A negative comment about a party at Arisia

[xiphias]

Far as I'm concerned, you can EITHER have an invite-only party OR you can advertise your party.

But it's FUCKING RUDE to advertise your invite-only party.

Don't mind invite-only parties. Don't even mind invite-only parties who, apparently, were going around handing out invites only to women who were dressed slutty. Heck, if someone took that to the extreme, and walked around the con handing out slips of paper which said, "You're sexy. Come to my room at 11 pm," that wouldn't bother me. And if he or she got people to show up, more power to him or her.

DO mind people who do that and also put posters up in the stairwells advertising their party. It's fucking RUDE to do that, then set up a velvet rope outside, and do the "club" thing. Dunno about you, but I go to cons to get away from that kind of dynamic.

Yes, I'm pissed off at not being pretty enough to get into that party.

Comments

[gilana]

OK, but my point was, you seemed upset at not being let in because you weren't pretty enough, and I'm pretty sure that was not in fact the reason. They're trying for a certain feel and aesthetic to their parties, and guests have to be willing to do something to contribute to that. It would probably be better if they were clearer about exactly what the entry requirements were, but I think not having official rules also lets them use their discretion to keep out some of those people who would make the women in skimpy outfits very uncomfortable.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

No, I'm upset that they advertised a party with those rules.

[adrian-turtle.livejournal.com]

I think it's perfectly legitimate to have a specialized costume party at a con, and to restrict it to people in costume. If there was a party for people in Regency dress, I couldn't go because I don't have an appropriate outfit (and would not have brought it to the con even if I owned it), but I wouldn't have a problem with someone standing at the door telling people, "This is a Regency party, you're not dressed for it, you can't come in." That's very different from "You're not pretty enough to party with us."

[cheshyre]

But notice that (a) the Regency dances are generally costume-recommended not costume-required, and (b) they advertise it promiently enough so everybody knows ahead of time.

I mean, yeah, if we had been really desperate at all interested, we could've gone home and found some fetishwear. But we live locally. Out-of-towners who didn't have the foresight to pack appropriate clothing would be completely out-of-the-loop.

Had it been a truly private party among that circle of friends, they could've done whatever the hell they wanted and informed each other before the con.
For the kind of Regency party you describe, I could see going one step further and mentioning it at the Regency dance to anyone who shows up in costume.
But you wouldn't be advertising something like that in big posters all over the con, because most people wouldn't be able to attend...

[gilana]

But it didn't really require specific clothing. They were encouraging some guys to take off their shirts to get it. If there was a group of people looking to enter, people who were judged skanky could escort a non-skanky guest on a leash. Mostly you just had to make an effort to fit in with the general theme of the party. They work hard to create a certain atmosphere, and I don't think it's unreasonable to only let in people who are going to contribute to that. And it's not a party for a specific group of friends; they like getting in new people who would not have known about the party otherwise.

Look, I don't actually know the people involved, so I can only speak to what I experienced, but that seems to be true of everyone talking here. I just think that none of us seems to actually know their specific rules and intents, and I think it is possible that they are less exclusionary that some people are saying.

I've gotten into the party for the past two years, so I am biased on that front. But there have definitely been plenty of people in the party who were not at all what I would consider pretty, they were just willing to look skanky. And I've also been able to dress provocatively and feel safe, *not* have smelly sleazy guys drooling down my cleavage, and I think that may be in part from their door policy, which I really appreciate.

I know it's a sensitive issue in fandom -- most of us have been judged and excluded too much in our lives, so we try to make an extra effort not to make others feel like that. But honestly, I feel like sometimes that goes too far, and the 11th Commandment is not necessarily "Thou Shalt Invite Everybody".

[cheshyre]

But honestly, I feel like sometimes that goes too far, and the 11th Commandment is not necessarily "Thou Shalt Invite Everybody".
Let's not create a strawman here. I haven't seen anybody arguing against the existence of closed parties at cons. The problem is that this one was advertising itself as if it were an open party, with the restricted nature of admissions only mentioned in fine print or at the door.

If I could make a suggestion for the concom, Arisia rules already state that parties must be registered. If a party is closed, then it should not be allowed to advertise its presence with posters and should not be listed on the party board or in Clear Ether.
At the very least, any such advertising must make clear the party's closed status and/or the requirements for admission in large print so everybody is clear on the matter.

One of the Party Hosts

[(Anonymous)]

Hmm, after reading all your posts, I'd like to apologize to the folks that were disappointed or upset. This is the third year we've had a Skank party, but only the first we had a volunteer willing to make posters. We were excited by how cool the posters looked, and didn't think about the conflict of advertising a private party. However, invites were *not* required at the door, only meeting the dress code.

While we do encourage the skanky attire, an effort is all that is required - some sort of costume that is not jeans and a T-shirt. We had a luke skywalker and lots of (full coverage) trek uniforms and aliens (seeing as we'd built the bridge of the enterprise) - it wasn't just about dressing slutty. We enforce the dress code to keep the spirit of the party theme so that everyone inside is fun to look at, and the leashes were intended as a way to let in a limited number of folks who had not taken the time to get costumed, so they could be "accompanied" by someone who was dressed appropriately. I am honestly sorry if anyone was made to feel that *they* were not welcome, as opposed to what they were wearing.

But you're all right about the private party / poster conflict. I didn't think of it that way. I just want to mention that it was a private party only because of the hotel beverage policy. In the Park Plaza private parties were in a separate wing, and you needed an invite to get past the actual hotel security people that guarded the end of the hall, but anyone who managed to make it without an invite and with a costume was welcome. (Speaking of the Park Plaza the 'club cordons' were a precaution because last year the hotel gave us a ton of grief about 'crowds in the hall being a fire code problem' so we used tape on the floor to keep half the hall clear & thought stanchions would work better this time.) This year while we did use our invites to troll for invitees, they were handed out to anyone we ran across dressed up in awesome costumes, not just the skanked out ladies, and folks were definitely let in without an invite if they had taken the time to dress up. Or yes, if there were inches of cleavage. :)

Anyway, if we shouldn't have put up posters I'm sorry & we won't do it again, but I just wanted to mention that we meant it in a spirit of fun, its only 'private' in the arisia definition of what is being served, we spent about 150 hours collectively on the decorations and our costumes, and we feel that entitles us to require folks to dress up to get in. I will make sure the language at the door is more clear in the future, and we will rethink/ doublecheck the whole poster thing.

Re: One of the Party Hosts

[chanaleh.livejournal.com]

I just wanted to add a PS that I am genuinely impressed by your (the host's) taking the time to respond -- respectfully instead of defensively -- to the complaints in this forum. I think that's wonderful. And it does sound like the party was great and (mostly) well thought out -- I hope it was everything you envisioned! and that the feedback helps to get even more people enjoy your efforts next year.

Re: One of the Party Hosts

[(Anonymous)]

Thank you chanelah, I appreciate your comments. It's hard to see every angle of an idea ahead of time and in retrospect with all the fetish at Arisia (I heard there was an entire fetish floor at the spillover hotel) perhaps the leashes gave the wrong idea for our party theme. My husband just suggested maybe we should have some stupid hats for muggles. :)

It did turn out as well as we hoped (except for seeing how we upset folks with the posters), but we're all exhausted. :) We've gotten requests that we disseminate the theme ahead of time so maybe folks can come up with costumes specifically for our party, and that is really a wonderful compliment and we will seriously consider doing so.

I really do appreciate the feedback and will do my best to make sure that everyone who wants to come can in the future (barring space limitations of course.) This new hotel despite all the problems with its miniature size was *much* better for us - no hotel security, no family with a baby booked below us, no repeated orders to turn down the music, and we got the suite we needed this year. Once we're rested up, we'll see about planning for next year. :)

Re: One of the Party Hosts

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

Yeah. . . stupid hats would go over better than leashes.

Leashes are already a touchy subject for some of us. . . because we take them seriously. You'll find a number of people at Arisia who are really offended by using leashes as fashion statements.

And, like Erica said, I really do appriciate you dropping by to explain what was going on. I hope it is clear that my problem is the disconnect between a closed party and an advertised party -- and the lack of understanding what the party IS.

Had the people at the door turned us away by saying, "We're asking people to come to the party in costume," we would not have been offended. Having the woman at the door turn to my wife, gesture at herself, and say, "If you want to come back dressed more like this, that would be okay" -- that sent an unintended message.

NOW I understand that "more like this" meant, "in costume." What we heard was "like a slut," and that offended us.

We like dressing sexy. Sometimes. Had we known about that ahead of time, we could have chosen to do so -- thinking about what we had with us, we could probably have put something together. But being hit by it the way it was expressed hit my "I'm not your fucking trained monkey" reaction.

"Dress like this" sounds like "dance, monkey dance". "Dress in costume" is cool.

And, again -- I don't have a problem with closed parties. I've been a door guard for closed invitation-only parties at Arisia at previous years.

I've been a door guard for parties at Arisia that were invitation-only because we didn't want the police to find out. We weren't breaking any of the drug laws, but . . . um, I'm not going to go into detail about what laws we WERE breaking because rebmommy is my mother and reads my LJ.

Mom, Lis and I haven't been to any of THOSE parties since we've been married.

Re: One of the Party Hosts

[undauntra.livejournal.com]

Would it still be a concern if the dress code were clearly stated on the posters?

Re: One of the Party Hosts

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

The more I think about it, I think, yeah, that would have helped.

Re: One of the Party Hosts

[surrealestate.livejournal.com]

As a long-time party host (of non-Arisia parties) and attendee of the Skank events, I just wanted to give you guys a big thanks for throwing such a great party. I also put hundreds of hours and dollars into my (also themed) parties, and I also get flak from people who are unhappy about the dress code, so I feel your pain. (And that's with many weeks' notice for them to figure something out, or just make other plans.)

I had a great time at your party and look forward to next year's. I know y'all aren't entirely local, but I'd love to be in touch by email. If you're amenable, you can contact me via pheromone at livejournal dot com.

And I don't know if we actually met, but I was Batgirl on Saturday night.

Re: One of the Party Hosts

[tehuti.livejournal.com]

If you know how to contact the organizers of this party, I would appreciate some contact info. This was a great party, and I'd like a little more notice for next year.

[dda.livejournal.com]

Let's not create a strawman here.

Let's not. The problem is clearly that the OP didn't get in and feels pissy about it. Whether or not it was advertised is also a strawman; it's the fact they had a dress code that the OP didn't happen to meet and how they reacted to it that is the basis for all of this.

I'm guessing that if they had gotten in, this whole thread wouldn't exist. Or if the criteria wasn't based on "conventional sexyness" it would also not be an issue.

[voltbang.livejournal.com]

Percieved to be conventional sexyness. I don't think that actualy was the criteria, as I was in the party, and observed some guests who were conventionally sexy, some who were unconventionally sexy, and some whose sexyness totally escaped me, but they did all more or less fit the dress code as described at the door.

[dda.livejournal.com]

...they did all more or less fit the dress code as described at the door.

I'll buy that; I think the dress code was described on the poster and I know it was described on the invite. I'm just saying that I if the dress code were more related to, say, a period of dress (Victorian or Edwardian or 80s), the reactions wouldn't be so outraged.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

You're making a number assumptions about me, here.

Some of them are probably accurate. But let's look at them.

Is the problem that I didn't get in and feel pissy about it? Somewhat, yes. But that's not the WHOLE story.

Because, when I get upset and pissy, I try to figure out why. I try to figure out whether it's something internal to me, or if there is something external which is actually wrong, which needs to be fixed.

And it was clear to me that, in this case, there was a little from column A, and a little from column B.

Yes, this hit a number of internal buttons of mine -- I'd just come down from working a bunch of hours, and had seen a fair percentage of the people I came to the con to see walk into the party, and was turned away. Yes, that hit a whole lot of internal stuff that is not the responsibility of the party organizers, and that's what started to get me thinking.

So I had to ask myself -- are my reactions entirely because of my own shit, or is there a portion of this which is external?

Now, triggers about exclusion are a significant thing -- and I realized that the part of the situation which WAS external was precisely what I posted here: that a private party is okay, and an advertised party is okay -- but a private party which is advertised attempts to be in two categories at once, which is inappropriate, and that the fact that this event DID push my buttons was, obviously, because of my buttons, but ALSO because that "category error" was a Wrong Thing.

So -- your assumption that the "advertisement" thing is a strawman -- that's wrong. Because that genuinely is the thing about which I am upset that I think is external to me.

Had I gotten in, would this exist? Probably not, that's true -- but it nonetheless SHOULD. However, as I would personally not have felt like there was something wrong, I wouldn't have sat down and tried to figure out what it was. So, you are probably correct factually -- but that doesn't change the ethical situation. It merely means that I wouldn't have been aware of the problem since it wouldn't have affected me.

[dda.livejournal.com]

So -- your assumption that the "advertisement" thing is a strawman -- that's wrong. Because that genuinely is the thing about which I am upset that I think is external to me.

I'm sorry but I'm not buying that in the slightest; from reading the rest of this thread, it was the fact that they didn't let you (and others) in that bugs you. The fact it was advertised was what drew you to the party but at least on the poster I saw, it never said, "Come find this party so we can turn you away, xiphias!"

It didn't give a room number and did heavily imply (if it didn't say outright) that skanky clothing was the way in. You had to go do something to find it and then to be upset when you did find it seems a tad, well, petty.

[dda.livejournal.com]

But notice that (a) the Regency dances are generally costume-recommended not costume-required, and (b) they advertise it promiently enough so everybody knows ahead of time.

An Event is not a party; the Period Dances are Events and are open to all with costumes being "requested." A Victorian Party would be free to exclude those who didn't show up in the proper dress.

[liscarey.livejournal.com]

They shouldn't have been widely advertising a restricted-admission party--and they especially shouldn't have been doing it while intentionally making the invitation-only and other "qualifications" for admission easier to overlook than to notice.

Using a velvet rope to control access to something they've promoted as if it were a standard atcon open party looks like a deliberate effort to set people up to feel excluded. There are other closed parties at conventions, but generally they try to be discreet and NOT set people up to feel excluded.

[quietann.livejournal.com]

yep and yep. Plus, if a party's serving alcohol, it *can't* be open-invite, it can't be advertised with posters, etc. The Arisia policies on this are pretty clear. Closed parties can invite/exclude whoever they want to based on whatever criteria.

This year, the con staff were so busy fighting other fires that this one party didn't get shut down.

[dda.livejournal.com]

I certainly don't recall any con policy about which parties can and cannot be advertised. You'll note that there was no room number given on that poster, too.

Of course, I wasn't the party czar, but I don't think it should have been shut down, either.

[xiphias.livejournal.com]

It wasn't, that I know of, nor do I think it should have been.

[liscarey.livejournal.com]

They didn't necessarily need to be shut down. It likely would have been far more useful to point out the posters vs. closed problem, and encourage them to a)pull down the posters and be clearer in their at-the-door message to people being turned away, and b)Don't Do It That Way Again Next Year.

It sounds like the party hosts are thinking about b) now anyway, as a result of the discussion here and on Lis's blog. Which, in turn, suggests that, had anyone from the concom been able to do this early on, on the evening of the party, it would have gotten as useful a response as was practical to implement at that point. (I.e., they may not have been able to get all the posters, and they couldn't cause them to be unseen by the people who'd already seen them, but substantially reducing the number of posters and the opportunity to see them would have reduced the number of people who went looking for this "open" party, only to discover the restrictions at the door.)