological level was exactly what I was trying to say, much less coherently.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

It's primarily us men who need to change, I'd agree with that. Which means that those of us who are convinced that change is not necessary, or not possible, or would not be acknowledged even if they did it, need to be convinced otherwise. I believe change is both necessary and possible, and that if a substantial (and I mean global) evolution of male attitudes was perceived, it would be acknowledged by women. But then, I'm an old hippy manqué. I don't think it's going to be easy, and I don't think it's going to happen in my lifetime, sadly.

To illustrate one of Eleri's points: the Countess tells a story of seeing two little girls, neither of them over ten, walking along in front of her, and one reached for the other's hand and the other pulled away, saying "are you a lesbian?" That was over seventeen years ago, in London. They'll be grown up now, possibly with children of their own. What are they teaching them about touch?

And just to set myself securely back on the fence, pocketnaomi and siderea are both right. If this was a social experiment, it should have been carried out within bounds, and those bounds established before the experiment began. If it wasn't, what was it?

[howeird]

File this under "things that make me go 'Hmmmmmmmm'".

There is a charlatan singles club owner/lecturer in the San Francisco area who has his shill assistant make sure a friendly golden retriever finds its way into the lecture hall, making its way up the aisle from the back of the room to the podium. As the dog reaches the front, the lecturer points out that the dog was petted by all these strangers on its way through the audience, and neither dog nor human thought anything of it. And then he asks what we would do if a man or woman made the same trip. The answer is "nothing", prompting him to say that people will show physical affection to a dog, but not a fellow human.

[siderea]

That's obviously the wrong conclusion: to see why the generalization doesn't hold, re-run the experiment with a doberman pinscher.

[smoooom.livejournal.com]

I'm leaning towards Mamadeb. Although I'll admit that somehow admitting it makes me feel like a prude. I don't know how I'd react if a total stranger asked that in public. I think it's a highly unlikely happening. we (society) truly are mixed up about sex and sexuality.


Yeah, I'm on Mamadeb's side on this one. I've just had a horrible thought about how badly this concept could get twisted. Imagine a rape case where the mans defence was "she said I could touch" Things are bad enough (though getting better) now, this could go really wrong.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I would hope that "she said I could touch" would not be construed by any sane jury as consent to intercourse, but still, I see your point.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

I have had a complete stranger in a restaurant ask me if she could stroke my hair. And I said yes (and wasn't offended, just very very surprised). Other parts of my body, I would probably die of the surprise.

And I have to admit that my response (whether I said yes or no) would largely be gender-based ('largely' because I can think of at least one person who is male who I would likely give permission, and at least one who is female who I likely wouldn't). I think (but until it happens I can't be absolutely sure) that I wouldn't take offense at anyone I know (of any gender) asking, as long as they were willing to accept 'no' (or "not here but ask me in private sometime") as an answer with no pressure. It may depend on how they ask, of course, as well as who they are and how well I know them.

As far as me touching others (in any way) is concerned, my default with everyone is "always ask". With some few people who I know well and have given "blanket permission" for hugs I sometimes override that, but in general I may offer a hug but will not actually touch before asking. I also know some people who have said that they do not want hugs or whatever so with them it's "don't bother even thinking of asking".

(Data point for anyone who doesn't know me: I am male/straight.)

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Here's a question. I'm fuzzy on history (fuzzy on a lot of things: note to self, shave tomorrow) but how long has our current social (as opposed to religious) tendency not to touch each other been in force? I have a feeling there was more general touching around fairly recently in historical terms, maybe only one or two hundred years ago, though I could be wrong.

Note: I'm not talking purely about sexual touching here. And I know this question is abominably vague, and I'm prepared to accept equally vague answers. But if we knew how quickly we got this way, we might have some idea how quickly we could go the other way, if all necessary conditions were satisfied.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

I'd need to check, but I believe that male/female touching in this sense (i.e. bits of the body with sexual connotations) has very rarely been "okay" except where the woman is a social inferior - often a servant, slave or whore. It's the patriarchy, gov.

(Edit: think Samuel Pepys's diaries. He is forever grouping his servants (and, indeed, rogering them) but there is no doubt at all that he would not have appreciated them doing the same things to his wife, for all that both belonged to one of the most sexually liberal Royal courts in our history.)

Touching between people of the same sex has been fine in most cultures and centuries.

By gum, no wonder many Muslim woman say they feel safer behind a veil! There is no touching at all with sexual connotations in their social group.

[catalana.livejournal.com]

This is a fascinating topic - I'm going to have to think about it more. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

[lil-shepherd.livejournal.com]

Funny, you know, I was reading a comm not long ago where women were complaining, loudly, that being pregnant was regarded by others - and particularly women - as an excuse for unwanted touching. "Everyone feels they have a right to touch my bump!" It was a long thread and not one single woman who had been through this posted to say they liked it, or that they would give permission if asked.

Yet this was a much less overtly sexual thing than touching breasts or arse, because of society's sexual focusing on these parts of the body. I don't believe, for one second, that this isn't sexual and couldn't easily become sexual harassment. I could easily see a situation where someone felt they had to allow it to become part of a particular social group - though why anyone would want to join [sigh]...

I'm all in favour of society become more tactile. I was brought up in a touching family and am pretty tactile myself - I try to be careful about not patting people on the shoulder, because they don't like it, but I do forget sometimes. One of the reasons I love fandom is because of the number of hugs you get. But... those hugs aren't forced on people, and those who don't do hugs, like inamac pass unnoticed and unhugged. It's a matter of personal choice, but I do think that the breast touching thing is something people (okay, read British people) might do when drunk or stoned, but not at any other time. And I think asking people if a stranger can grope you is rude, and I'd be tempted to be very rude back. (If I had my wits about me, I'd probably snap, "Only if I can grip your balls - hard." Being me, I'd probably yelp, "No!" and back off sharply.)

[lisande.livejournal.com]

Huh. I do see the point in both sets of arguments, but I don't heartily agree with either. I think Eleri's point of view is charmingly naive, while Mamadeb's is understandably harsh.

Yes, in a way it would be nice to create a world where physical appearance can be openly adored. As long it happens in a small gathering of friends, I can see no problem and would feel free to say no. Real friends do accept a "no" - and if they don't, I know not to call them friends any longer. As I understand the situation in which it came up, it developed out of a conversation and everyone knew what was behind it. I could probably live with even a larger gathering where this "rule" (yes, you're allowed to ask as long as you accept a no) has been established, but I wouldn't like it. And even there I would consider it to be inappropriate to ask someone who is married or otherwise in partnership and shows it (wedding band, partner present or alike).

If someone asked me without being in an environment where this rule has been established, he/she would probably get a tongue lashing (if my mood was good. If not, he/she would probably get slapped). I wear my wedding band for a reason, you see?

But in a larger gathering, or without any

[inamac.livejournal.com]

I confess that I'm rather glad this blew up overnight (from a UK pov) and has already been talked to death. I think the best response I've come across so far is this thread in misia's LJ.

Joe Grundy used to know how to deal with ferrets.

Happy St George's Day btw.

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I think she's deliberately missing the point, but that is her right. I suppose that means my balls are open for kicking.

[keristor.livejournal.com]

Something I think is possibly not quite the same, although I think it is a step in the same direction, is the custom at FKO (possibly other places) to have a load of stick-on dots of various colours to indicate whether hugging is permitted. Green for "always", yellow for "ask" and read for "no, don't ask". People pick up the dots when they register, and after a while it becomes automatic to check the badge for the dot colours (OK, some of us have one of each, plus any other colours they have, just to confuse things and prompt discussion). People can even change their status when they change mood if they want.

I think it's a good custom, but what do I know?

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

It's a good custom if and only if the signals are consistently clear and unequivocal. By "confusing things" you invalidate it.

[sibylle]

Having read all the comments above I have nothing much new to add, except that I definitely second that it should be *opt in* NOT opt out. Buttons, T-shirts, hats, whatever. But if you try to experiment with social norms in a (semi-)open environment, make the change/experiment voluntary, not default.

[jahura.livejournal.com]

I wonder if the experiment would be any different with a more innocuous gesture - for example, "may I kiss your hand?"

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

I don't know...

[zanda-myrande.livejournal.com]

Just as a side thought: I'm amazed at the number of creative ways people in other threads are managing to recast what was actually said in the original post so that it sounds more oppressive and male-powery than it did. I guess they think they're revealing the true meaning behind it all. Which is interesting, because I'm sure if I exercised that kind of licence with the words I could recast it so that my old grandmother wouldn't find it objectionable. If she was alive.

This is not an invitation to repeat what has already been said. I have the memo. I will not be bringing this subject up again in this or any other thread. I think we're done here.