“Excuse me,” the first, very brave girl asked. “You’re very beautiful. I’d like to touch your breasts. Would you mind if I did?”
I for one will want to hear about boy on boy action!!! I demand equality!!

A pinup button for – yes you can ask to grab my breast- and another one to say – no you cannot…-

Very well, if you are at a swingers’ party or any gathering of people who know what it’s all about and are ready and seeking sexual interaction. But an all ages convention???? Hello underage little people???

Stuff like this: ‘That exchange of happiness where one person are told with gropes and touches that they are desirable and the other is someone who’s allowed to desire’ … Boob guy point of view. That is all so soo funny!

What do you think the female point of view was now really? Because the boob on the other end of your hand is attached to a brain you know??…us women, being human and all. Naaa… really? Yeah Boob guy! 50% of the peeps in the world! Can you believe that?

…Having individuality, emotions and could be experiencing everything veeery differently than mister romantico over there. I will hazard a few guesses …since I am a female human after all and can do these things sometimes.

Example of what the Boob would think if it had a woman attached to it:

“magical… yeah,yes, right, sure… whatever floats your boat. Nghhh.. keep going you idiot! This is the most fun I’ve had since…” while keeping a straight face

“Well isn’t this nice lol… “ giggling like a loon.

“Ooh, sex! I’m gonna get me some tonight! Good thing boyfriend and I are not exclusive… hey where you going? I thought…!! Ah well… next guy, maybe.” Shinny eyes you thought meant gratitude.

“Why do I do this?! …and here comes another one. Smile and remember they like you and that’s what it’s all about.”

“Everybody is doing it” the girl in the high heels and short dress looking at a point behind your ear.

“I thought it was going to be fun… but this is just weird and this guy is old enough to be my father! What do I do now?” The cute one you thought was shyly hitting on you.

“What do I say when he’s finished?” the one that looked empowered.

“Are my friends watching?” the adventurous blond.

“I SAID NO YOU CREEP!” the one with the glassy eyes…

“I’m so stoned…” couldn’t you tell?

“Wonder if he would still touch me if he knew they are fakes… and I am a guy.” guess…

“Will he get mad if I pull back? Crap got to wait it out…” she said yes and wears a green button.

“Shit, forgot to feed the dog… “… Could be anybody.

”…my mom is going to kill me if I’m late again, what time is it?” she looked hot (young).

So yeah, I know people are people …no matter where their adipose tissue hangs so keep that in mind when you see a pretty face and well placed fat. Interest varies and dignity does not abound …but we should stick up for sexual freedom, not sexual wares.

http://misia.livejournal.com/1055120.html

Rivkat, an IP lawyer, notes:

“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.

EXACTLY.

Two things. One, if I assumed by default, all code you wrote was mine to do with what I liked unless you repeated said no, and even then, I could override your no decision under various situations, you’d not be call it it open source. Given the treatment women have faced over time where they’re not given the opt-out function, and it’s not a safe space environment, and random strangers feel they have a right to treat women as their person property, what may have been a contextual opt-in event within a close circle of people who knew each other escalates out of that context very easily.

The fact they had opt-out buttons indicated that neutral was capable of being assumed opt-in. If you didn’t expressly say “red-button, no”, there was an element of doubt which wasn’t default to NO, because male privilege has allowed men (myself included) the benefit of the doubt that it’s not our fault for our actions. Women are frequently blamed for the actions of men – see the news article blaming the relationship with the girlfriend for one man punching another man on a football field. Autoblaming the female for the male’s actions annoys the hell out of me because I am rather fond of being sentient, self-aware, and culpable for my actions. It separates me from the poorly coded automata of the world.

2. It’s not open source anyway. It fails the first test – free redistribution. This isn’t even CC licence attribute share-alike. I cannot replicate and redistribute the body parts of another person. Second, I can’t view the source code – that wouldn’t be a naked body part either, it would be the genetic code plus the social conditioning and thought processes that underpinned the decision to allow open access to the body parts. We’ve barely mapped the genes, and as a consumer behaviour researcher, I know we haven’t broken the encryption on the decision making. DVDJon has miles to go before that DRM is cracked.

That’s before we start exploring the series of ramifications that come from the conceptual parameters associated with licencing an aspect of the human body under an agreement that includes
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor
9. License Must Not Restrict Other Software

Admittedly, there’s 4. Integrity of The Author’s Source Code, but how would this translate to the open sourcing of physical elements of a human body?

In short, bad idea, worse use of a name, clear demonstration of cluelessness on the original author’s part, not the fault of Open Source, but sure as hell not open source. Which is why I called my response *Closed Source*

Theres no law out there making me give it to others.

The project was opt in. So it wasn’t making all boobs open source but only those who wanted them to be.

don’t get me wrong the project had a lot of issues. but I don’t think it should be demoniEd because of its name.

I do respect that originator of the idea has backed down, and that he seems sincere and honestly repentant. But that may be my rose-colored reading.

I noted the original post was very carefully worded to be absolutely “Oh, of course we let male selves be open sourced” with no details whatsoever.

I struggle to figure out a corresponding position to the breast grope that can be effected onto a male

Also, I don’t see that the slap in the face is a valid counterpoint. As a male, I can ask, the woman can slap, and I can claim assault. Or worse, I can claim provocation and get away with much worse reprisals because the power structure is in my favour.

I see he’s backed off the original position, and that’s one promising aspect – it brought sunlight onto something that didn’t hold up well when held to the light.