Critical Tits photography

lurker · Post by **lurker** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 11:59 am

I keep saying "CT IS FOR WOMEN" and people keep posting reasons why it should be.

You keep posting 'CT is for women', and people keep refuting you and slapping you down--including the women who started the whole thing.

The real issue at stake is how do we respect eachother so that everyone gets to freedom of expression without ruining someone else's good time? Is it even possible

??

No. It's not possible. Humans aren't designed that way. Instead, we try things like BRC, where the only limit on you is pretty much what you are able to do. EVERYONE has the exact same oppuortunity to have freedom of expression. As long as we all have that, and we all respect each others right to have that, we'll do fine.

It doesn't mean that we won't get on each others nerves, or do things that totally piss of some other people.

It simply means that we're all free, and we know it, and we're willing to default to the notion that someone's expressing THEIR freedoms--even if it annoys me.

In the case of CT, the people who don't want to be photographed are ABSLOUTELY free to have that happen---by staying away from things that they know ARE photographed, or by staying out of events that are photographed. Simple.

Rockdad, who has fled, who TAKES photographs at a photographed event, IS respecting everyone's freedom. HughMungus, who seeks to stop people from doing something they've been doing since CT started, is NOT.

Understand that HughMungus is, de facto, calling ALL the men who attend CT slobbering perverts who are only there to drool over the naked tits and take pictures to masturbate to and/or sell to unscrupulous porn-peddlers. All of us.

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 2:41 pm

lurker wrote:It's funny, Hugh had the creator's words posted at him--words that refute his position, and still he soldiers on, protecting people who haven't asked for it and defending opinions that are contrary to the spirit of the originators.

Yet Hugh is right and everyone who accepts the originators intent is wrong.

Tell me what part of this you don't understrand:

It stands as one of the few strictly female spaces at Burning Man

In CT there are some women who don't want to be photographed. Some. There are--according to HughMungus, anyway, some women who don't even want men to see them in CT. Again, some.

These people want something different from what CT has been since it's inception. They want something that is not the same as the CT ride.

Yet they want this different thing to be called CT and they want everyone to accede to their demands in this.

They want to alter what CT is, change it's meaning and it's attendence, impinge on everyone else's enjoyment of CT as it is.

Does any of this sound like it's right? Like it's good?

Yes, it sounds great to me. I used to be one of the photographers. I realized that in exchange for a few photos, there was the potential of making people not participate as they would want to. In fact, I used to be a die-hard photographer/vidoeographer who used the "this is my way of contributing to the community" argument. Then I realized that I was, in fact, possibly interfering with others participation in the event. It was just the POTENTIAL that I might be interfering that caused me to abandon my cameras. What I don't understand is how you who are now defending your "right" to photograph and videotape at Burning Man don't see the imbalance of you being able to photograph vs. maybe preventing people from participating. What you're telling us is that your images are more important than my participation. Which is more important to Burning Man: static images and video or participation?

A small group get to stifle, censor and alter something out of recognition so that they can enjoy pretending that they're taking part in the thing that destroyed?

What does this mean?

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 2:46 pm

AntiM wrote:Don't WHINE and expect Burning Man to come up with new rules.

I'm not whining. My first post about this was to say that if you are one of the men who go to CT and/or photograph CT, that you should set the example for the less-enlightened men and not go to CT because it is for women. I was experssing my opinion that WE set the example.

Camera tags and rangers and an "xyz only event" or other such rules just create work for someone else. We know why more rules aren't viable, so we need to address the issue as individuals, with responsible actions.

Since you don't seem to think there is a problem, I don't understand why you think there should be some kind of solution.

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 2:54 pm

lurker wrote:You keep posting 'CT is for women', and people keep refuting you and slapping you down--including the women who started the whole thing.

The people who are refuting me are the people with vested interests in being allowed to attend or be allowed to photograph.

Where is the post by "the women who started the whole thing"?

In the case of CT, the people who don't want to be photographed are ABSLOUTELY free to have that happen---by staying away from things that they know ARE photographed, or by staying out of events that are photographed. Simple.

Brilliant. "If you don't like being photographed, don't participate." Fucking brilliant.

Rockdad, who has fled, who TAKES photographs at a photographed event, IS respecting everyone's freedom. HughMungus, who seeks to stop people from doing something they've been doing since CT started, is NOT.

He is? By taking photographs and THEN asking permission?

I'm trying to stop people from doing something that interferes with others' ability and willingness to participate. Again, what's more important to Burning Man: that people be allowed to photograph whatever they want or that people participate?

Understand that HughMungus is, de facto, calling ALL the men who attend CT slobbering perverts who are only there to drool over the naked tits and take pictures to masturbate to and/or sell to unscrupulous porn-peddlers. All of us.

This shows that you don't understand my argument whatsoever. Where have I said anything about what the photographers do with the photographs or even the nature of the photographers? My argument has been, from the beginning, that the mere presence of men and cameras at CT (and Burning Man in general) interferes with others ability and willingness to participate. The only thing I've said about the photographers who are arguing for their "rights" is that they are being selfish and not understanding of their negative impact on others.

Post by **AntiM** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 7:58 am

Alright, not whining, but certainly passionate. The persistant discussion on the thread led me to the conclusion that folks were looking for answers. I think that if a perceived problem is being discussed, then perceived solutions would be on topic too.

I agree with your lead by example stance. I'll not be at CT right along with you, even though I am neither male nor taking pictures.

AS A WOMAN, I do disagree that the event is for women only. That's your view. This is mine. They're different views. I bet we aren't going to change our minds based on arguements in this forum. Lots of other women may well disagree with you, but I don't want to have to be the one to generate the on-playa poll.

Beer and drinks at my camp during CT!

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 9:50 am

AntiM wrote:Alright, not whining, but certainly passionate. The persistant discussion on the thread led me to the conclusion that folks were looking for answers. I think that if a perceived problem is being discussed, then perceived solutions would be on topic too.

I agree with your lead by example stance. I'll not be at CT right along with you, even though I am neither male nor taking pictures.

AS A WOMAN, I do disagree that the event is for women only. That's your view. This is mine. They're different views. I bet we aren't going to change our minds based on arguements in this forum. Lots of other women may well disagree with you, but I don't want to have to be the one to generate the on-playa poll.

Beer and drinks at my camp during CT!

Before women's suffrage, there used to be lots of women who believed that women didn't need or deserve the right to vote (in fact, there are some who still believe that). They believed that because the majority of society believed it. Does that the women who do want the right to vote shouldn't have the right to vote?

I think I mentioned earlier that my mother was a feminist. Maybe that's why I seem to be one of the few people here who understand why it's important for women to have an event like CT to themselves, for themselves, and for each other.

EB · Post by EB » Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:16 am

HughMungus wrote:I think I mentioned earlier that my mother was a feminist. Maybe that's why I seem to be one of the few people here who understand why it's important for women to have an event like CT to themselves, for themselves, and for each other.

I take issue with this view of feminism. Females don't exist in a vacuum (nor do they exist TO vacuum, as my mom might say...) If they feel empowered to ride topless into a horde of paparazzi, let 'em ride.

They don't need your "older brother" protection, Dallas Playa/HughMungus. The irony of which being the more you attempt to gallantly protect their virtue, the more you minimalize their empowerment.

EB

Lady V · Post by **Lady V** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:29 am

I believe it would be a mistake to speak for all women who ride in CT. I, for one, welcome gallantry. Not diminishment, but gallantry.

Post by **AntiM** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 10:30 am

I'm still mulling over the difference between suffrage (a right previously denied) and and the proposal to exclude men from viewing a topless ride. Moot, as we don't actually know how many women object to the male bystanders and how many enjoy the mens' presence. We're theorizing in a vacuum here.

Am I being called unenlightened because I am not taking your radical feminist view of a single event? [insert humor here] Isn't that just like a man to presume to think for me ... [end snarky remark]

What would be great would be if women could go shirtless in public everywhere a man could do so. There'd be so many boobies in the world no one would care about who sees a semi-nude rider in the desert.

What good is possessing The Rack of Infinite Wisdom if there are no men to cower before it?

lurker · Post by **lurker** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:17 am

There come a point where you begin to realise that Hugh is expressing HIS opinion of how HE feels when watching CT, and because HIS thoughts are wallowing in the sewer and he's decided that he's 'enlightened, HE gets to speak for women and tell them how they want things in a matter that they(the women) have never asked for his input on.

I put forth the notion that it is Hugh's own sexual hangups that motivate him because I cannot fathom any other reason for such a blind passion about the subject. No amount of reason deters him, not even women telling him he's mistaken.

Therefore I conclude that he must be guilty of that leering that he claims women avoid CT to get away from. He must feel that they can tell that his thoughts are of bouncing boobies and not glorious feminist non-objectification. And since they can see HIS thoughts straining at his zipper, they must be able to see all the leering' unenlightened' men's thoughts.

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:28 am

I think a lot of you are mis-understanding an important point that I'm trying to make: If what you are doing at Burning Man is interfering with someone else's participation, you are doing something that's wrong.

I'm not trying to be valiant or defend anyone. I'm trying to get some of you to understand that what you think is harmless is actually hurtful to others and explain why I think that is.

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:33 am

AntiM wrote:I'm still mulling over the difference between suffrage (a right previously denied) and and the proposal to exclude men from viewing a topless ride.

My point here is that just because things are the way they are now (CT is held in public with throngs of men with cameras attending) and that "most" people think that's how it should be does not mean that that is how it should be for those who it affects most (the participants). Just as most of society used to think women shouldn't have the right to vote (including some women), most people think CT is supposed to be the way it is now because that's how it is supposed to be.

Am I being called unenlightened because I am not taking your radical feminist view of a single event? [insert humor here] Isn't that just like a man to presume to think for me ... [end snarky remark]

I'm not trying to think for you or anyone. I'm trying to get people to understand how they might be interfering with others' participation (not just at CT but in relation to photography at Burning Man in general).

What would be great would be if women could go shirtless in public everywhere a man could do so. There'd be so many boobies in the world no one would care about who sees a semi-nude rider in the desert.

What good is possessing The Rack of Infinite Wisdom if there are no men to cower before it?

But you see, this is not what CT is about at all. It's not about "boobies". It's about women participating in something together with each other, for each other.

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 11:39 am

lurker wrote:There come a point where you begin to realise that Hugh is expressing HIS opinion of how HE feels when watching CT, and because HIS thoughts are wallowing in the sewer and he's decided that he's 'enlightened, HE gets to speak for women and tell them how they want things in a matter that they(the women) have never asked for his input on.

I put forth the notion that it is Hugh's own sexual hangups that motivate him because I cannot fathom any other reason for such a blind passion about the subject. No amount of reason deters him, not even women telling him he's mistaken.

Therefore I conclude that he must be guilty of that leering that he claims women avoid CT to get away from. He must feel that they can tell that his thoughts are of bouncing boobies and not glorious feminist non-objectification. And since they can see HIS thoughts straining at his zipper, they must be able to see all the leering' unenlightened' men's thoughts.

No. What motivates me is that I want people to be able to participate as much as they want to.

It's interesting that you're able to analyze me so thoroughly yet unable to understand one simple point.

Post by **AntiM** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 2:05 pm

I get the feeling there's as many interpretations of the Critical Tits Ride as there are riders, photographers, friends, families, and just plain people who have heard about it somehow.

The larger photography issue still boils down to "Don't Be a Dick." If you see someone else being a dick, ask them nicely not to be a dick. Use common sense from there.

I feel like no one gets my humor in a tense situation. Me and my Rack of Infinite Wisdom are going away for now. We still invite everyone here for beer and art on Friday afternoon. Who knows, I may want a decent photograph of my tits, the last one I have is full of cables and pointy things.

lurker · Post by **lurker** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 2:09 pm

No. What motivates me is that I want people to be able to participate as much as they want to.

Except the people who cheer the riders on.

Except the people who take pictures.

Except the men.

Except the people who have been doing what THEY'VE been doing since CT started.

Yes, you want people to participate as much as they want to---as lomg as they want to do it your way.

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 2:38 pm

lurker wrote:
No. What motivates me is that I want people to be able to participate as much as they want to.
Except the people who cheer the riders on.

Except the people who take pictures.

Except the men.

Except the people who have been doing what THEY'VE been doing since CT started.

Yes, you want people to participate as much as they want to---as lomg as they want to do it your way.

Those aren't participants. They're spectators. What you're saying is that you think you should be allowed to spectate no matter how it affects the participants. That seems awfully selfish to me. Thanks for setting a fine example for the less-enlightened members of the community.

EvilDustBooger · Post by **EvilDustBooger** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 2:43 pm

The average duration of a yawn is about 6 seconds.
In humans, the earliest occurrence of a yawn happens at about 11 weeks after conception - that's BEFORE the baby is born and require breasts for milk or have any vague notion as to what titties are...
Yawns become contagious to people between the first and second years of life; where they also develop fond affinities for those lovely fleshy tokens of femininity, the mammary glands.

But certain aspects of yawning remain even more mysterious. Fetuses, for instances, have been observed yawning in the womb, yet it’s known that they don’t take oxygen in through their lungs. And yawning seems to be a symptom of multiple sclerosis and other medical conditions, for reasons unclear.

Another puzzling phenomenon is that some male animals, men included, yawn in association with penile erection (although it’s presumptuous to assume they’re bored with their sex lives).

A part of the brain that plays an important role in yawning is the hypothalamus.

Research has shown that some neurotransmitters (for example, dopamine, excitatory amino acids, nitric oxide) and neuropeptides increase yawning if injected into the hypothalamus of animals,
and similar reactions have been noted in humans subjected to continuous, mindless rehashing of moot points on the internet.,

Thank you for your attention, and please continue with this most riveting
of deliciously presentative discussions.

Cephlah · Post by **Cephlah** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 1:38 am

funny, funny, FUNNY! And yet, strangely informative...I will go to bed tonight having learned something new. Thanks Booger

Lassen Forge · Post by **Lassen Forge** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:42 am

The contagien is not only effective via photograph, but is cross-species as well - the Cat pix made me yawn, I can get my parrot to yawn, have gotten both dogs and the feral cats outside to do the same, and shit, I got a serious case of the yawns right now...

See what you did???

Now how do I get it to STOP??!??

bb

lurker · Post by **lurker** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 10:53 am

Those aren't participants. They're spectators. What you're saying is that you think you should be allowed to spectate no matter how it affects the participants. That seems awfully selfish to me. Thanks for setting a fine example for the less-enlightened members of the community.

Should I include the women who WANT to be photographed riding in CT? The people who are taking those requested photographs?

YOU, Hughmumgus, are a spectator at CT. A spectator. And yet you feel that you have the right to demand...whine...blather about how the ride should be changed to suit YOUR PERSONAL SPECIFICATIONS(and I don't give a crap WHAT you THINK the riders want) You're a spectator, what gives you the right to change an event that you are forbidden by gender from taking part in--except as a spectator(provided, of course, that everyone continues to ignore what YOU want)

I'd yawn, but I enjoy popping the inflated heads of self righteous regulating prigs far too much..

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 11:18 am

lurker wrote:
Those aren't participants. They're spectators. What you're saying is that you think you should be allowed to spectate no matter how it affects the participants. That seems awfully selfish to me. Thanks for setting a fine example for the less-enlightened members of the community.
Should I include the women who WANT to be photographed riding in CT? The people who are taking those requested photographs?

YOU, Hughmumgus, are a spectator at CT. A spectator. And yet you feel that you have the right to demand...whine...blather about how the ride should be changed to suit YOUR PERSONAL SPECIFICATIONS(and I don't give a crap WHAT you THINK the riders want) You're a spectator, what gives you the right to change an event that you are forbidden by gender from taking part in--except as a spectator(provided, of course, that everyone continues to ignore what YOU want)

I'm not demanding anything. I'm asking people to consider how they might be interfering with others' participation in the event. It seems you're having a problem thinking about things from a perspective other than your own. If you were able to think of CT from another's perspective, you might understand how having a camera in your face might prevent you from participating as much as you might want to.

I'm not addressing just CT. I'm addressing the question of whether it's more valuable to Burning Man to accommodate spectators and photographers or to accommodate participants.

Let me put it in the form of a question for you: Do you think it's OK to prevent others from participating at Burning Man so that you may spectate and/or photograph an event? Yes or no?

Flon · Post by **Flon** » Thu Feb 16, 2006 4:16 pm

An interesting (if somewhat over-long) thread. HM is getting a bit piled on (although he seems perfectly able to take it), so I would like to say that he makes some valid points. One can not logically deny that omnipresent photography does change CT, BM, or any event. One will behave differently if there is a good chance that your behavior will be recorded so that it becomes "permanent" as opposed to transient. You also lose control of your audience when you are photographed/recorded/filmed. Something you might be willing to do in front of the people immediately there might be unthinkable in front of some of the people that would observe it once recorded. Therefore, behavior can be constricted by the possibility of it being recorded. Posters advocating free photography have as much as said so:

lurker wrote:In the case of CT, the people who don't want to be photographed are ABSLOUTELY free to have that happen---by staying away from things that they know ARE photographed, or by staying out of events that are photographed. Simple.

I personally have witnessed altered behaivior because of possible recording: "no, I won't dance up there, [on a stage] some of those people have video cameras"; "It's hot. I'd take my shirt off, but I'd probably end up on someone's web site."

A large portion of what makes Burning Man special to me is "The right to fail". I see better visual art at most museums than I see at BM, and I certainly hear better music every day than I ever hear at Burning Man. What I don't see in "real life" is people letting go of their fears and allowing themselves to express what they have even if it isn't "the best". People will make a sculpture that might make little sense to most, sing that song that people at the club would think is stupid, or take their clothes off even if they don't look like a supermodel. This has value in itself because it shows you who someone is, and once in a long while, you are amazed by how really good something is that may never have been revealed otherwise. With photography/filming/recording you lose this zone of safety in many people's cases.

I have gone to Burning Man since 1999 and made a conscious decision that year not to bring a camera for this reason (perhaps less clear in my mind then, but basically the same). I also did it for my own selfish reasons. I find that photographing a subject makes it just that - a subject - and I am no longer participating but recording. Other people probably have a different experience. I have not taken a camera since. Now before people accuse me of hypocrisy, let me accuse myself - yes, I do occasionally look at photos of Burning Man on the web - usually to see the many things I missed. I certainly wouldn't miss it much if I couldn't. I guess I'm not pure.

This all said, I certainly feel that I have no right to tell people that cameras should be banned. It's not my place. I just wish that people would be aware how they change something when they decide to record it. Do I think Burning Man would be a better event if there were no cameras or video recorders? Yes - but that's just me.

Sorry about the length of this, but I guess it's just pissing in the ocean when compared to the length of the thread.

lurker · Post by **lurker** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 12:48 pm

Hugh, I am thinking of others perspective--I don't photgraph CT. I don't photograph much of anything. Bring the camera, then wind up to involved to ever use it. Usually remember it on the last day and wind up with nothing and no one to photograph.

But several people have pointed out that they're taking pictures of specific riders. And a good chunk of the other photographers are people who are taking pictures for non-prurient or exploitative reasons.

And they've been doing it since the event started. And I guess that's the crux of my argument. REMOVING the photographers would alter the ride, as it's been photographed from day one.

And Flon, while I understand that recording the event--or any part of BM might alter it, I would put it to you that since there have been photograhers from day one, removing them would change things immensely.

For the good or the bad? I don't know. What I do know is that altering this, be it all of Burning Man or just CT, is changing it to something that is more exclusive.

And exclusion is often not a good thing.

spectabillis · Post by **spectabillis** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 1:06 pm

Flon wrote:An interesting (if somewhat over-long) thread.

this topic is always like that, and you can add 'heated'.

UmmaGumma · Post by **UmmaGumma** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 1:35 pm

It seems like simple math, but let me go ahead and make my point here.

To ride through Critical Tits and expect no male pervs is like expecting to carry a shoulder full of raw meat through the wilderness and not expect a pack of wolverines to show up and attack you.

Just because it is Burning Man does not mean that the general rules of the pack do not apply.

Would it be nice to be able to be in Critical Tits and have no skeezy guys to contend with??
Yes.

Would it be nice to be in the midst of Burning Man and not have to run into fools that try to suck up your resources?
Yes

Would it be nice to be naked and free and not have losers make fun of you/try to fuck you?
Yes

Would it be nice to have a comfy place all set up and not have a vagrant bogart your resources?
Yes

Would it be nice to really need to just sleep and those within 100 yards respect that?
Yes

Would it be nice to have to take a much needed shit and the Porta Johns are not totally disgusting?
Yes

Would it be nice to just approach an attractive chick and just say 'Hi' without her automatically thinking you want to get in her pants?
Yes

Would it be nice to give a compliment to *ANYONE* without them thinking you want something from them?
Yes

It's Burning Man, not paradise. In the real world AND Burning Man there is bullshit to be dealt with.

I am incredulous that there are people out there that expect Burning Man to be ~their~ paradise without complications.

I hate to quote Ice Cube here but "Check yourself before you wreck yourself"

Enough said.

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:12 pm

Flon wrote:This all said, I certainly feel that I have no right to tell people that cameras should be banned. It's not my place.

I don't, either. I'm saying that people might want to consider how the mere presence of a camera might interfere with others. Take it or leave it. But before anyone starts bitching about yahoos with cameras, think about setting the example by leaving your own at home.

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 9:19 pm

lurker wrote:But several people have pointed out that they're taking pictures of specific riders. And a good chunk of the other photographers are people who are taking pictures for non-prurient or exploitative reasons.

OK. But how does anyone who sees a photographer know who he's taking a picture of?

And exclusion is often not a good thing.

But sometimes it is. Read the whole thread to see some examples I've posted about how it can be a great thing.

I notice that you didn't answer my question: Do you think it's OK to prevent others from participating at Burning Man so that someone else may spectate and/or photograph an event?

PlayaPetal · Post by **PlayaPetal** » Fri Feb 17, 2006 11:47 pm

Those aren't participants. They're spectators.

Is the CT not a parade? Usually in an event such as a parade, there are both spectators and parade participants. In addition, those who "participate" in said parades are there to be seen. Hell, some parade paticipants are judged! I seem to recall the last parade I marched in, there were camera's galore. Just my 2 cents.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 3:46 pm

Critical Tits derives from Critical Mass. If you don't know what Critical Mass is, please look it up. It's not a parade.

Nobody bicycling in Critical Mass does it to get photographed. They do it to confront the general populace with the fact of people on bicycles. Likewise, Critical Tits confronts the general populace with the fact of people with tits on bicycles.

Nobody bicycling in Critical Mass does it to get pampered by a bunch of Sensitive New Age Guys at publicized after-parties, but in the case of Critical Tits I guess that's an artifact of the Brave New Age of Burning Man.

But this isn't to say people bicycling in Critical Tits don't want or expect to be photographed. I don't know how anybody could learn anything about Burning Man without learning that the general populace has cameras, and no compunctions about using them. You'd have to be a freaking idiot not to notice that past participants have plastered images of Burning Man all over the Internet, in video, on television, in coffee table books, etc. The org's media dept focuses on encouraging pretty pictures everywhere. As for ticketholders, some people depict their own experiences and those of their dear friends, and other people take pictures as they would at the zoo or in a foreign country. What do you expect?

HughMungus · Post by **HughMungus** » Sat Feb 18, 2006 4:58 pm

Bob wrote:They do it to confront the general populace with the fact of people on bicycles. Likewise, Critical Tits confronts the general populace with the fact of people with tits on bicycles.

I disagree but I've already said why a few times in this thread so I'm not going to repeat myself and, instead, encourage people to read the entire thread before replying. But I will say that this mis-interpretation of what CT is is the foundation for most of the disagreement on the spectator/camera issue.