A modest proposal for "Critical Tits"

ScoutDG · Post by **ScoutDG** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 6:48 pm

One of the most interesting events of each Burning Man is Critical Tits. Unfortunately, this event continues to produce disharmony because of a lack of clarity (or, at least, a lack of clearly communicated clarity) as to the nature of the event.

(Note -- I'm a congenital outsider, but on the ePlaya anyone can talk about just about anything.)

The problem seems to stem from uncertainty whether Critical Tits is:

[A] a public performance event -- a parade, inviting cheering and photography like all other public events,

a private bike ride in solidarity with other women, for which nobody should be allowed to take pictures without risk of, at least, criticism, or

[C] a special hybrid event, as a public parade that is exempt from the general understanding that public events are subject to photography without asking the subject for permission, with this to be publicized with the materials for Burning Man.

Some participants object to the bystanders taking photographs. It does seem absurd for participants to be demanding that no pictures be taken without the subject's permission. The participants are riding by on their bicycles. They're not there long enough to ask, and it would be very unsafe for someone to try.

From my observations, it is clear that many participants do want this to be a full parade. They smile for the cameras along the route. I've seen participants criticizing the bystanders for not cheering. I heard one woman saying to another "I always wanted something like this, but figured I'd have to get in shape for a long distance run. This is great -- all I had to do was join a parade and take off my top."

So, here's my suggestion -- make everybody happy! Have the event take off (sorry, pun intended) from The Man heading out on the 3:00 AND 9:00 roads. The participants who want to be in a parade could head out on 9:00 road, and then parade their breasts around the Esplanade, with cheering and photography welcome. The participants who just want to ride bicycles with uncovered breasts, in solidarity with other women doing the same, without the intrusion of responses by sexually stimulated bystanders and their cameras, could head out 3:00, avoid the Esplanade entirely, and go directly to the party.

Maybe there could be someone at the front of each division, with a large sign identifying that group and their wishes. E.g., the 9:00 group's sign could say "CRITICAL TITS PARADE -- Cheering and Photography Welcome!"

The 3:00 group's sign might say "NOT A PARADE -- No Photography Please." Maybe the 3:00 contingent could have a enforcers with cans of PAM, to spray any cameras displayed; the oil wouldn't hurt the cameras like water might, but would set any photographers to cleaning their lenses. If the 3:00 group wanted a longer ride, they could circle around the Playa, or the letter streets, about the same distance as the 9:00 group, so both groups couldl blend together in the section heading to the party.

If the route of the 9:00 group were publicized, I expect that, unlike prior Critical Tits events, the 3:00 contingent would find few if any people taking their pictures.

Alternatively, if the participants want the entirety of Critical Tits to be a special hybrid event ("C" above), that desire should be acknowledged and publicized. I'm guessing there'd be a lot fewer cameras out if everyone understood that was the plan. Just saying "No Pictures, Please!" in the book of events would probably help a lot.

Critical Tits, the way it's been run in the past, seems certain to create disharmony, and I'm pretty sure that hardly anyone wants that.

Post by **Elderberry** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:05 pm

Here's the BM official policy on taking pictures.

http://www.burningman.com/press/pressRandR.html#pressRR

JK

Otisserie · Post by **Otisserie** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 7:13 pm

Pretty good suggestions. Here's another one: Move the event to earlier in the week, say Tuesday or Wednesday. There's always the complaint that hoards of frat boys are making it uncomfortable for the riders. Well, then stop holding it on Friday.

Sure, you may lose some women who don't get to BM until later in the week, but you'll probably gain some who don't participate now because of the party-boy atmosphere. Six of one, half dozen of the other.

Also, if the goal is to give women a supportive atmosphere to face their fears of nudity or body image, why wait until the end of the week to do it? "Hey great, you conquered your fear! Now put on your top and drive home."

ScoutDG · Post by **ScoutDG** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 8:01 pm

jkisha wrote:Here's the BM official policy on taking pictures.
http://www.burningman.com/press/pressRandR.html#pressRR
JK

Yeah, I've read it, and find it clearly unhelpful, for several reasons.

"If any participant asks you to stop filming, you must stop immediately. If you continue to photograph or film, you face the possibility of being escorted from the event. "
This seems clear, but isn't. What is a "participant" and what is the scope of the proscription? If I'm walking down the Esplanade, and see someone with a camera, what if I tell that person "Please stop filming."? Is that person then prevented from taking any pictures for the rest of Burning Man? OK, obviously, no, but isn't that what the rule says? Since there are "no spectators" doesn't that make all of us participants in everything? Clearly, if I say "stop taking pictures of me" that's covered. Should any individual participating at an event be able to stop someone from taking any pictures of the event? What if one of the fire dancers at the Burn asks a photographer to stop taking pictures. Does that mean the photographer is subject to ejected from BRC for taking a picture of The Man? Of course not, but that's the way the rule reads. I really think the intent of the rule is to allow people to stop filming of themselves, not of others (which is consistent with "radical self-reliance"). Applying the rule literally, if CT rider A says "Please stop taking pictures, and CT rider B says "please take my picture" (and the photographer does) the photographer is still violating the rule. Since that's nonsense, we're left with a rule that is perfect, in the sense that everyone can interpret it to mean whatever they want.

"You should ask for permission before photographing or filming any participant. If you are planning to use this imagery to show anyone other than your friends and family, you should obtain a written release from anyone you photograph, film or otherwise record. In most cases we will ask for verification of these releases before granting permission to use an image or footage commercially."
Great. "Should"??? Is this a rule, or just a fond wish? Or, does it apply only if the picture is to be used commercially?
If you attend Burning Man, your picture is likely to be taken lots of time without your permission. Whenever anyone photographs the Temple, or The Man, there are likely to be people around. Does anyone every try to get all of their permissions? Of course not. If they eject every photographer who takes a picture with anyone in it who hasn't been asked permission, there will be a much smaller crowd by the evening of the Burn.

"You have the right and responsibility to ask someone to stop taking a picture of you, recording your image or recording your voice in any way if you desire. However, keep in mind the nature of radical self-expression, capturing expression is a form of self-expression."
So, that implies that people can stop people from taking pictures of themselves, only, unless the picture is "radical self-expression"? Note this "rule" actually just gives you the right to ask. I think it also says the photographer has the right to take pictures of me telling them not to take pictures.

"All video cameras must be registered and have a tag attached to them. If your digital camera can record even a few seconds of motion imagery, it is considered a video camera (and must be registered and tagged)."
"All video cameras and film cameras must be tagged."
Which is it -- all cameras or just video cameras? Are they really set up to have 40,000 cameras tagged?

The whole photo policy is a mess. It apparently started as a rule dealing with commercial use of photos, and now has been expanded to something FUBB.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Sun Oct 05, 2008 9:08 pm

If you're going to call it a "Modest Proposal" you've got to have stewing babies.

gyre · Post by **gyre** » Mon Oct 06, 2008 6:16 pm

Stewing babies?

As for Pam, how do you know it is okay on lenses?
There is a famous story of a tv entertainer spraying something harmless on the lens and finding out how much it cost to refinish a lens.
I signed out a camera once with a $300,000 lens.

I also recommend against spraying anything at people's eyes.
You may not enjoy the reaction.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Mon Oct 06, 2008 7:10 pm

gyre wrote:Stewing babies?

Yes. I expected you to be up on your classics.

ScoutDG · Post by **ScoutDG** » Mon Oct 06, 2008 8:05 pm

gyre wrote:Stewing babies?
As for Pam, how do you know it is okay on lenses?
There is a famous story of a tv entertainer spraying something harmless on the lens and finding out how much it cost to refinish a lens.
I signed out a camera once with a $300,000 lens.
I also recommend against spraying anything at people's eyes.
You may not enjoy the reaction.

Thanks for getting Crypofishist to explain that disturbing comment. I even tried googling it, and came up with zilch.

Obviously I won't be spraying anything on anybody, since I won't be part of the event. My poorly expressed point was that people who are intruding photographically on an event that is clearly delineated as a non-photo event deserve harsher treatment.

(I also think anybody walking around BRC in the playa dust with a $300,000 lens would be nuts, but perhaps I'm straying a bit afield of the topic.)

Post by **Elderberry** » Mon Oct 06, 2008 9:04 pm

I am constantly amazed by all of the (obscure and not so obscure) literary references I find on this site.

JK

dr.placebo · Post by **dr.placebo** » Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:21 pm

A literary bundle for CT, from the Song of Solomon, King James Version:

1:13 - "A bundle of myrrh is my well-beloved unto me; he shall lie all night betwixt my breasts."

4:5 - "Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins, which feed among the lilies."

7:3 - "Thy two breasts are like two young roes that are twins."

7:7 - "This thy stature is like to a palm tree, and thy breasts to clusters of grapes.

7:8 - "I said, I will go up to the palm tree, I will take hold of the boughs thereof: now also thy breasts shall be as clusters of the vine, and the smell of thy nose like apples;"

8:1 - "O that thou wert as my brother, that sucked the breasts of my mother! when I should find thee without, I would kiss thee; yea, I should not be despised."

8:8 - "We have a little sister, and she hath no breasts: what shall we do for our sister in the day when she shall be spoken for?"

8:9 - "I am a wall, and my breasts like towers: then was I in his eyes as one that found favour."

fciron · Post by **fciron** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 9:12 am

If you are confused by Fishy's comment then you should google "A Modest Proposal" not 'stewed babies'.

Sail Man · Post by **Sail Man** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 11:12 am

theCryptofishist wrote:
gyre wrote:Stewing babies?
Yes. I expected you to be up on your classics.

Ewwwww

Elorrum · Post by **Elorrum** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 6:40 pm

some here are swifter than others

ScoutDG · Post by **ScoutDG** » Tue Oct 07, 2008 7:10 pm

One update/correction -- turns out 2008 was the last year for the major post-CT party. Too bad -- it was a nice event, but surely a lot of work.

http://www.criticaltits.com/faq.html

So, the detail about splitting the ride, then rejoining to head to the party won't work exactly. However, their website talks about ending with a ritual instead, so I guess the two arms could join up to go to the ritual.

fciron · Post by **fciron** » Sat Oct 11, 2008 11:48 am

Elorrum wrote:some here are swifter than others

Heh, nice hint.

Here and there · Post by **Here and there** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 9:55 am

My modest proposal for critical tits: One date and time is announced in advance. Let's say, Saturday at 6 pm, to make it convenient for the frat boys. Then, when people get there - as long as they get there before Wednesday - somebody tells them that was BS, and give them the real day and time.

When the official day and time comes along, you have topless riders, all right. Topless male riders, each one of whom weighs at least 250 pounds, heavy enough to get a little mammary development. All of whom skip shaving for a few days before the ride. And bathing.

I think there should be a lot of hugging involved in this, and photography. We'll want pics for their friends back home to enjoy on the website. Or better - videotape for that first moment when one the delighted audience members suddenly asks "you boys are from San Francisco ... right?"

"OH YEAH", the most physically imposing of the riders says, "I'm going to make you a man, bitch" .... (sound of screaming, fade to black) ... OK, maybe don't go that far ...

betrdanevr · Post by **betrdanevr** » Sun Oct 12, 2008 1:37 pm

Sorry, but I still say if you don't want anybody to look at something, don't bare it. Burning Man is a public event, at least as far as the attendees go.

Just go in a tent with other women. Take mirrors and look at your vaginas.

lurker · Post by **lurker** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 7:32 am

Hey, do you wander around naked or topless/bottomless in BRC(men or women)? Been coming for a while? Go to the major installations or hang at center camp? Chances are you're in the foreground or background of somebody's picture. And there's a good chance that the picture--or pictures--in question are on the net.

It's all part of going to BM and always has been. Well, the net wasn't always there, but there are still shots from before it was a big factor on it.

Why does this CT debate always come up? BM has tried to eliminate the nudity taboo--simply through the actions of the participants, and it's done a good job of it.

I always got the feeling that CT was supposed to be reveling in this--giving women the same barechested(but not unsexual) rights as men.

But every time this comes up we get people who WANT to ride in CT, who often don't mind the 'right' people taking all the pictures they want, who want to exclude anyone they think of as 'yucky'.

And then anyone who chides them for this childish attitude gets chided themselves.

I can understand the whole 'don't sell the pix' thing--but the 'I don't want some yahoo taking pix for wank material' mystifies me.

We are ALL wank material...if the mood takes whoever's looking at us(and we're fitting whatever thing that's turning them on at the moment). And some of those doing the most wanking are the 'right thinking' people that no one's complaining about.

It's radical inclusion--so either radically understand inclusion--or leave your shirt(and pants) on.

Teo del Fuego · Post by **Teo del Fuego** » Tue Oct 14, 2008 10:34 am

lurker wrote:It's radical inclusion--so either radically understand inclusion--or leave your shirt(and pants) on.

well said,

also, CT is one of the biggest contributors to the Yahoo factor, unfortunately

EB · Post by EB » Tue Oct 14, 2008 11:06 am

Considering paparazzi can practically crawl up your asshole to take pictures these days, I don't see how any of the Borg's camera policies would hold up under judicial scrutiny. It's a parade held on federal land for christ sake.

Even the "commercial use" sections. What's to stop Hummer from using a photo of a 2008 street sign ("Hummer" and 9 o'clock!) in one of their ads? Larry wants to keep marketing out of the event then turns around and names the streets after... brand names? I don't think you can have it both ways.

Moonpie · Post by **Moonpie** » Thu Nov 06, 2008 3:03 pm

I totally agree with betrdanevr. If you don't want to be photographed, don't be photo worthy.

innerprize · Post by **innerprize** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 9:32 am

Taking photos at CT is expected. Consistentantly having our pathway blocked by guys spraying God knows what all over us and handing out treats, should atleast be restricted to the outer sides of the riders pathway.
I can not think of a more selfish thing someone can do than to block the pathway of thousands of women trying to ride bikes slowly over the sand dunes.
Think about it guys.....
Do you like having someone get in your way when your just trying to ride the bike. Especially when you have to do it carefully because there's people in front of you behind you and on all sides of you?
I will smile for your picture but if your in the way. it's just not cool.
Incase you hadn't noticed alot of girls were taking spills and the unnecessary quick swerving could have easily been avoided had you considered the safety of others.

Captain Goddammit · Post by **Captain Goddammit** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 10:07 am

CT spectators are... spectators!
Hell, I've been going to Burning Man since '00 and haven't even seen CT.

Of course, that's partly because it happens during the day.

Bob · Post by **Bob** » Sat Jan 03, 2009 2:54 pm

Leave Critical Tits alooooone.

OnceTheDustClears · Post by **OnceTheDustClears** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 9:38 am

Flame away darlings...but Critical Tits has been done.
And done.
And over done.
Anyone can go topless
anywhere
on the playa.
Time for something new.

If you miss bicycling boobies, google last year.

Moving on...

oneeyeddick · Post by **oneeyeddick** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:40 am

RedheadBarbie · Post by **RedheadBarbie** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:31 pm

What kind of 'revenge' do you take on us pesky photogs? Hmm? I hope it involves a goat and clothespins.

**burn** · Post by **burn** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 12:45 pm

I got great pics of Critical Dicks last year!
The guys don't seem to care about the photographers.
Matter of fact, seems it just encourages them!

Ugly Dougly · Post by **Ugly Dougly** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 1:01 pm

RedheadBarbie wrote: I hope it involves a goat and clothespins.

What kind of perversion can you get into with a goat and clothespins????

klondike_bar · Post by **klondike_bar** » Tue Jan 20, 2009 2:38 pm

Ugly Dougly wrote:
RedheadBarbie wrote: I hope it involves a goat and clothespins.
What kind of perversion can you get into with a goat and clothespins????

If you have to ask, then you probably cant handle the answer...

A modest proposal for "Critical Tits"

A modest proposal for "Critical Tits"

Not a bad suggestion

Re: A modest proposal for "Critical Tits"

Critical tits

Standing in the path of riders

Hmmm

Re: Hmmm

Re: Hmmm