[sudo-discuss] post-Bike Smut follow-up

[Pete Forsyth]

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 at 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 at gmail.com>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 at 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 at gmail.com>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 at 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130626/035bb326/attachment.html>