post-Bike Smut follow-up - sudo-discuss

Rabbit

20 May 20 May

2:29 a.m.

Thanks, Vicky! I want to speak up especially about consent: 1. Consent on the screen: If we're going to watch porn together (which I support!) let's make sure it reflects our values instead of supporting rape culture (like the film with the box being delivered). http://www.upsettingrapeculture.com/rapeculture.html 2. Consent in the audience: Let's be careful to let the audience know if there are difficult / triggering things in the porn we're showing which could be traumatic for them to see. This applies to bdsm as well as non-consent. Both of these are very serious issues. In the future I think we need to preview shows like this before showing them to an audience. Props to the contestants at the end of the show, though! That was really great. -Rabbit On Sat, May 18, 2013 at 6:15 PM, Vicky Knox <vknoxsironi(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I want to thank everyone who came together last night to collaboratively bust their butts and get the event organized and running smoothly! Major props to the night owls who helped with final cleanup and with luggin those ginormous speakers back to my house! In the end we made ~$200, which was 4/9 of the total donations (4/9 went to Bike Smut and 1/9 went to Rock Paper Scissors for hooking it up with the beer). Maybe we should have a big event where 100% goes to SR? :] :] I had a wonderful time! The major highlights for me were absolutely Ray's aphrodesiac ice cream and witnessing the Sudo Mateists working hard the day before (Not trying to toot horns--in all seriousness, I find food to be way more sensual than porn). After the show was over, I walked around and solicited people's feedback for the show. Some members of the audience... - wished there would have been a greater presence of male-bodied people, transgender people and people of color, as well as a greater diversity of non/gendered roles played out. (I spoke afterward with Phil about the high presence of female-bodied people, and he said that the majority of the production crew are female-bodied as well, and that they would like more diversity in the films they recieve and is open to input.) - wondered how crowdsourcing porn affects demographic of submissions - were not surprised at the lack of diversity in queer porn - had not seen strap-on sex before, and were delighted - were displeased that there was no warning about two films with (staged) nonconsensual acts - want to hack sexuality - might want to have a screening of very diverse porn - think it would be really good to have a follow-up conversation! Sorry if I missed your point--if you pm me I can add it in, or please respond to the list. On the latter point, would anyone be interested in organizing this? Hugs, Vicky _______________________________________________ sudo-discuss mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss

Reply

Pete Forsyth

22 Jun 22 Jun

12:55 p.m.

Rabbit, As far as I can tell, your message of May 20 has gone without much response. I think this needs to be said: your message unkind, judgmental, and damaging to the producers of the Bike Smut film and event. While I recognize that there's room for interpretation and a variety of opinions, you stated your opinion as though it were fact, and went on to propose a new policy for Sudo Room based on that fact. I believe that is a damaging kind of behavior in a community, and hope not to see it repeated. Please see below: On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 2:29 AM, Rabbit <rabbitface(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Thanks, Vicky! I want to speak up especially about consent: 1. Consent on the screen: If we're going to watch porn together (which I support!) let's make sure it reflects our values instead of supporting rape culture (like the film with the box being delivered). http://www.upsettingrapeculture.com/rapeculture.html

The idea that Bike Smut supports rape culture is stands in strong opposution to my understanding of the project's values. One of the main goals of Bike Smut as I understand it is to foster healthy dialogue about sexuality. I saw the short film you're discussing, and agree that it presented a disconserting, non-consentual act. But it no more *supports* that act than Hans Christian Anderson supported "child-eating" culture when he told the story of the big bad wolf. If you disagree, that's fair. Perhaps they have strayed from their values. I think the most respectful way to express that opinion would be to go straight to the producers, who maintain open lines of communication, and tell them. Hold them accountable to their stated desire to present material that fosters healthy communication; initiate a discussion. Posting an insult to a public mailing list, though, as far as I can tell does no good at all, and has the potential to do great damage. 2. Consent in the audience: Let's be careful to let the audience know if

...

there are difficult / triggering things in the porn we're showing which could be traumatic for them to see. This applies to bdsm as well as non-consent.

It's hard for me to imagine *any* porn that does not contain things that are triggering or difficult for *many* people. I was very uncomfortable attending the Bike Smut event, but chose to embrace that discomfort as an opportunity to experience new things and maybe learn or grow. It seems to me that specific trigger warnings targeted to specific audiences would never be complete, and would be extranous -- I think labeling it as a "porn screening" to begin with is trigger warning enough. Both of these are very serious issues. In the future I think we need to

...

preview shows like this before showing them to an audience.

No real opinion here, except that I think if anyone takes this on, they will find it's pretty difficult to find things to present that are both interesting and 100% inoffensive to everyone.

...

Props to the contestants at the end of the show, though! That was really great.

Agreed, that was probably my favorite part too. I thought the energy of the producers and the audience was excellent and inspiring. -Pete p.s. Since lots of people on this list probably don't know me: I've been to Sudo Room a handful of times, and am a big fan of its existence and mission, and hope to be more involved in the future. I've also known Rev. Phil, the guy behind Bike Smut, for over 10 years and consider him a close friend and an inspiration.

Reply

Pete Forsyth

6:41 p.m.

Rabbit, Thanks for the reply. I think there's a lot of value in what you have to say here. Only a couple points I want to respond to: * Sorry I wasn't clearer, I am not part of Bike Smut, beyond being a personal friend and a supporter of their mission. * Your summary of my message was overstated in a few places -- in particular, I most definitely did not mean to suggest that YOU are unkind, only that your message was. I don't know the first thing about you, but I do start from the assumption that you are a kind person and aiming to do good. Also, I have of course no desire to silence you. You obviously have worthwhile things to say. I just found it troubling to have those things boiled down to a matter-of-fact and inflammatory "this supports rape culture." * I agree that some more discussion at the end could have been worthwhile; and I think it's pretty common at Bike Smut's events. -Pete On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Rabbit <rabbitface(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I have a lot to say about this! Pete, I love the idea of Bike Smut and I wish it success. I hope it will hear this feedback and improve next time. So, facts and not opinions: -- One of the films showed nonconsensual sex uncritically, without discussion, in an eroticized way -- The event showed that film uncritically, without discussion That is exactly what rape culture is: treating nonconsensual sex as normal, erotic, and desirable, and ignoring the real impact it has on people. Showing this film in this public setting had the effect of normalizing this kind of behavior, sending the message that it's acceptable. It possibly also caused sexual assault survivors in the audience to feel invisible, unsafe (because apparently people at the event don't care about them), and triggered or traumatized. I'm not saying any person at Bike Smut is a personal supporter of rape culture. But this circumstance had the outcome of supporting rape culture regardless of the organizers' intent, and I hope they can see that now and avoid it next time. I commented in public about this public event because Sudo Room tries to be a "safe space" and that means speaking up when this kind of thing happens. Hacker spaces in particular are often hostile places for women and trans* people and Sudo Room is trying to change that. I wanted to get the word out to the community that someone at Sudo Room found the film unacceptable -- so that they would feel ok coming here in the future and trusting us as a space in which sexual assault is unacceptable. Finally, a good response to being called out is "oops, thanks, we'll do better." A poor response to being called out would be, to loosely paraphrase points from the previous email: -- Don't tell anyone what happened -- That's only your opinion -- Don't try to keep this from happening again by proposing policies -- You're unkind -- You're damaging our reputation -- You're hurting the community -- Don't speak about this again -- You should have raised the issue with us in private instead of trying to discuss this event with the community that it affected I sure don't feel comfortable with this. It's not easy being criticized, but consider the kind of responses that would gain people's trust and demonstrate accountability? But there are a lot of good things about Bike Smut and other DIY porn festivals. They're fun, but fun with a mission: to dispel shame, celebrate diversity, and provide positive examples of how we want things to be. So I hold them to a high standard, and especially so when shown in a community space like Sudo Room which has its own standards to uphold. So I hope that Bike Smut succeeds and grows, and also uses a bit more care and empathy in its film curation. -Rabbit On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

Rabbit, As far as I can tell, your message of May 20 has gone without much response. I think this needs to be said: your message unkind, judgmental, and damaging to the producers of the Bike Smut film and event. While I recognize that there's room for interpretation and a variety of opinions, you stated your opinion as though it were fact, and went on to propose a new policy for Sudo Room based on that fact. I believe that is a damaging kind of behavior in a community, and hope not to see it repeated. Please see below: On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 2:29 AM, Rabbit <rabbitface(a)gmail.com> wrote:

Thanks, Vicky! I want to speak up especially about consent: 1. Consent on the screen: If we're going to watch porn together (which I support!) let's make sure it reflects our values instead of supporting rape culture (like the film with the box being delivered). http://www.upsettingrapeculture.com/rapeculture.html

The idea that Bike Smut supports rape culture is stands in strong opposution to my understanding of the project's values. One of the main goals of Bike Smut as I understand it is to foster healthy dialogue about sexuality. I saw the short film you're discussing, and agree that it presented a disconserting, non-consentual act. But it no more *supports* that act than Hans Christian Anderson supported "child-eating" culture when he told the story of the big bad wolf. If you disagree, that's fair. Perhaps they have strayed from their values. I think the most respectful way to express that opinion would be to go straight to the producers, who maintain open lines of communication, and tell them. Hold them accountable to their stated desire to present material that fosters healthy communication; initiate a discussion. Posting an insult to a public mailing list, though, as far as I can tell does no good at all, and has the potential to do great damage. 2. Consent in the audience: Let's be careful to let the audience know if

there are difficult / triggering things in the porn we're showing which could be traumatic for them to see. This applies to bdsm as well as non-consent.

It's hard for me to imagine *any* porn that does not contain things that are triggering or difficult for *many* people. I was very uncomfortable attending the Bike Smut event, but chose to embrace that discomfort as an opportunity to experience new things and maybe learn or grow. It seems to me that specific trigger warnings targeted to specific audiences would never be complete, and would be extranous -- I think labeling it as a "porn screening" to begin with is trigger warning enough. Both of these are very serious issues. In the future I think we need to

preview shows like this before showing them to an audience.

No real opinion here, except that I think if anyone takes this on, they will find it's pretty difficult to find things to present that are both interesting and 100% inoffensive to everyone.

Props to the contestants at the end of the show, though! That was really great.

Agreed, that was probably my favorite part too. I thought the energy of the producers and the audience was excellent and inspiring. -Pete p.s. Since lots of people on this list probably don't know me: I've been to Sudo Room a handful of times, and am a big fan of its existence and mission, and hope to be more involved in the future. I've also known Rev. Phil, the guy behind Bike Smut, for over 10 years and consider him a close friend and an inspiration.

Reply

Pete Forsyth

26 Jun 26 Jun

9:23 p.m.

Rabbit, Well, the email got us off to a less than ideal start, but I think we're recovering ok :) Getting back to the film you brought up -- I'll recap it for anybody who didn't see it, and then give my interpretation. The film depicted a sex act which was consentual on the surface, but at the end, one woman revealed that she had been conspiring to make the other one, a stranger, an unknowning participant in getting her pregnant. The victim of the deception hurried off in horror. First, I acknowledge that the film could be difficult for somebody to watch, especially somebody who's had experiences with nonconsentual sex. I personally felt uncomfortable watching it. But I do not think its intent was to condone the behavior it showed. It seemed to me that by highlighting the lack of consent -- almost treating it as a punch line -- it invited the audience to reflect on the act. By showing the victim's emotional reaction, and the detachment of the perpetrator, it implicitly acknowledged that there was something going on that was at least unusual, or maybe worse. It didn't offer explicit commentary on that, but my impression was that it was the sort of film that was created with the specific intent of provoking reflection or discussion. I'm curious: if the event had offered more opportunity for immediate, and maybe facilitated, group discussion of the films, would you have felt OK about that one being included? Pete On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Rabbit <rabbitface(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

Thanks Pete. Yes, I wasn't sure if you were part of Bike Smut or not. I apologize for misunderstanding part of your message, and thanks for cooling down the potential flame war. Email is a poor medium for this kind of conversation. :/ -rabbit On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

Rabbit, Thanks for the reply. I think there's a lot of value in what you have to say here. Only a couple points I want to respond to: * Sorry I wasn't clearer, I am not part of Bike Smut, beyond being a personal friend and a supporter of their mission. * Your summary of my message was overstated in a few places -- in particular, I most definitely did not mean to suggest that YOU are unkind, only that your message was. I don't know the first thing about you, but I do start from the assumption that you are a kind person and aiming to do good. Also, I have of course no desire to silence you. You obviously have worthwhile things to say. I just found it troubling to have those things boiled down to a matter-of-fact and inflammatory "this supports rape culture." * I agree that some more discussion at the end could have been worthwhile; and I think it's pretty common at Bike Smut's events. -Pete On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Rabbit <rabbitface(a)gmail.com> wrote:

I have a lot to say about this! Pete, I love the idea of Bike Smut and I wish it success. I hope it will hear this feedback and improve next time. So, facts and not opinions: -- One of the films showed nonconsensual sex uncritically, without discussion, in an eroticized way -- The event showed that film uncritically, without discussion That is exactly what rape culture is: treating nonconsensual sex as normal, erotic, and desirable, and ignoring the real impact it has on people. Showing this film in this public setting had the effect of normalizing this kind of behavior, sending the message that it's acceptable. It possibly also caused sexual assault survivors in the audience to feel invisible, unsafe (because apparently people at the event don't care about them), and triggered or traumatized. I'm not saying any person at Bike Smut is a personal supporter of rape culture. But this circumstance had the outcome of supporting rape culture regardless of the organizers' intent, and I hope they can see that now and avoid it next time. I commented in public about this public event because Sudo Room tries to be a "safe space" and that means speaking up when this kind of thing happens. Hacker spaces in particular are often hostile places for women and trans* people and Sudo Room is trying to change that. I wanted to get the word out to the community that someone at Sudo Room found the film unacceptable -- so that they would feel ok coming here in the future and trusting us as a space in which sexual assault is unacceptable. Finally, a good response to being called out is "oops, thanks, we'll do better." A poor response to being called out would be, to loosely paraphrase points from the previous email: -- Don't tell anyone what happened -- That's only your opinion -- Don't try to keep this from happening again by proposing policies -- You're unkind -- You're damaging our reputation -- You're hurting the community -- Don't speak about this again -- You should have raised the issue with us in private instead of trying to discuss this event with the community that it affected I sure don't feel comfortable with this. It's not easy being criticized, but consider the kind of responses that would gain people's trust and demonstrate accountability? But there are a lot of good things about Bike Smut and other DIY porn festivals. They're fun, but fun with a mission: to dispel shame, celebrate diversity, and provide positive examples of how we want things to be. So I hold them to a high standard, and especially so when shown in a community space like Sudo Room which has its own standards to uphold. So I hope that Bike Smut succeeds and grows, and also uses a bit more care and empathy in its film curation. -Rabbit On Sat, Jun 22, 2013 at 12:55 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

Rabbit, As far as I can tell, your message of May 20 has gone without much response. I think this needs to be said: your message unkind, judgmental, and damaging to the producers of the Bike Smut film and event. While I recognize that there's room for interpretation and a variety of opinions, you stated your opinion as though it were fact, and went on to propose a new policy for Sudo Room based on that fact. I believe that is a damaging kind of behavior in a community, and hope not to see it repeated. Please see below: On Mon, May 20, 2013 at 2:29 AM, Rabbit <rabbitface(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Thanks, Vicky! > > I want to speak up especially about consent: > > 1. Consent on the screen: If we're going to watch porn together (which > I support!) let's make sure it reflects our values instead of supporting > rape culture (like the film with the box being delivered). > http://www.upsettingrapeculture.com/rapeculture.html > The idea that Bike Smut supports rape culture is stands in strong opposution to my understanding of the project's values. One of the main goals of Bike Smut as I understand it is to foster healthy dialogue about sexuality. I saw the short film you're discussing, and agree that it presented a disconserting, non-consentual act. But it no more *supports* that act than Hans Christian Anderson supported "child-eating" culture when he told the story of the big bad wolf. If you disagree, that's fair. Perhaps they have strayed from their values. I think the most respectful way to express that opinion would be to go straight to the producers, who maintain open lines of communication, and tell them. Hold them accountable to their stated desire to present material that fosters healthy communication; initiate a discussion. Posting an insult to a public mailing list, though, as far as I can tell does no good at all, and has the potential to do great damage. 2. Consent in the audience: Let's be careful to let the audience know > if there are difficult / triggering things in the porn we're showing which > could be traumatic for them to see. This applies to bdsm as well as > non-consent. > It's hard for me to imagine *any* porn that does not contain things that are triggering or difficult for *many* people. I was very uncomfortable attending the Bike Smut event, but chose to embrace that discomfort as an opportunity to experience new things and maybe learn or grow. It seems to me that specific trigger warnings targeted to specific audiences would never be complete, and would be extranous -- I think labeling it as a "porn screening" to begin with is trigger warning enough. Both of these are very serious issues. In the future I think we need > to preview shows like this before showing them to an audience. > No real opinion here, except that I think if anyone takes this on, they will find it's pretty difficult to find things to present that are both interesting and 100% inoffensive to everyone. > Props to the contestants at the end of the show, though! That was > really great. > Agreed, that was probably my favorite part too. I thought the energy of the producers and the audience was excellent and inspiring. -Pete p.s. Since lots of people on this list probably don't know me: I've been to Sudo Room a handful of times, and am a big fan of its existence and mission, and hope to be more involved in the future. I've also known Rev. Phil, the guy behind Bike Smut, for over 10 years and consider him a close friend and an inspiration.

Reply

Sonja Trauss

2:36 p.m.

No I'm reading On Thursday, June 27, 2013, Rabbit wrote:

...

There were other parts of the film that I thought were worse than that part but I don't want to get into details here on the list. Since we're the only ones talking in this thread I'm going to take it off-list now. On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: Rabbit, Well, the email got us off to a less than ideal start, but I think we're recovering ok :) Getting back to the film you brought up -- I'll recap it for anybody who didn't see it, and then give my interpretation. The film depicted a sex act which was consentual on the surface, but at the end, one woman revealed that she had been conspiring to make the other one, a stranger, an unknowning participant in getting her pregnant. The victim of the deception hurried off in horror. First, I acknowledge that the film could be difficult for somebody to watch, especially somebody who's had experiences with nonconsentual sex. I personally felt uncomfortable watching it. But I do not think its intent was to condone the behavior it showed. It seemed to me that by highlighting the lack of consent -- almost treating it as a punch line -- it invited the audience to reflect on the act. By showing the victim's emotional reaction, and the detachment of the perpetrator, it implicitly acknowledged that there was something going on that was at least unusual, or maybe worse. It didn't offer explicit commentary on that, but my impression was that it was the sort of film that was created with the specific intent of provoking reflection or discussion. I'm curious: if the event had offered more opportunity for immediate, and maybe facilitated, group discussion of the films, would you have felt OK about that one being included? Pete On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Rabbit <rabbitface(a)gmail.com> wrote: Thanks Pete. Yes, I wasn't sure if you were part of Bike Smut or not. I apologize for misunderstanding part of your message, and thanks for cooling down the potential flame war. Email is a poor medium for this kind of conversation. :/ -rabbit On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: Rabbit, Thanks for the reply. I think there's a lot of value in what you have to say here. Only a couple points I want to respond to: * Sorry I wasn't clearer, I am not part of Bike Smut, beyond being a personal friend and a supporter of their mission. * Your summary of my message was overstated in a few places -- in particular, I most definitely did not mean to suggest that YOU are unkind, only that your message was. I don't know the first thing about you, but I do start from the assumption that you are a kind person and aiming to do good. Also, I have of course no desire to silence you. You obviously have worthwhile things to say. I just found it troubling to have those things boiled down to a matter-of-fact and inflammatory "this supports rape culture." * I agree that some more discussion at the end could have been worthwhile; and I think it's pretty common at Bike Smut's events. -Pete On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Rabbit <rabbitface(a)gmail.com> wrote: I have a lot to say about this! Pete, I love the idea of Bike Smut and I wish it success. I hope it will hear this feedback and improve next time. So, facts and not o

Reply

Tony Barreca

4:03 p.m.

I suspect that more are following your conversation than participating in it, and I have to see any complaints. But of course, sharing is totally up to you. On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Sonja Trauss <sonja.trauss(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

...

No I'm reading On Thursday, June 27, 2013, Rabbit wrote:

There were other parts of the film that I thought were worse than that part but I don't want to get into details here on the list. Since we're the only ones talking in this thread I'm going to take it off-list now. On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: Rabbit, Well, the email got us off to a less than ideal start, but I think we're recovering ok :) Getting back to the film you brought up -- I'll recap it for anybody who didn't see it, and then give my interpretation. The film depicted a sex act which was consentual on the surface, but at the end, one woman revealed that she had been conspiring to make the other one, a stranger, an unknowning participant in getting her pregnant. The victim of the deception hurried off in horror. First, I acknowledge that the film could be difficult for somebody to watch, especially somebody who's had experiences with nonconsentual sex. I personally felt uncomfortable watching it. But I do not think its intent was to condone the behavior it showed. It seemed to me that by highlighting the lack of consent -- almost treating it as a punch line -- it invited the audience to reflect on the act. By showing the victim's emotional reaction, and the detachment of the perpetrator, it implicitly acknowledged that there was something going on that was at least unusual, or maybe worse. It didn't offer explicit commentary on that, but my impression was that it was the sort of film that was created with the specific intent of provoking reflection or discussion. I'm curious: if the event had offered more opportunity for immediate, and maybe facilitated, group discussion of the films, would you have felt OK about that one being included? Pete On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Rabbit <rabbitface(a)gmail.com> wrote: Thanks Pete. Yes, I wasn't sure if you were part of Bike Smut or not. I apologize for misunderstanding part of your message, and thanks for cooling down the potential flame war. Email is a poor medium for this kind of conversation. :/ -rabbit On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: Rabbit, Thanks for the reply. I think there's a lot of value in what you have to say here. Only a couple points I want to respond to: * Sorry I wasn't clearer, I am not part of Bike Smut, beyond being a personal friend and a supporter of their mission. * Your summary of my message was overstated in a few places -- in particular, I most definitely did not mean to suggest that YOU are unkind, only that your message was. I don't know the first thing about you, but I do start from the assumption that you are a kind person and aiming to do good. Also, I have of course no desire to silence you. You obviously have worthwhile things to say. I just found it troubling to have those things boiled down to a matter-of-fact and inflammatory "this supports rape culture." * I agree that some more discussion at the end could have been worthwhile; and I think it's pretty common at Bike Smut's events. -Pete On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Rabbit <rabbitface(a)gmail.com> wrote: I have a lot to say about this! Pete, I love the idea of Bike Smut and I wish it success. I hope it will hear this feedback and improve next time. So, facts and not o

_______________________________________________ sudo-discuss mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss

-- Tony Barreca LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/tonybarreca Skype: tonybarreca Twitter: tbarreca Mobile: (510) 710-5864

Reply

rachel lyra hospodar

6 p.m.

Complaining when it seems to contravene the status quo is scary! Especially when it's around an issue of harassment or consent, which are big old lightning rods for getting verbally abused. My rule of thumb around these kinds of discussions (based on past experiences) is usually that, if someone was upset enough to come forward, others who feel less safe/empowered/whatever probable also were really upset and didn't come forward. The takeaway for me is twofold: If I am bothered and feel safe speaking up, I should, because others may be bothered but feel unable to address it. If someone speaks up about something bothering them, it is important to listen even if what is bothering them didn't bother me. On Jun 27, 2013 7:07 PM, "Tony Barreca" <tony.barreca(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

"...have yet to see any complaints..." I meant. On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 4:03 PM, Tony Barreca <tony.barreca(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

I suspect that more are following your conversation than participating in it, and I have to see any complaints. But of course, sharing is totally up to you. On Thu, Jun 27, 2013 at 2:36 PM, Sonja Trauss <sonja.trauss(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

No I'm reading On Thursday, June 27, 2013, Rabbit wrote:

There were other parts of the film that I thought were worse than that part but I don't want to get into details here on the list. Since we're the only ones talking in this thread I'm going to take it off-list now. On Wed, Jun 26, 2013 at 9:23 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: Rabbit, Well, the email got us off to a less than ideal start, but I think we're recovering ok :) Getting back to the film you brought up -- I'll recap it for anybody who didn't see it, and then give my interpretation. The film depicted a sex act which was consentual on the surface, but at the end, one woman revealed that she had been conspiring to make the other one, a stranger, an unknowning participant in getting her pregnant. The victim of the deception hurried off in horror. First, I acknowledge that the film could be difficult for somebody to watch, especially somebody who's had experiences with nonconsentual sex. I personally felt uncomfortable watching it. But I do not think its intent was to condone the behavior it showed. It seemed to me that by highlighting the lack of consent -- almost treating it as a punch line -- it invited the audience to reflect on the act. By showing the victim's emotional reaction, and the detachment of the perpetrator, it implicitly acknowledged that there was something going on that was at least unusual, or maybe worse. It didn't offer explicit commentary on that, but my impression was that it was the sort of film that was created with the specific intent of provoking reflection or discussion. I'm curious: if the event had offered more opportunity for immediate, and maybe facilitated, group discussion of the films, would you have felt OK about that one being included? Pete On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 7:26 PM, Rabbit <rabbitface(a)gmail.com> wrote: Thanks Pete. Yes, I wasn't sure if you were part of Bike Smut or not. I apologize for misunderstanding part of your message, and thanks for cooling down the potential flame war. Email is a poor medium for this kind of conversation. :/ -rabbit On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 6:41 PM, Pete Forsyth <peteforsyth(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: Rabbit, Thanks for the reply. I think there's a lot of value in what you have to say here. Only a couple points I want to respond to: * Sorry I wasn't clearer, I am not part of Bike Smut, beyond being a personal friend and a supporter of their mission. * Your summary of my message was overstated in a few places -- in particular, I most definitely did not mean to suggest that YOU are unkind, only that your message was. I don't know the first thing about you, but I do start from the assumption that you are a kind person and aiming to do good. Also, I have of course no desire to silence you. You obviously have worthwhile things to say. I just found it troubling to have those things boiled down to a matter-of-fact and inflammatory "this supports rape culture." * I agree that some more discussion at the end could have been worthwhile; and I think it's pretty common at Bike Smut's events. -Pete On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 5:49 PM, Rabbit <rabbitface(a)gmail.com> wrote: I have a lot to say about this! Pete, I love the idea of Bike Smut and I wish it success. I hope it will hear this feedback and improve next time. So, facts and not o

_______________________________________________ sudo-discuss mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss

-- Tony Barreca LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/tonybarreca Skype: tonybarreca Twitter: tbarreca Mobile: (510) 710-5864

-- Tony Barreca LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/tonybarreca Skype: tonybarreca Twitter: tbarreca Mobile: (510) 710-5864 _______________________________________________ sudo-discuss mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss

Reply