Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it,
follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given
their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!
Open Source Boob Project: degrading or celebrating women?
Posts
We were validated not when we received external attention, though, but when we accomplished our goal; something that happened before we even left that morning.
Unfortunately, the idea of multiple causations or motivations is completely beyond your teensy pea-brain, so much like Medopine I'm just going to walk away from this thread in disgust.
It sure sucks that it's impossible to do anything without being an attention whore clamoring for the acceptance of everyone in the entire goddamn world regardless of my intent or actions! Being female sucks like that, I guess.
Fat chance.
Yeah but if someone says "I'm a female congoer" I don't immediately think "shwing!" You are again assuming most/all/many/one female congoer dresses for sexual attention. False. Firefighters however do fight fires. That is the only function of "firefighter." The assumption is universally valid.
Oh come on. I am saying that there is a line: when your profession or when the context specifically and obviously calls for attention seeking, then it is safe to assume people are seeking attention. Like at a strip club or at a "Hey, I'm Seeking Attention!" party or some shit. At NO OTHER TIME is it appropriate. Not at conventions, not on the street, nowhere.
Obviously a painter is not going to exhibit their paintings if they don't want people to see them. However, a painting, obviously, is not a person. A person has every right to wear pretty much whatever they want, even in public. They also should be able to do so without people freaking out, thinking less of them, oogling them, etc.
A man or woman ought to be able to wear a costume to a convention and be safe from people harassing them or trying to grope them. It doesn't matter if their costume is Man Faye, Darth Vader, Chun Li, whatever. As long as they don't violate any public decency laws then they can wear it.
People have no right to harass or accost people because of what they're wearing. And it's horribly dangerous for people to make assumptions based off of someone's clothes, much less a costume they're wearing. That person is portraying a character, not necessarily expressing their own views and desires.
Considering this was a software con I can only guess what the women were cosplaying as.
You are taking Attention into Attention Whore, and extrapolating everything from that. This is where our difficulties lie.
I'm not saying you need to be validated by attention. I'm saying that attention to the fucking OUTFIT is a goal. The craftsmanship, the effort you put into it. Even if it's just attention to it from the friend who helped you make it. The knowledge that hey, great job on that seam and whatnot.
To say attention = attention whore oh my god implies that inanimate art objects in a museum are totally slutting it up. Not to mention you're assuming I'm saying this only applies to fucking Women.
Attention: Not Always About You, and Not Always About Pervs. Sometimes it's just "nice fashion sense" or "you put a lot of effort into that outfit, that's just like the real thing!"
This appears to be our fundamental and huge disconnect.
I have at no point disagreed with this in any way, shape or form. I am simply stating that wearing a costume to a con is on par with hanging a painting in public. You put effort into an artistic expression and put it in public. Attention. Not sexual attention, not "stare at my tits or ass" attention, I'm stating you can pay attention to the very fucking fabric that makes up the outfit.
And most female congoers don't dress up. Also, the fire department of my city has firefighters that only drive the firetrucks, and don't actually fight the fire (except in some sort of all cogs in the machine way). We also have some that just respond as EMS, but they are still firefighters. (note: I'm using the term "firefighter" not to mean "he who fights fires," but as inclusive of men and women).
What about at a college Halloween party? And being from NY you may not know this, but a shit ton of hookers not on Sunset or Hunters Point et tal dress normally. You see it all the time on Cops.
...as opposed to the ones at cons that dress like this...
Honestly I'm glad to hear you say that. I love it when people compliment me on my costumes (or my photographs). It's frustrating and uncomfortable for me to see some men and women oogle those wearing costumes. Instead of appreciating costuming talent, people gawk and stare in lewd ways. It's inappropriate but I don't see how you could stop it.
Perhaps if people didn't hoot and holler and try to grope I'd feel a lot better about it. I certainly don't want this to turn into a "no dirty thoughts allowed" scenario. So I guess how people act is the thing we need to be concerned about.
Soft
wear.
*face
palm*
If I put on 80 layers I could go as feature creep.
And then die like said software project.
Well, particularly in the context of anime or sci-fi cons and particularly for female costumes, can you really be surprised? Think, for just half a second, about the origin of these costumes. Do you think they were drawn (for cartoons) or created (for live-action) in that way for no reason? Of course not...the entire point was generally at least somewhat sexual. Leia wasn't in a gold bikini for no reason. Many anime characters aren't scantily or suggestively clad for not reason. When you decide to create a costume mimicking an outfit that was created, by the original artist, to attract sexual attention can you really get all butt-hurt when it attracts *gasp* sexual attention?
Seriously?
I'm sure the expectation that anything with the name con in it means women will be dressed like sluts is in no way sexist.
Even if it's a convention on computer programs, or dentistry, or domestic violence.
Go con sluts!
It's software and scifi/fantasy. I only heard about this from authors who were guests there, for instance.
patton oswalt described the kfc chicken mashed potatoes corn cup thing as a "failure pile in a sadness bowl" and that's pretty much exactly what this is
the fact that the dude tries to justify it by making it out to be some great human achievement makes it even worse
OS Tans?
Feisty Fawns?
I'd put in a pic of Max Mosely, but nobody would get the reference.
If faith is just a silent tribute, mine is just a desperate act.
Well aside from the manipulation of self-respect deprived women hoping to fit during an event not at all related to sexual exploration and the feelings of the creator of being a civil rights hero for grabbing the breasts of a woman with no confidence, and the general idiocy of trying to take something that might work in a limited setting to a con wide level, yeah it's JUST consensual boob touching.
Does this mean that it gives guys free-reign to stare or act like fucking cavemen, NO, but regardless of a woman's reasons for wearing that tank top she can't claim ignorance of the fact that wearing such clothes (for whatever reason) WILL garner looks and possible negative attention.
I don't think the problem is "she shouldn't have dressed that way if she didn't want the attention," I think the problem is "she should have known damn well that dressing that way would get her paid attention to, regardless of her intent in wearing the clothes." If a woman isn't prepared to possibly receive gross comments or hungry stares then she shouldn't wear those clothes. The same way I wouldn't wear a shirt saying "I HATE N****RS!" and NOT expect to get punched in the face.
PS: Also Oboro's a woman? What the flying fuck?!
The question becomes how do we change our society so that people don't feel the need to act like morons based on the way someone else is dressed then.
Because dressing in revealing outfits shouldn't carry the same negative connotation as your example implies.
It's a problem with the society, not the woman.
And the point is still backed up by the second and third articles. I like that you're ignoring the article I posted that does disagree with you in order to play the splitting hairs game. that's super of you!
Currently, they don't for you. You will not be held back in life in any measurable sense by not living up to the appearance standards a woman has to, and there are plenty more articles than those three pointing this out.
If only the courts (in my country) consistently upheld the above (they don't).
Look at Islam. Women are forced to cover up because the religion states any less clothing would "tempt" men. Is that reasonable at all? It places a ridiculous burden on the woman to be unassuming and demure, instead of trusting that men will act like adults and control themselves, regardless of what social conventions say about the disproportionate sexual appetites in males. In the graphic novel Persepolis--fiction, I know, and yes, an example of heightened social conventions that aren't evident in Western culture, but still a useful lesson to be had--the main character is running to class and a police officer tells her to stop running because the movement makes her butt look tempting to men. The solution? Stop looking at her ass!
Sure, there are women out there who doubtless go looking for slavish approval from men in public, and cons are like multiplication hives for this. You take the women who are probably ashamed of themselves and/or very low in self esteem and men who are stereotypically deprived of sexual relations and you get a recipe for people acting in dumb ways outside the social norm. But just because some girls wear those costumes simply to garner attention doesn't excuse men from sinking to their levels and indulging them.
he... he was agreeing with you.
That was a statement of disdain for the unfortunate tendency for the courts to be dicks. Not a statement that this makes it right.
And I'm not attacking him, but this comes up again and again in harassment threads, and other threads about public conduct. Just because something won't get you arrested doesn't make it ok to do.
You can't expect men to control the rape reflex.
I was refering to the (many) cases where rapists have escaped justice by spreading culpability onto their victim by pointing out what she was wearing. It happens less often now, however.