wood cat


incidents and accidents, hints and allegations

wood cat
Kate kate_nepveu
Previous Entry Share Next Entry
On asking to touch the breasts of a stranger

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.)

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.


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.


Log in