I rant about the "OpenSource Boob Project"

Gentle

Yes, I am one of the last to tackle this topic. After Get Off The Internet, Beaucoup Kevin,  Occasional Superheroine, The Beat and almost countless others have said what they had to say. I thought I said all I had to say about it in my comments on Val's blog, but I felt compelled to write more about it here.

What is the Open-Source Boob Project? Read more about it here but this is the gist of it:

The Open-Source Boob Project.

At Penguicon, we had buttons to give away. There were two small buttons, one for each camp: A green button that said, "YES, you may" and a red button that said "NO, you may not." And anyone who had those buttons on, whether you knew them or not, was someone you could approach and ask:

"Excuse me, but may I touch your breasts?"

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. That exchange of happiness where one person are told with gropes and touches that they are desirable and the other is someone who's allowed to desire.

For a moment, everything that was awkward about high school would fade away and you could just say what was on your mind. It was as though parts of me were being healed whenever I did it, and I touched at least fifteen sets of boobs at Penguicon. It never got old, surprisingly.

Some women didn't want to. That was fine. We never demanded anything of anyone. And if you didn't want to put yours up for the Project but you wanted to touch, well, that was fine, too. It was simply for folks who felt like being open.

It was a raging success at Penguicon.... And there haven't been any hookups that I know of thanks to the Open-Source Boob Project. It is, as I said, a very special thing. (Though I wouldn't rule it out if two single people exchanged a moment.) And we'll probably do it at other cons, because it's strangely wholesome and sexual at the same time.

I've left off the names, because frankly, people should reveal for themselves whether they're Open-Sourcers or not. Not everyone wants to go public with it, and what happens at the con stays at the con. But trust me. If you are, and I meet you, I will ask. And you'll understand the beauty and simplicity of the Open-Source Boob Project for yourself.

Touch the magic, my friends. Touch the magic.

Yes! A geek's glory land! Being able to touch a woman's boob without dinner and a movie first! Or even showering!

I have these few tips for anybody who thinks that this is a good idea:

1. It's not
2. No, really, it's not.
3. Not every woman wants their boobs touched.
4. Those that do might be coming from a wide variety of reasons. They are not all free thinkers who are comfortable with their bodies. So don't think that if someone doesn't want to have their boobs touched that means something is wrong with them. 
5. Couching your 'feeling girls up' project in new age-y jargon doesn't take a way from the fact that the whole point of the project is so you can get your rocks off by feeling a woman's boobs.
6. Don't try to deny it. You don't need to touch a woman's breasts to say her body is beautiful. You want to touch her breasts so you can touch her breasts.
7. Backpedaling by saying that people have misconstrued your "healing" and "wholesome" breast touching ritual and turned it to a lewd and perverted breast touching ritual doesn't really work. These people might be perverts, but they cut to the gist of your ideas.
8. And for those who think this misguided idea, which gives women a choice in the matter, allows you to just go up to any woman any a convention and cop a feel, you are really, really, REALLY mistaken. I feel sorry for your groin, which will probably be kicked. A LOT.
9. Anybody at a convention who comes up and grabs my wife's boobs will be power bombed through a table.
10. By HER, not ME.
11. If you are so socially maladjusted that the only way you can touch boobs is starting up a program where the willing will allow you to touch their boobs, might I suggest going to a strip club. The less reputable the better. Think BYOB. Sure, you have less money for Star Trek prop replicas and almost naked Japanese vinyl figurines, but, with the right stripper on the right night, you will be able to touch all the boobs you want.
12. Or better yet, how about you start treating women with dignity and respect. Treat them like human beings. Then you might actually get a girlfriend who would let you touch her boobs all the time. Yes, yes, I know. You'd have to start brushing your teeth and showering, and you'd have even less money for Star Trek prop replicas and mostly naked Japanese vinyl figurines and you'll be limited to only one pair of breasts for an extended period of time, but there are other benefits, like having someone care if you live or died.

See, I have a circle of friends where we come up with some wacky, off the wall ideas. But we usually keep these ideas to ourselves. We don't present these wacky, off the wall ideas to the general public where they will be viewed out of context and interpreted differently than we intended. That being said, theferret is either deluded or less suave than he thinks he is. Because as much as he tries to couch his groping in an intellectual way, in a way which he wants to appear is empowering to women, he is still trying to cop a feel of random women's boobies. And even though the women in his circle of friends do not think that's offensive, it doesn't mean that it's wrong for another woman to think it is.

 

The Gates Ombudsman: 2/22/08

Ombudsman,-header

The snow that hit the Northeast means that instead of taking a quiz in my History of Modern Drama class, I am able to blog. Yay! First up, a news and notes recap.

• Can you name the last 15 Oscar Best Picture winners?: Under five minutes? Good luck. I am an Oscar freak and I only got 7 my first time around.
• From the same site, can you name all the Presidents in 8 minutes?: I am an even bigger President freak and I missed one. 
• Who is the best Saturday Night Live cast member, tournament style: Some of the match ups might be a bit unfair, but if you ever wondered who was better, Bill Murray or Norm MacDonald, this test is for you.
• Which city should be in Monopoly's world edition? You can vote at the above link, but realize that there is some controversy. Peter David has discuss--and recommeded--some ballot box stuffing.  ANd apparently, the inclusion of Jerusalem has caused some ruckus. But if you want to vote, you have one more week. You will have to log in to the site, however.
• Pop Candy has another entry into its "Comics Crash Course": This week, it's must see series. And a pretty good representation too.
• Heidi MacDonald is engaged: Comic fans are torn. Most wish her the best (Including us here at Gates' Rants, who have sent her best wishes on more than one website, so much it's almost like stalking), but others are upset because, as the link above indicates, future 300 and Sin City sequels are now in jeopardy.
• Garth Ennis' The Boys set to become a movie: Right now, somewhere in Hollywood, they are soaking the comics in bleach to try to get them clean enough to be transferred to film.
• Stracyzski no longer exclusive to Marvel: He wants to give other companies the chance to have him write their editorial mandate into comic form, which obviously will piss off the fans, who will blame him for the awful changes which he will either take quietly or throw it back on his bosses

Tempest in a Teacup: CT Teacher gives out "pornographic" comic as an assignment.

As the Beat reports here and here, from this news article and this follow-up, a male Guilford CT High School teacher has resigned after assigning a copy of Eightball #22 to a 13 year-old female student. Of course, I had to comment on it.

First off, I have to say that in this case and in the Gordon Lee case, if you are giving comics that feature nudity to children, you are just asking for trouble. I mean, really. Think before doing something as daft as that.

That being said, the "victim" in this case is 13 years old! I was buying and reading Watchmen when I was 13! In the grand scheme of things, that was more pornographic than that issue of Eightball, which was reworked into the Ice Haven hardcover. And I only turned out mildly perverted.

The original article illustrates the fantasyland view most parents have about their kids. They are either in denial about or have forgotten how they were like when they were young and prefer to think of their children as pure, innocent, simple, untouched-by-the-world creatures who stay that way until they turn 18, when, magically, maturity rushes at them all at once and they become fully functioning adults overnight.

Unfortunately, it doesn't work like that. As much as they think they are protecting them, the real world creeps in earlier that the realize. And "pornographic" comics aren't the main culprit. Try TV, movies, magazines, music videos, their friends and just the news in general. I'd argue that almost everything these kids come in contact through the above media is more explicit than that issue of Eightball.  I mean, what is worse? Seeing a drawing of a female breast or hearing Marg Helgenberger talking about her sex life, or lack thereof, on CSI?

And the parents quoted in the article take overreacting to ludicrous levels. "It's pornography," one says. "If that was my daughter that came home and showed this to me I honestly believe my husband would hurt the man," says another. Really? Is that a fact? Good tactic. Surely seeing daddy lacing a beating on her teacher would counter act the negative effect seeing a cartoon booby would have on the child's psyche.

I have read the book, but for those of you who have not, Journalista! , the blog of Eightball publisher Fantagraphics, has reprinted the most offensive panels from the issue. Those of you clicking the above link expecting to find hot, hardcore sex will be extremely disappointed. I'd wager to say that if those panels were a scene in a movie, that movie would only garner a PG-13 rating. Meaning the student in question could pay her money and see it with out any adult supervision at all.

But, of course, these are comics were talking about. There's an entirely different standard for comics than there is for movies. After all, didn't you know, comics are for kids! These perverts are using a child's medium to try and scar these pure and innocent children just so they can get their rocks off! Those nasty buggers!!!!

We are over 50 years removed from Wertham's Seduction of the Innocent and witchhunt it spawned but the climate of what caused it has not changed all that much. This incident, and the reaction to it, is proof of that.

 

 

 

SDCC'07: Brouhaha at the Beat.

Let me just say that I am a fan of Heidi MacDonald. I think she is witty and knowledgeable and teh Beat is on my daily read list. But something she wrote doesn't set right with me.

I was going to write this after her second SDCC '07 recap post but decided against it. Then there was something in her third post that pushed me over the edge.

Her first recap was seemed okay. Basically her saying how busy the con was and the usual stuff like that.

Her second recap was what caught my eye. About half way down, around the photo of Clive Owen, she relates how she got to the Warner Bros./Watchmen panel late (and by late, in all fairness, I mean 15 minutes early. In real life, arriving somewhere 15 minutes early would mean, well, that you were early. In con-reality, you are SOL if you haven't camped out. This brings up Bill's comic convention tip #1: If there is a panel, signing or event you wish to attend, show up at least 30-45 minutes before it starts, if not an hour to an hour and a half. Because everyone else will.).

She stands in line for a while.  Then they announce that the Fire Marshall is closing the room for fear of overcrowding, and people will be allowed in only when someone leaves. This didn't sit well with Heidi so she tries to go to the side door and try to get into the show using her press credentials. That doesn't work either because, well, the Fire Marshall had closed the room, meaning no one, press or not, was getting in and the Con did not have a press list..

But, the fact that some of the press received special wristbands led Heidi to beileve that she was being lied to. I'll let her words speak for themselves:

"“There is no press list,” said the Elite guy. And I admit, this really pissed me off. I am a grown up and you don’t need to lie to me. And in fact, the nice lady from Comic-Con said that if you were on the WB press list you would already have your wrist band and your pass."

This was later straightened out in this post by a SDCC spokesperson David Glanzer. Warners had a bunch of all-purpose passes that they deemed to give some out to the press. Other passes were probably given out to friends and familty of the panel members, etc. But they weren't press exclusive.

But what stinged me most was this comment Heidi made afterwards.

"I realize that thousands and thousands of people get “press passes” to Comic-Con and some of them are little dinky bloggers, and some of them are EW and the New York Times. And not all of them deserve equal access."

I don't think Heidi meant this as a insult to "little dinky bloggers", but rather to say that the powers that be at Warners would like to exclude the smaller folks.

However, if you look at it as is, it seems that Heidi almost feels insulted to be lumped with the "dinky little bloggers" and to be kept out of the room.

Now, I am a blogger. But I am also a columnist for a smaller comic news website (Broken Frontier) and review comics for a pop culture website (PopMatters). I certainly don't consider myself dinky. But I grant that compared to Heidi, who was an editor for Vertigo and Disney and is currently an editor at Publisher's Weekly, I am Mario Mendoza to her Reggie Jackson.

But, that being said, if the whole "Warner's only letting in certain press" was true, I'd probably have more of a right to be there that Heidi. Not being arrogant, but Heidi's main job is as an editor for a trade publication for book retailers and publishers. It would be hard for Warners to see how Publishers Weekly would be helpful in spreading the word about their Watchmen MOVIE. Warners was hoping for good word of mouth from movie websites and bloggers to spread the word to people who respect their opinion. Now my blog reaches all of five people. But Ain't It Cool, IGN and others reach far more. It make sense for Warners to include them over Heidi if you think about what they are trying to get out of the publicity.

But, since Warner's excluding certain members of the press didn't happen, I think this all boils down to SDCC growing bigger and faster than Heidi would like. In my speculation, it seems like Heidi was once a big fish in a large but managable pond to being a small fish in a humongous ocean. I gather this opinion, and that's all it is, an opinion which very much could be off base, from this statement of hers:

" I began to resent the fact that I had to stand in line at all. If 23 years of covering Comic-Con doesn’t get you a pass, what does? "

 The SDCC has grown into a beast. Hollywood has recognized it as a tool to market their films in their backyard and other press markets have been forced to cover these panels. If I was covering the con before covering the con was cool, I'd too be upset at these interlopers. But, unfortunately, it doesn't look like things will ever go back to the way they were.

The something in her third post that rankled me was this:

"I kept saying that the crowding at San Diego was the best ad possible for the New York Comic-con, and indeed, I heard many publishers saying they are saving their announcements and roll outs for that show. As I suspected, Europeans are beginning to choose New York over San Diego — it’s cheaper and all Euros love New York. The people who got turned away are going to spill over to other venues, that’s undeniable."

Now, I have never been to SDCC, but plan to next year (It's the one thing I want to do before I die. For some, it's climbing Mt. Everest, others, it's skin diving in the Maldives, for me, my Mecca is the SDCC), but from what Heidi described of the SDCC, it still seems better than the NYCC.

I HAVE been to both NYCC's. The first year was so crowded that the State Troopers, in addition to the Fire Marshall, had to shut the ENTIRE con down from allowing people in, instituting a strict one out, one in policy for the entire show. The organizers fixed this the next year by instilling a German military way of doing things which meant that crowds were microcontrolled to a point where if you bought your passes ahead of time. and were promised you could "proceed directly to the con floor", you still had to wait outside in the cold in a line for a half hour (or more) to get in.

The NYCC as I experienced is more poorly managed that what I read of the SDCC.This could be chalked up to a learning curve that comes about by starting a major comic con from scratch. SDCC grew and adjusted with the changes as it got bigger over time.

I should say this, because Heidi forgot to mention it, that the NYCC is put on by Reed Exhibitions, a subsidiary of Reed-Elsevier, which also owns Publisher's Weekly who Heidi works for. I'm not saying that she is being paid to shill for the PW's sister corporation. It could just be that her loyalty to her employer causes her to turn a blind eye to the foibles and problems that were existent at  the NYCC. (Although, since she was considered a member of the press, she didn't have to deal much with the controls place on crowd entry. My friends had press passes and could come and go as they pleased.) But regardless. NYCC has the same, if not worse, problems that SDCC is experiencing, from what I read. It is not the idyllic paradise that Heidi would have us believe.  

SDCC'07: Brouhaha at the Beat.

Let me just say that I am a fan of Heidi MacDonald. I think she is witty and knowledgeable and teh Beat is on my daily read list. But something she wrote doesn't set right with me.

I was going to write this after her second SDCC '07 recap post but decided against it. Then there was something in her third post that pushed me over the edge.

Her first recap was seemed okay. Basically her saying how busy the con was and the usual stuff like that.

Her second recap was what caught my eye. About half way down, around the photo of Clive Owen, she relates how she got to the Warner Bros./Watchmen panel late (and by late, in all fairness, I mean 15 minutes early. In real life, arriving somewhere 15 minutes early would mean, well, that you were early. In con-reality, you are SOL if you haven't camped out. This brings up Bill's comic convention tip #1: If there is a panel, signing or event you wish to attend, show up at least 30-45 minutes before it starts, if not an hour to an hour and a half. Because everyone else will.).

She stands in line for a while.  Then they announce that the Fire Marshall is closing the room for fear of overcrowding, and people will be allowed in only when someone leaves. This didn't sit well with Heidi so she tries to go to the side door and try to get into the show using her press credentials. That doesn't work either because, well, the Fire Marshall had closed the room, meaning no one, press or not, was getting in and the Con did not have a press list..

But, the fact that some of the press received special wristbands led Heidi to beileve that she was being lied to. I'll let her words speak for themselves:

"“There is no press list,” said the Elite guy. And I admit, this really pissed me off. I am a grown up and you don’t need to lie to me. And in fact, the nice lady from Comic-Con said that if you were on the WB press list you would already have your wrist band and your pass."

This was later straightened out in this post by a SDCC spokesperson David Glanzer. Warners had a bunch of all-purpose passes that they deemed to give some out to the press. Other passes were probably given out to friends and familty of the panel members, etc. But they weren't press exclusive.

But what stinged me most was this comment Heidi made afterwards.

"I realize that thousands and thousands of people get “press passes” to Comic-Con and some of them are little dinky bloggers, and some of them are EW and the New York Times. And not all of them deserve equal access."

I don't think Heidi meant this as a insult to "little dinky bloggers", but rather to say that the powers that be at Warners would like to exclude the smaller folks.

However, if you look at it as is, it seems that Heidi almost feels insulted to be lumped with the "dinky little bloggers" and to be kept out of the room.

Now, I am a blogger. But I am also a columnist for a smaller comic news website (Broken Frontier) and review comics for a pop culture website (PopMatters). I certainly don't consider myself dinky. But I grant that compared to Heidi, who was an editor for Vertigo and Disney and is currently an editor at Publisher's Weekly, I am Mario Mendoza to her Reggie Jackson.

But, that being said, if the whole "Warner's only letting in certain press" was true, I'd probably have more of a right to be there that Heidi. Not being arrogant, but Heidi's main job is as an editor for a trade publication for book retailers and publishers. It would be hard for Warners to see how Publishers Weekly would be helpful in spreading the word about their Watchmen MOVIE. Warners was hoping for good word of mouth from movie websites and bloggers to spread the word to people who respect their opinion. Now my blog reaches all of five people. But Ain't It Cool, IGN and others reach far more. It make sense for Warners to include them over Heidi if you think about what they are trying to get out of the publicity.

But, since Warner's excluding certain members of the press didn't happen, I think this all boils down to SDCC growing bigger and faster than Heidi would like. In my speculation, it seems like Heidi was once a big fish in a large but managable pond to being a small fish in a humongous ocean. I gather this opinion, and that's all it is, an opinion which very much could be off base, from this statement of hers:

" I began to resent the fact that I had to stand in line at all. If 23 years of covering Comic-Con doesn’t get you a pass, what does? "

 The SDCC has grown into a beast. Hollywood has recognized it as a tool to market their films in their backyard and other press markets have been forced to cover these panels. If I was covering the con before covering the con was cool, I'd too be upset at these interlopers. But, unfortunately, it doesn't look like things will ever go back to the way they were.

The something in her third post that rankled me was this:

"I kept saying that the crowding at San Diego was the best ad possible for the New York Comic-con, and indeed, I heard many publishers saying they are saving their announcements and roll outs for that show. As I suspected, Europeans are beginning to choose New York over San Diego — it’s cheaper and all Euros love New York. The people who got turned away are going to spill over to other venues, that’s undeniable."

Now, I have never been to SDCC, but plan to next year (It's the one thing I want to do before I die. For some, it's climbing Mt. Everest, others, it's skin diving in the Maldives, for me, my Mecca is the SDCC), but from what Heidi described of the SDCC, it still seems better than the NYCC.

I HAVE been to both NYCC's. The first year was so crowded that the State Troopers, in addition to the Fire Marshall, had to shut the ENTIRE con down from allowing people in, instituting a strict one out, one in policy for the entire show. The organizers fixed this the next year by instilling a German military way of doing things which meant that crowds were microcontrolled to a point where if you bought your passes ahead of time. and were promised you could "proceed directly to the con floor", you still had to wait outside in the cold in a line for a half hour (or more) to get in.

The NYCC as I experienced is more poorly managed that what I read of the SDCC.This could be chalked up to a learning curve that comes about by starting a major comic con from scratch. SDCC grew and adjusted with the changes as it got bigger over time.

I should say this, because Heidi forgot to mention it, that the NYCC is put on by Reed Exhibitions, a subsidiary of Reed-Elsevier, which also owns Publisher's Weekly who Heidi works for. I'm not saying that she is being paid to shill for the PW's sister corporation. It could just be that her loyalty to her employer causes her to turn a blind eye to the foibles and problems that were existent at  the NYCC. (Although, since she was considered a member of the press, she didn't have to deal much with the controls place on crowd entry. My friends had press passes and could come and go as they pleased.) But regardless. NYCC has the same, if not worse, problems that SDCC is experiencing, from what I read. It is not the idyllic paradise that Heidi would have us believe.