On asking to touch the breasts of a stranger

[kate_nepveu]

If you are a stranger, especially a man, perhaps especially in a group of other strangers who are men, and you come up to me and say, "You're very beautiful. I'd like to touch your breasts. Would you mind if I did?":

You will put me in fear.

Because you could be someone who will go away quietly if I say no (which I will). You could be the exiled gay prince of Farlandia, cursed to wander this Earth looking for the key to his return that can only be revealed by touching the breast of a willing stranger, and who isn't enjoying this at all. You could, in short, not be a danger to me.

But how am I supposed to know that?

How am I supposed to distinguish you from the person who says he's really just whatever, but is actually going to put emotional pressure on me, or make a scene, or stalk me, or rape me?

I can't. Because that would require a level of discernment and of trust that is not possible, by definition, in my dealings with a stranger.

And therefore, if you ask to touch my breasts, you will frighten me.

If your goal is actually to make a better world, I suggest that you use a method that doesn't involve putting women in fear.

(Also, I find it hard to believe you can create "the kind of world where [people can] 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," by going up to women, touching their breasts, and then going away. Among many, many other problems that are noted in the comments to the original. But that's secondary to my main point here.)

Comments

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

I've read the post and several dozen of the hundreds of comments to it. My only comment there was to the person who thinks that this is morally wrong:
What seems to be missing from your comment here--and from many of the others I read, is an acknowledgment that intimacy is expressed in different ways by different people and in different relationships. I once knew someone who wouldn't hug people, even good friends after long separation, because hugging should "mean something," and to this person that "something" was clearly sexual. On the other hand, there are people for whom sexual intercourse is not necessarily "intimate."

If your objection is truly a moral one, then it seems that either (1) it should apply only to those people for whom breast-touching has the intimacy-value that you place on it or (2) it should apply universally to all actions on which anyone places the intimacy-value that you place on breast-touching.

Other than that, I have very mixed feelings. I generally prefer situations in which everyone is free to ask for what they want and everyone is free to give it or not. I do not think there is anything "wrong" in wanting anything at all; I think the only wrong is pressuring (for wide values of "pressure") or forcing someone else to give it to you.

OTOH, I recognize that many women (actually, many people, but I think the relevant situations invovle women) feel "pressure" (again, for wide values) in situations where I feel none. The scenario you describe,
If you are a stranger, especially a man, perhaps especially in a group of other strangers who are men, and you come up to me and say, "You're very beautiful. I'd like to touch your breasts. Would you mind if I did?"
strikes me as different from the one the post describes in two significant ways: (1) the limited venue of a con, and (2) women in the group of touchers. In that situation, I would feel no fear at all.

One thing that strikes me is that it reminds me of something I have never understood: women who complain that a man is interested only in her body, but who does not care if a man is interested in her only for her mind (let's say, for example, a gay male work colleague). I feel that "I" am both body and mind. For myself, I see no difference between "I'd like to get to know your body better" and "I'd like to get to know your mind better."

[sparkymonster.livejournal.com]

(1) the limited venue of a con, and (2) women in the group of touchers. In that situation, I would feel no fear at all.

In my experience, people at a con are still likely to have poor boundaries, pressure women sexually, not take "no" as an answer, etc. etc. I know a lot of women are much more comfortable being physically affectionate and/or wearing sexy cleavagey clothing at cons. I think that there is a false sense of safety/security there.

I mean yes at a con there is likely to be a higher percentage of people who are clueful about reading the buttons and paying attention, than in a random sampling of people. But that the percentage isn't high enough for me to say "yes pls grab my boobs kthx"

[cleverthylacine]

I would never wear revealing clothes at a con. I wore a short skirt at a con and was followed through the entire dealer's room by a creep who knew less about the fandom I was cosplaying in who kept telling me weird stories to try and impress me. This never happens when I wear my normal clothes--long skirts, long sleeves, high collars.

[kate_nepveu]

Neither of the differences you describe would make a significant different in my reaction.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

I understand that.

[vito-excalibur.livejournal.com]

The way minds without bodies are treated could be approximated as the way people are treated on the internet.

The way bodies without minds are treated could be approximated as the way animals are treated.

Treatment on the internet isn't always wonderful, but it's hell of better than being forcibly bred, hunted, killed, eaten, etc.

That is why people are happier about being appreciated for their minds than their bodies.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

As I said, this is my own reaction/feeling. I have never in my 60 years perceived myself as being treated, by anyone, "the way animals are treated." And I have, more than once, been treated worse on the internet than I ever have been treated in person--including by at least one person whom I know in RL and who would never have said in person what they said to me on the internet.

[cleverthylacine]

Ma'am, your privilege is showing. No offence.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

What "privileged" category does this experience put me in?

[mad-elephant.livejournal.com]

All I can presume from this is you've never been treated as just a body, it's more than mean or insulting, it's dehumanizing.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

I'm having a hard time picturing what being treated literally as "just a body" would be, short of rape or slavery--which I did not think was what we were discussing here. I referred (in my main comment above) to men being "interested" only in my body or only in my mind; however, to get access to my body he would have to interact in some way with my mind, and to get access to my mind he would have to interact in some way with my body (either directly with my voice or indirectly with my hands on a keyboard), and I find neither of those situations dehumanizing. YMMV.

[desdenova.livejournal.com]

One thing that strikes me is that it reminds me of something I have never understood: women who complain that a man is interested only in her body, but who does not care if a man is interested in her only for her mind (let's say, for example, a gay male work colleague).

I'm glad you are qualifying this as "for yourself."

But as to not understanding why others have a problem, do you really not? I mean, there's a whole social context wherein, historically, women have ONLY been valued for their bodies, if that much. And where women are regularly violently assaulted because men value them as bodies to fuck, and not as people with minds of their own. (This goes back to the whole "fear" point Kate is making.)

Regarding whether or not the context of a con makes a difference: while it obviously does for some people, not everybody views a con as separated from society at large, and thus social expectations--not only of general manners, but things like "strange men wanting to grope my breasts are a potential threat"--still apply.

As for whether or not the presence of women makes a difference, I'd say "not necessarily." Women are perfectly capable of sexual violence, and are also capable of complicity in sexual violence perpetrated by men. If somebody is already inclined to feeling threatened by a group of dudes asking to grope her, it's unlikely that the presence of a chick or two in that group is going to make it any less scary.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

But as to not understanding why others have a problem, do you really not?

Yes and no. I certainly understand that others do have a problem with it. But as to understanding why, there's this: I live in the same historical reality, in the same society, in the same culture, and I don't have a problem with it. So, let me ask you (seriously, not as some rhetorical dodge): do you understand why I don't have a problem with it? My only explanation is different genes, different stories, different views of the world--we are all different.

I do take your point about women being capable of sexual violence.

[judith-s.livejournal.com]

For myself, I see no difference between "I'd like to get to know your body better" and "I'd like to get to know your mind better."

I'm really interested in this conceptually. You'd be OK with someone you met who you might want to talk to asking to explore your body instead of having coffee and conversation? You'd be OK with someone asking you in a previously non-intimate context whether you'd like to be fucked?

I find that the question itself presumes a context about the availability of that option. There is no context in which a random stranger may touch me intimately. So the question itself is inappropriate.

[kaitiana.livejournal.com]

This explains my thoughts exactly!

Further: Here's the thing for me with this statement (i.e., For myself, I see no difference between "I'd like to get to know your body better" and "I'd like to get to know your mind better."). There are entire levels (and layers) to both conversation AND physical contact. When you're trying to get to know someone's mind better, you start out at the lower levels and, generally speaking, ask less intrusive and more basic questions until such a time as you DO get to know someone's mind better. Only at that point do you generally proceed to questions that are much more intimate. There are, again generally speaking, certain questions that you just DO NOT ask people when you first meet them. Now, I don't see why I should treat my body any differently. There are certain questions I would answer certain people in my life, based on who they are and the level of intimacy we currently enjoy. The same thing goes for my body! I am not in any way a prude, nor do I think that sex is a dirty thing or that any part of my body is "dirty." However, it IS my body and, as with emotional and intellectual intimacy, I do not feel that I MUST let any Tom, Dick, or Harry do or say anything he (or she, to be fair) feels is A-okay.

There is so much more I probably could and should say, but that's all I have in me right now. This whole thing just...wow.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

I am not one of those "don't ask my certain questions" people, although I recognize (and honor) that others are. I have publicly stated numerous times over the years that anyone can ask me anything they want to; I may decline to answer, but if I answer it will be honest.

I do not feel that I MUST let any Tom, Dick, or Harry do or say anything he (or she, to be fair) feels is A-okay.

Nor do I.

Well, actually, in one sense I must indeed let them do or say anything they feel is OK, because I cannot control others' behavior. But I control my reactions to their behavior, and they might not like my reactions.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

You'd be OK with someone you met who you might want to talk to asking to explore your body instead of having coffee and conversation?

Yes, just as I would be OK with someone I met whom I might want to have sex with asking to have coffee and conversation--in both cases, for certain values of "OK." In either case, I would probably be a bit disappointed, though if I were interested in both sex and conversation I probably wouldn't mind switching the order of activities. In fact, I have done so.

You'd be OK with someone asking you in a previously non-intimate context whether you'd like to be fucked?

Well, no, because I have no desire to "be fucked." But if they asked if I was interested in sexual activities with them (words to that effect)? Yes, I'd be OK with that. I have been OK with that--it has happened.

[judith-s.livejournal.com]

I can see that question arising in the context of a date, with good friends, at an orgy, or the like. But in the hallway at an SF Convention? I can't quite make it fit into my headspace that anyone would want to have this question asked of them there. It's interesting that you've found it to be a welcome question. I'd be curious about the context (did you know the person asking? was it in a location that would make this a more logical question?). Thanks for responding in such a positive way. I've had some really ranty exchanges with others.

[smashingstars.livejournal.com]

brown_betty above mentioned that this "project" seemed to indicate that women who didn't acquiesce to the request were perceived as prudish and had sexual hang ups, and I agree.

You say the only wrong is pressuring, but I (and I think others) feel the threat of being perceived as prudish and/or being ostracized from the event *is* pressure. People attend conferences of all kinds to feel part of a group, to be accepted and enjoy the company of like-minded individuals. I would wager more than one woman walked past the "project" and, when asked, wondered what would happen if she said no. Would she be teased or taunted for the rest of the con? Told she was stuck up or, worse yet, hung up? How many women were triggered by the event, or left early to avoid being asked, or left early because they knew they would *never* be asked (because they were too old, too ugly, too fat, small-chested, etc.)?

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

but I (and I think others) feel the threat of being perceived as prudish and/or being ostracized from the event *is* pressure.

Did you not notice my reference, twice, to "wide values of 'pressure'"?

[kate_nepveu]

Yes, thank you.

[(Anonymous)]

One thing that strikes me is that it reminds me of something I have never understood: women who complain that a man is interested only in her body, but who does not care if a man is interested in her only for her mind (let's say, for example, a gay male work colleague).

Here from elsewhere. I'm an MIT alumna, and I can testify, there are heterosexual young men out there who are just as creepily fascinated by a woman with a big IQ as some men are creepily fascinated by a woman with a big bra size. I've been desired -- sexually -- exclusively for my mind, and it was no less objectifying.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

Interesting. I'm pretty sure you're the first person I've ever heard that from.

I don't find the idea of someone being sexually desired for any one aspect in any way creepy. Certainly the desirer might engage in creepy behavior because of it, but desire is just desire--most people have very little control over what appeals to them sexually.

[cleverthylacine]

I'm not sure why the con setting makes this okay for you. Some of the creepiest behaviour I have ever been subjected to has happened at conventions.

At conventions, most people are smarter. They are also generally less socially skilled. You are not likely to be gang-raped (though I'm sure that someone out there has been raped at a con) but you are far more likely to encounter men who don't know how to approach women they find attractive without being creepy.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

I didn't say the con setting makes it OK for me; I said I would feel no fear in that setting. There are lots of things that aren't OK with me but that I don't fear.