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

[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.

[mad-elephant.livejournal.com]

I agree that pretty much all human interaction uses a component of body and mind. And perhaps "just a body" was too strong a wording, though in my mind the grouping of strangers (even if you ask and they consent) turns them into a body, nothing more.

I don't see how the Project had to do with the persons mind (especially if they were a stranger) particularily in the case of the random woman in a princess outfit, they approached her because they liked her breasts, all the interaction we were told about focused on her breasts. Maybe afterwards they had a lovely conversation. But all we were told of was the groping of breasts, she was regulated to her body and breasts, they made her an object (probably accidentally, but it still happened).

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

One thing that has been very clear to me in reading hundreds of comments on this is that people have read the original description (the Ferret's) in vastly different ways. I read about communication between all the parties to this activity, before any touching. Maybe the communication was at that point solely about the touching, but it was communication. To me, that's the mind at work.

[mad-elephant.livejournal.com]

Asking if you can touch someones breasts and having them say yes might be communication, but it still doesn't mean there's any interest in the mind, or any real engagement.
I'm not saying that the body doesn't play a big part in attraction or that you have to have a close mental and emotional relationship with people you engage in sexual activities with (and I consider touching of the breasts sexual). I just think there should be more engagement of the mind than the working out of loqistics.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

I just think there should be more engagement of the mind than the working out of loqistics.

If you're speaking of your own relationships, no one but you gets to decide. But for themselves, others may have other preferences.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I have been loathe to comment on this topic; in general (mostly because I found out about it after the fire has died down), but I want to agree that lots of different readings are taking place.

I also want to say that it may have been started with communication; it very quickly changed. Once the event stabilised as a place where touching (and I don't know about "groping' which has connotative values I don't want to impart; out of hand) was the point, the questioning seems to have been pro-forma.

Add the buttons and communication with the person inside the body is gone. At that point the message is independant of person; they have become part of, "an event", and fall more into the corporate whole.

One need not, at that point, interact with the person at all. The button does the communicating.

I have a lot of reservations about this; many (perhaps most) of which are structural.

Why breasts? Why the sense of, "we are breaking down restrictive mindsets,"? Why the idea that similar touching of men can't really be done (the "touch my nuts" comment was met with, "no, that couldn't have worked, because that would be too sexual.", well the breasts; as it seems to me from that post, were sexual objects. Part of the argument is that it was a "desexualising" of them, which goes at odds to my reading of the comments about women coming up and pleading for validation for their breasts, "worthiness" to be touched).

I'm also hindered by other things the OP has said elsewhen. Those make me question his ability to do the things he says this was about. It makes me think this was an ex post facto rationalisation to deflect criticism and complaint.

Those aren't very charitable, and they distract from the discussion of the core questions about space, consent and public pressures.

TK

[darkfeatherpink.livejournal.com]

Why the idea that similar touching of men can't really be done (the "touch my nuts" comment was met with, "no, that couldn't have worked, because that would be too sexual." well the breasts, as it seems to me from that post, were sexual objects.)

While it's true that breasts are, as you say, sexual objects, I'd like to point out that breasts in general aren't as eroticized as the genitals are.
In the original "manifesto" post, the OP mentioned that there was some "equal opportunity" touching was happening in that men were allowing people to grope their asses. The problem, as I see it, is that the available places on a male body to be touched are not sexualised in the same way as a woman's breasts. Thus there is no truly analogous portion of the male anatomy, and there isn't really a way for a man to be touched in a similar way. It's also be why grabbing some guy by the balls would be considered "too sexual" - the balls are more heavily eroticized and sexualized than the breasts, and generally speaking, most people (male and female) need to have a higher level of intimacy with someone before they'll let another person grab their crotch.

[pecunium.livejournal.com]

I agree. Breasts are a semi-sexual object (and just look at the odd reactions to people when breast feeding is brought up), but not purely sexual.

I think the real problem with letting someone grab/fondle testicles is the sense of vulnerability most men have when that happens.

What I was trying to say is that, in the context of that post, breasts weren't being decontextualised from the sexual aspect, but rather the sexual aspect was being rendered public property.

Why wasn't it backs, or hands, or the side of the cheek?

Because it wasn't as pure as it's being presented; even if that lack of purity wasn't completely evident to the participants.

TK

[darkfeatherpink.livejournal.com]

Why wasn't it backs, or hands, or the side of the cheek?
I think the sexual aspect was part of it, as sort of a "take back sexuality and make it less stigmatized" kind of thing. But in that case, why not the ass? That way it'd still be semi-sexual, but it would be equal-opportunity and a lot less sexual than breasts. That said, a lot of the personal-space and sexual-harassment issues would still arise with that, so it's still a flawed concept.

Because it wasn't as pure as it's being presented
I agree with you whole-heartedly.

[cleverthylacine]

I'm guessing some sort of internalised dissociation here myself. I actually love Heinlein but I've met a number of female fans of his who have been convinced somehow that being objectified is good and fun and not about men's power over them but rather about being appreciated, despite the fact that this "appreciation" has nothing to do with their personhood.

A message from your friendly LJ host

[kate_nepveu]

Hi, all. I ask those participating in this subthread to keep an eye on their civility levels, as I fear that it may be starting to edge towards a tone that I'd prefer not to host. Thanks.

Re: A message from your friendly LJ host

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

By all means tell me outright if I edge toward such a tone.

[cakmpls.livejournal.com]

There is a difference between "being objectified is good and fun" and "not everyone experiences the same situations as 'objectification.'"