Who Do You Think You're Calling a Con Slut?
| Meta | |
|---|---|
| Title: | Who Do You Think You're Calling a Con Slut? |
| Creator: | Julie Evans and Kimber Norquest |
| Date(s): | early 1994 |
| Medium: | |
| Fandom: | |
| Topic: | |
| External Links: | |
| Click here for related articles on Fanlore. | |
Who Do You Think You're Calling a Con Slut? is a 1994 essay by Julie Evans and Kimber Norquest.
They were the editors of My Name AIN'T Mary Sue! and this essay was printed in issue #2.
Some Topics Discussed
- costume is not consent
- unwanted attention from men
- fandom as a place supposedly free from stereotypes, but alas
From the Essay
During the past year and a half, since we have begun seriously attending several East Coast conventions and promoting our zines, we've found that we've been receiving considerable attention. And not all of it was the sort we were seeking!
It seems that some male con attendees, staff, and guests feel that a woman, particularly an attractive one, who is not afraid to dress in something other than the standard "I Grok Spock" T-shirt and jeans is somehow projecting an easy" image... when. In reality, it often only reflects a desire to have good, clean fun in what should be a safe environment. Should every free-spirited female in fandom be subjected to the con slut label? Even when there's no foundation for it at all?
Kimber; Just within the past month or two, Julie and I have been able to pin down this phenomenon and are really bothered by this prevalent mind set among fandom. It appears usually at smaller conventions but we have found it at every convention we have 'dressed' for. In fandom we attend conventions to enjoy the company of others who feel that science fiction/fantasy is wonderful and that no one is unusual. To be enjoying one's self and accepting others as they are, and then finding this ugly stigma attached to you by someone who really does not know you from Eve is so annoying and disgusting. I've had passes made at me, child porn guru's wanting to photograph me, married men who acted as if they weren't who wanted nothing more than a one night stand - all because I'm a friendly, outgoing woman who happens to be attractive and wears short skirts to conventions. I've recently had a button made that says "Like what you see?
'Great!' So does my boyfriend!" It's really a sad day in fandom when a person has to wear one in order to keep guys at bay and help them to figure out their opinion of someone. Why can't people accept each other for who they are inside, not for what they look like or what they wear (or don't wear)!
Julie: I suppose that the phenomenon at work here is the same one that happens in all situations in life, not just at cons. Humans are notoriously eager to make people fit into neat little categories based on physical appearance. Al racism, and in fact most stereotypes, are based on this. Most of us aren't willing to put in the time it takes to get to know what's inside someone... most are content to settle for the impression projected by clothing or attitude. But it shouldn't be this way at cons. Cons are supposedly a gathering of 'enlightened' individuals who are looking to a future where all are equal But I guess the bottom line is that not everyone comes to a con for the same reason. Remember, when the con's all over, we're basically dealing with the plain, old everyday citizens of Wilkes-Barre,
Jacksonville, you-name-it!
Kimber: I guess some men have never seen Sports Illustrated's Swimsuit issue by some of the reactions we've gotten. Or maybe it's that they aren't expecting to see so little material on a body at a convention. We don't fit into their model of "I Grok Spock" so they go for the closest category they can think of with their hormones raging and find 'con slut'? I'm sure that just as there are men out there looking for a one-night, there are women looking for the same thing. But why can't people take time to get al the facts, and get them straight, before jumping to the wrong conclusions? Human nature?
Julie: Ultimately, the other side of this argument is that each of us is responsible for what she wears and for the image that she projects. If you are scantily-clad, then you deserve to be hit on. You're asking for it, right? Wrong. To me, this is parallel to the ridiculous theory that rape victims are asking their attackers to assault them. Granted, this parallel may be carrying the situation to extremes, but I dare say it is not inconceivable.
At any rate, I am not, and I don't believe that most open-minded and outgoing women are, 'asking' men to do anything other than treat them with the same
respect they would treat anyone with. Our outward image projects who we are to some degree ~ to the degree that it reflects how we feel about ourselves. If others misinterpret the meaning of this image, it certainly doesn't mean we were asking for anything... it simply means the other person didn't work hard enough to get to know us or our real intentions.