I’m not a fan of that first XKCD, though. It seems to suggest that any possibility of alternative sexuality is doomed to failure, whereas many people do form alternative arrangements of various types.
I’ll agree with you that alternative sexuality is real and works for many people—but I’m fairly sure (based on other things Randall Munroe has said about e.g. gender) that the xkcd comic is not mocking anything like that. I think it’s mocking … well, the kind of thinking that produced The Open Source Boob Project fiasco.* Something which sounds like a good idea, something which maybe even works at first … but which has been proven, at the very least, not be likely to scale smoothly and gracefully. And it results in drama, obviously.
I’ve read a few different accounts about what occurred with the OSBP, and from what I understand, it was done among a very small number of women who mostly knew each other and were comfortable with each other, or who had agreed to participate by wearing a button, and everyone was very sensitive and careful about consent. So I’m reluctant to call it a “fiasco”. It seems like the only people who were uncomfortable with it were the ones who misunderstood it after the fact. Though I wasn’t there and don’t really know for sure.
If you mean sexuality is frequently emotionally complex and often results in drama, I’d agree, but that’s true whether you change the rules or not. Relationships are hard, and people have to try to make rules that work for them. It’s not as if there’s an official book of rules anyway.
I read the followup when I tracked down the link—I don’t disagree with you. But, at the very least, the writeup meant that The Ferrett felt obliged to promise not to attend specific future events and to close comments, and that seems to me like more drama than most sexual relationships I’ve heard of. (I know nearly nothing, mind.)
Reading up on it (severely after the fact admittedly) I found it hard to work out what the problem was. As far as I can tell no-one was involved against their will, and those involved were not put under any obligations.
If everyone involved was consenting adults how did it become a ‘fiasco?’ Did people simply object aesthetically to it happening in the places they were, or were there plans to expand it in some seemingly detrimental way?
The latter—the drama wasn’t due to the original event, but due to the suggestion that it be formalized as an Event for the next year. Which, for reasons which were elaborated in many places, would likely have not been successful.
As for why doing the project again would have been a mistake, asking people for consent is not a cost-free thing, and many such events work far better with fewer participants for reasons both obvious and subtle.
The real mistake theferret made was posting about this on the internet. I was involved in a discussion about the OSBP on the xkcd forums when the post happened, and was amazed by the degree of misunderstanding and overreaction among people condemning it. That was the sort of reaction theferret should have seen coming, and kept the project an invite-by-referral thing rather than a public recruiting thing.
Chesterton said something similar about reforming social institutions that you don’t understand.
I’m not a fan of that first XKCD, though. It seems to suggest that any possibility of alternative sexuality is doomed to failure, whereas many people do form alternative arrangements of various types.
I’ll agree with you that alternative sexuality is real and works for many people—but I’m fairly sure (based on other things Randall Munroe has said about e.g. gender) that the xkcd comic is not mocking anything like that. I think it’s mocking … well, the kind of thinking that produced The Open Source Boob Project fiasco.* Something which sounds like a good idea, something which maybe even works at first … but which has been proven, at the very least, not be likely to scale smoothly and gracefully. And it results in drama, obviously.
* Ursula Vernon’s takedown is fairly good, if you’re interested in that kind of thing.
I’ve read a few different accounts about what occurred with the OSBP, and from what I understand, it was done among a very small number of women who mostly knew each other and were comfortable with each other, or who had agreed to participate by wearing a button, and everyone was very sensitive and careful about consent. So I’m reluctant to call it a “fiasco”. It seems like the only people who were uncomfortable with it were the ones who misunderstood it after the fact. Though I wasn’t there and don’t really know for sure.
If you mean sexuality is frequently emotionally complex and often results in drama, I’d agree, but that’s true whether you change the rules or not. Relationships are hard, and people have to try to make rules that work for them. It’s not as if there’s an official book of rules anyway.
I read the followup when I tracked down the link—I don’t disagree with you. But, at the very least, the writeup meant that The Ferrett felt obliged to promise not to attend specific future events and to close comments, and that seems to me like more drama than most sexual relationships I’ve heard of. (I know nearly nothing, mind.)
Reading up on it (severely after the fact admittedly) I found it hard to work out what the problem was. As far as I can tell no-one was involved against their will, and those involved were not put under any obligations.
If everyone involved was consenting adults how did it become a ‘fiasco?’ Did people simply object aesthetically to it happening in the places they were, or were there plans to expand it in some seemingly detrimental way?
The latter—the drama wasn’t due to the original event, but due to the suggestion that it be formalized as an Event for the next year. Which, for reasons which were elaborated in many places, would likely have not been successful.
But even then, if all participants are consenting adults, who could grope each other infromally anyway, who cares?
As for why doing the project again would have been a mistake, asking people for consent is not a cost-free thing, and many such events work far better with fewer participants for reasons both obvious and subtle.
The real mistake theferret made was posting about this on the internet. I was involved in a discussion about the OSBP on the xkcd forums when the post happened, and was amazed by the degree of misunderstanding and overreaction among people condemning it. That was the sort of reaction theferret should have seen coming, and kept the project an invite-by-referral thing rather than a public recruiting thing.
The event as proposed did not control sufficiently for “consenting”. (Or “adult”, for that matter.) That was the exact problem, in fact.