Log in

No account? Create an account

Previous Entry | Next Entry

Open Source Boobs?!

WTF. Just when I thought my gender couldn't get more idiotic. Sorry.


( 8 comments — Leave a comment )
Apr. 23rd, 2008 01:08 pm (UTC)
There is no lower bound on human stupidity, I fear.

Also, specifically: open source? Really? I tell you what: when you can code and/or reproduce my breasts, I will consider what form of license I ought to apply to them.
Apr. 23rd, 2008 01:19 pm (UTC)
Yeah, on top of everything else it is really kind of pathetic that they can't even use the term "open source" correctly.
Apr. 23rd, 2008 01:46 pm (UTC)
What I wrote elsewhere:

"Open source" is a category mistake of the ugliest kind. The concept of open source, as with intellectual property generally, is based on the fact that my possession of a copy of a program doesn't interfere with your possession of a copy of the same program. Nor does my alteration of the program, and subsequent release of my alterations on the same terms, interfere with your possession and use of your copy. The general term for that is "nonrivalrous," and the fact that, in the absence of law, people can easily make copies without permission is "nonexcludability."

Who is supposed to be doing the open sourcing here? For those of us who aren't Cylons, there aren't many copies. Bodies are rivalrous (and this fellow's very professions of happiness at being granted access indicate that he knows this). And a big part of the project of feminism has been to establish excludability as women's fundamental right, when it hasn't been the default. To call for women's bodies to be "open source" is simultaneously to reject the authority of women over their bodies--a fragile enough authority already--and to commodify, to thingify, women's bodies into fungible copies: the neat trick of reducing us to our bodies and then denying us control over them. (In real open source, you don't get to say no to a user you don't like. That's kind of the point of open source: everybody gets to play. So when the ferret person is shocked that people are reading his proposal as coercive--well, even if there weren't the cultural background he's so madly denying, the concept he picked is at best wrongheaded and strikes me as quite revealing about the actual agenda.)

Open source is a great idea, but it's always important to ask who's supposed to be providing the free stuff.
Apr. 23rd, 2008 01:56 pm (UTC)
Yeah, with physical stuff like bodies the model probably would be more like the idea of commons, i.e. pastures for general use and such...
Apr. 23rd, 2008 02:37 pm (UTC)
This is a lovely response. I have ranted about the misuse of the term myself, but not as eloquently.
Apr. 23rd, 2008 02:44 pm (UTC)
I would think cross-dressers would be more apt for open-source boobs than women. Cross-dressers have to scratch-build their own or turn to the community for support; women come pre-installed. :)
Apr. 23rd, 2008 01:10 pm (UTC)
Oh, my friend, don't blame your gender. There have been men decrying this and women totally willing to betray other women for the sake of approval saying it's a good idea. It's about people trying to disguise inappropriately sexualizing a public space as some kind of sex-positivity, and I feel like if I let this make me dismiss all men as jerks I'd be making an equivalently big mistake.

I keep trying to keep myself from making a post about how back when I was 20 I would have participated in this, as a way of seeking validation, because people will either think that means I'm making a "for the sake of the children who need to be protected from themselves" sort of argument or that I approve of this 'project', and neither are true.
Apr. 23rd, 2008 03:19 pm (UTC)
Hey, if people want to be groped by random worshipful strangers, it's no skin off my nipples.
( 8 comments — Leave a comment )


cass, can you not

Latest Month

July 2019


Powered by LiveJournal.com
Designed by Tiffany Chow