Thoughts on Sex 2.0 past, present, and future
I can hardly believe that Sex 2.0 is less than two weeks away. I’m looking forward to plotting and scheming – I mean, catching up – with farflung friends, some of whom I’ve known for years and some of whom I met for the first time IRL at last year’s Sex 2.0. I’m also excited to finally meet some of my other internet nerd-crushes; Monica Shores, Nikol Hasler, Sarah Dopp, Maria Diaz, just to name a few.
At the same time, I’d be lying if I said I didn’t have a few reservations. There’s a little ball of anxiety and worry that’s been hanging out in my chest for the past several weeks, and I’ve been doing my best to try to push it away and tell myself everything will work out just fine. But as the founder of Sex 2.0, and in the spirit of transparency with which it was created, I feel it’s important for me to share my concerns honestly and get feedback from the community.
I started conceptualizing Sex 2.0 a little over two years ago. I remember the night I hatched the plan: Rusty and I were at a party at Decaturguy’s house, and we were sitting in the backyard and talking about some common themes we’d noticed in the various unconferences we’d recently attended. In the span of three months we’d been to BlogSavannah, SoCon07, PodCamp Atlanta, and PodCamp New York, so there was a lot that was still fresh in my mind. I had pangs of anger and sadness every time I reflected on the fact that at all of those events, the flashpoint issues were: separation of online and offline identity, what can and should get you fired, what not to share if you want to be taken seriously (especially as a woman), and what’s beyond the pale for anyone (but especially women). The typical joke was, “…it’s not like I’m posting naked pictures of myself!” and everyone laughs, because we all understand that would just be the worst. And then there was that woman at BlogSavannah who declared that if you work nights as a stripper, you deserve to get fired from your day job. Oh, and too, the man monopolizing the “Women and Blogging” session, until I raised my hand and suggested that he should maybe let the women talk.
I was tired of having to be what often felt like the sole voice of reason. I was tired of challenging people to examine their preconceived notions and ask themselves, why is posting naked pictures the worst thing ever? Where do these ideas come from? I was tired of doing 101-level damage control around feminism and sex-positivity. Not that it’s not important to challenge people and do 101 work, but it felt like that’s all I was doing, and the conversation was never moving forward. Where were “my people” and what could we be talking about (and then taking out into the world to share with others), if only we had a space of our own?
And from the other side: Dragon*Con. Frolicon. Swingers’ parties. Sex-focused events that were not sex-positive, and centered a heteronormative, male-dominated version of sexuality. Events that made me feel icky and objectified and petulant. Events that could potentially be fun if all the creepy guys weren’t always fucking things up. Where are the people who know what “heteronormative” means? Why is girl-on-girl the best thing ever but guy-on-guy is verboten in swinger culture? Can I please not be leered at for once?
Social media, feminism, and sexuality. This is what I wanted, all at once. And there were plenty of people already living it! Regina Lynn, Dacia, Melissa, Elizabeth Wood… I rattled off probably a dozen names right there that night. Smart sex people. Mostly women.
I started kicking the idea around among some friends and the response was immediate enthusiasm from all of them. This told me there was a real need for this kind of event; that something had been lacking and people are hungry to get together and stimulate each other’s brains. This would not be an event where sexuality was shamed – and at the same time it would not be an event that people attend with the sole goal of getting laid. This would not be a 101-level event; this would be a time for the smart sex people to come together to learn from each other and build a better movement.
I had a lunch meeting with Steve Eley where we plotted a bit about how to keep the creepy guys out. He said, “If you put ‘feminism’ in the subtitle, that should automatically eliminate about 95% of the creepy guys.” True allies would not be threatened by the centering of the work women have done around sex and tech.
Fast forward to April 2008. If the tweets and blog posts were any indication, this crazy scheme that I dreamed up in a political blogger’s backyard was a huge success. There had never been anything like it and I think we were all reeling from the total nerdgasm of it. Another thing that I think speaks to its success? The relative lack of photos and liveblogging. People were too engaged in the moment to maintain the necessary detachment for something like liveblogging.
Later that night, after getting off on each other’s big brains, many participants found other ways to get off with each other. It was an organic off-shoot of a big love-in of sex-positivity and smartness.
So, about my concerns.
I feel like in the planning of this year’s conference, the “feminism” aspect of the triad of “social media, feminism, and sexuality” has quietly fallen by the wayside. I am concerned about what it might mean that a man, who does not identify as a feminist, is the main organizer. In some ways even the “social media” aspect has felt like an afterthought as well. The “sexuality” aspect is just as important as the other two, which also means it’s not more important. The word intersection is in the subtitle for a reason.
When I came up with the idea for Sex 2.0, it was critical to me that feminism be centered. I did not want another instance of “ew, the F-word, get it off.” No; this was a feminist event and we would not apologize for it or downplay that aspect. We would not play out the script that says feminism and sexuality are antagonistic. And I think for the most part, the people that participated last year got that.
This year, I have to admit I am a little concerned about what some people’s motivations for attending might be. If people – especially people who have been anti-feminist or even baldly misogynistic in online communities – are attending, with the goal of getting laid… then I have to think something has gone wrong.
A quick note about language. Note above, I said “participate” rather than “attend.” The first time around, there were “session leaders,” not “speakers” or “presenters.” You could “add a session to the schedule,” not “propose a topic.” This language has always been intentional.
In some ways I feel like I don’t have a right to bring up these concerns if I’m not going to offer any solutions. After all, I’m not the main organizer this year. But that was part of the point to begin with. The unconference spirit requires community buy-in and a sense of ownership from the community as a whole; how can that be achieved if one person is hoarding control of an event that relies on the community for its success? Several things happened in the months following last year’s Sex 2.0 that made me realize it would be emotionally impossible for me to head up organizing another one, but I had planned to hand it off anyway – a new city, a new organizer, a new twist every year.
And you might say, well, it’s getting a new twist this year. The community has spoken, and if they want more sex and less feminism, then who am I to say they can’t have it. But, the community wanted the unique vibe that was Sex 2.0 last year, and we – yes, we – made it happen. The truth is, it’s not as simple as “the community wants this” or “the community doesn’t want that;” the individuals who are often lumped under the umbrella of the online sex community make up many different communities, all of which are vibrant and diverse in their interests and needs.
Transparency is thrown around a lot as a buzzword, but it is fundamental to the unconference spirit. I don’t think there’s been enough of it lately, and so I invite anyone who is at all involved with Sex 2.0 to share your thoughts here. Do you have concerns too? Do you think I should stop whining? Do you think this is unfounded worrying, or maybe there’s something to it? Was an event like Sex 2.0 bound to change because of its very nature? Share your thoughts, please; and no matter what happens, I hope that the passion that fueled the first Sex 2.0 will live on, in whatever form it needs to take.
I know that one of the things I am coming to Sex 2.0 for is to hear more that challenges the unconscious biases I find cropping up sometimes. I say stupid shit and piss people off, sometimes without even knowing I’m doing it. I’m hoping that associating with the kind of people you list (Regina Lynn, Dacia, etc) that I admire will help me become more aware of them, better able to analyze and control them.
Guess it is fitting I be the first to chime in as I am ‘the man’ mentioned here and organizer of this years event.
First off let me say that I largely agree with you, Amber. My hope in stepping up this year was to act in the best spirit of your vision and I hope that I have done that. Has the conference grown, yes. Has it in some ways evolved or morphed, probably. Is that to do with this years leadership, again maybe.
From my own personal fears from the outset I have worried about how awesome last year was; it was this amazing group of like minded people melding around single thoughts. Could that be replicated? Would this year, building off past successes be to big for its own good. Would the message be lost? These are very real thoughts I have personally had. One other topic that has been on my mind and that was ‘what is a man doing running this conference’. In the end, I had to dismiss this thought as it kinda made me upset. I am 2 of the 3 things this conference sets out to wrap around; technological and sexuality. I will not deny I am not a feminist but I should not apologize for that as either.
This year we have gathered some deeply thought provoking speakers. I will leave it to others to judge the sessions along the tracks of technology, feminism and sexually and how well balanced they are.
I will say that, for me personally, it was very hard to follow the unconference model but I am proud to say that every speaker who spoke up early (first come) got a speaking slot. I have no doubt that I probably missed a few requests or didn’t do a good job following up on XYZ session but I can say that no sessions were ‘requested’. As to say, every session this year was brought to us, rather that us hand picking those people to request from.
I deeply understand your fears, and worries and I can say I share many of them. Once you create an idea and place it into the world, you have only two choices; own it completely and be the sole organizer or let it our into the world and see how it grows – always there to guide and nudge it back when needed as you have done on a few welcomed occasions.
I think this year is going to be a smashing success, not because of huge numbers nor because of this or that concern but because, like last year, Sex 2.0 has managed to gather an intimidating awesome lineup of deeply smart, deeply thought provoking speakers.
I think inevitably we need to trust in the organizers that they (I) have taken the core principals and, to the best of the ability, held true to them. I think I have, and I wish the person that takes it on next year, and the year after than and after than does as well.
In the end, Sex 2.0 is a simple thought. If we can stay focused on the idea of once a year bringing the best and most stimulating minds together around the topics or technology, feminism and sexuality (in what-ever order you wish to put those in) then I think Sex 2.0 moving forward will be just fine. If we focus on the conversation and let that guide us we will have all helped to create a forum and it much needed and from the remakes from last year, much cherished.
I’m looking forward to it, and I think it will be good, but different from last time…which I suspect is to be expected. I’d be lying if I did not feel differently about this year than I do about this year. I feel…off…about this year. A lot of that is me. Freely admitted. For all my superficial charm and ability to speak in a room full of people…well, people are not my strong suit, and there will be a lot of people there this go around I suspect. And they will be people I do not know. Hey, when your rep is violent sociopath, you make note of these things! Also, as you well know, I’m not much of a tech person…so the draw for me even stranger.
But if any skeevy guys try to mack on you, just let me know. I’ll bring my home jaw wiring kit with me.
I am glad you started Sex 2.0, and I really enjoyed the first conference. Thank you for all the work that must have gone into it.
That said, since the last conference, I have stopped identifying as a feminist and have changed how I feel about that construct.
I don’t know where Match stands with how he choses to label himself for easy processing, but he and I have hung out on several occasions and I consider him to be a totally rad individual. Why on earth does his gender matter, or whether or not he subscribes to a certain label? He’s sex-positive, smart, kind, fun, and an ally to sex workers. Whether or not he choses to cling to any particular label, he’s the kind of revolution I want to dance to. That matters more to me than any label.
I don’t see the event as being less feminism-centric than before, but if it is, I can’t see how that matters. The topics are all interesting and relevant. I’m on the “Customer Relations for Sex Workers” panel. Would it really make a difference if it was called “Feminist Customer Relations for Feminist Sex Workers”? It’s just a word, and a _word_ that is too-often privileged above what it should _be_ in practice.
I have told people in my academic circles that Sex 2.0 2008 was one of the best conference experiences I have ever had precisely because it was small, grassroots, and it clearly gave experiential knowledge an equal standing to any other kind. It was highly interactive, and it was in its organizing and its execution guided by feminist principles.
As Ren says above (and let me say publicly how proud I am to be presenting with someone whose rep is ‘violent sociopath’ but whose charm is anything BUT superficial) I also felt a little bit ‘off’ as this years planning got underway.
I knew, though, that I was very unfamiliar with the unconference model and since I also knew I was unable to participate much in the planning I largely set aside my concerns and decided to roll with whatever happened.
My sense of “offness” seems connected to one issue above others: how big/how fast should Sex 2.0 grow? What is its main purpose? If its purpose is to bring together a particular type of people so they can have a space to talk to each other, then growth is not necessarily the goal. Growth means branching out and including new kinds of people. That fundamentally changes the feel and probably the mission of the conference. I think I assumed that was what “just happens” with unconferences since they are sort of anti-organizations in their way.
Like Match, I’m not entirely comfortable in the unconference model, though I definitely see its value. And last year showed me that if I “go with the flow” I can get a lot out of it, especially when it is given the kind of basic structure that you managed to give it, Amber.
It’s hard to watching something grow and change. I’m very attached to last year’s Sex 2.0. I think that you were able to strike a very delicate balance and I imagine it could only be replicated by someone whose own vision was very much the same as yours. A big part of me wanted this year’s Sex 2.0 to be just like last year’s, and I know that it will be quite different. I believe that this year’s will be amazing in a whole different way. And I hope that reactions to this year shape next year’s Sex 2.0 and that this continues to develop.
Thanks all for your thoughts so far. I will wait til more people have shared their input before writing a long comment.
One thing I will say is that Furry Girl, I appreciate wher eyou are coming from, btu to me it is VERY important that the feminist nature of the event be centered. As feminists and women it’s too easy for us to put our needs on the backburner and downplay them. I did not want to do that with this event. And I do not see it as just a word.
[...] share your thoughts via comments at Being Amber Rhea, so that everyone participating will be able to see the full [...]
Okay, I’m just going to say it and be done with it once and for all:
I think that we have to ask ourselves how Sex 2.0 can still be feminist centered when it is planned on Mother’s Day weekend. Of course, Match, you’d have to know I’d bring this up. It’s a huge thorn in my paw.
I started out as a big vocal proponent of Sex 2.0 until I realized that in order to fully participate in this event, I would have to leave my family on Mother’s Day weekend. That sucks. So I’m a sex blogger, a sex worker, a feminist, a social media nerdgeek, and… most importantly a MOM. My understanding is that there was a decision to be made between the weekend of Shibaricon and Mother’s Day weekend. Poor choice.
I want to wake up in my bed on Sunday morning with my girls and spend the day with them. It is a more important holiday to me than Easter or my own anniversary. My girls are everything to me. To have to choose between a really cool unconference where I can learn from my friends and my daughters seems really sucky to me as a woman.
The unconference part of it — it’s hard for me to say, I didn’t get to go in previous years and… it doesn’t look like I’ll go this year unless I drive 7 hours back on Saturday. Doesn’t seem likely. Bad call for a feminist centered event.
Well, I can’t speak for my community, but I can speak for myself. This will be my first Sex 2.0 conference, so I’m not coming in with any concrete goals or expectations. I want to go because I am fascinated by how feminism and sexuality intersect. I’m also a great big nerd who likes to learn and discuss stuff.
For me, I’m more fascinated by the feminism aspect of the conference than I am particularly fascinated by the intersection of feminism and sexuality, especially as it partains to kink. It’s something that I constantly think about and struggle with as it pertains to my own life. I want to talk more about what it means to be a sex positive feminist in this day and age, and hear what others have to say, and how different people reconcile their multiple identities.
What I meant to say (the danger of posting via iPhone), is that I’m interested in the feminism aspect more than the sexuality aspect. And I want to learn more about how feminism and sexuality intersect.
I can put a coherent thought together, I swear!
I understand how difficult it is to create something and then let other people take over your baby. I’ve been in your shoes. It’s really hard.
I am very much looking forward to the conference. There are several sessions that are of interest to me and I want to meet people (including you!).
Thanks for your posting. Given that I didn’t pick up on it until now, I agree that the feminism framework underlying Sex 2.0 has been de-emphasized. I have been thinking about it in terms of Gayle Rubin’s “Thinking Sex: Notes for an Radical Theory of the Politics of Sexuality,” which isn’t quite the same thing.
As for giving up your baby, I’ve been there too and have learned the value of looking forward instead of backward. Not the mention the joy of throwing responsibility to the wind. :)
In any case, I’m looking forward to my first Sex 2.0 unconference.
Elizabeth- well, this violent sociopath also looks forward to presenting with you.
I think it is a kick in the teeth to Match and the other volunteers and participants to complain about it now, especially in public, before it’s even had a chance to figure out what it IS. If it’s an unconference that’s supposed to evolve as it unfolds, then I’d save the fault-finding for afterward, and then voice it in a “lessons learned, how we can do better in 2010.”
Judging from who is attending, I think that “feminism” is going to be central no matter what words are on the program or the website. Wouldn’t it be neat if it’s so understood and pervasive that women are people, it doesn’t have to be called out? Like saying “And there will be air! and gravity!”
I think you need to trust the people going to Sex 2.0.
As for “transparency” – I get 7 emails a day from the group. How much more do you want? They’ve posted the costs, the deadlines, the number of people it holds, how many rooms were blocked out… Match, like Amber last year, put thousands of dollars from his personal finances at risk to pay deposits and guarantee the space.
You object to the terms – speaker instead of session leader, etc – but did you pass a glossary and style guide and “you shall use these words or you can’t call it Sex 2.0″ on to the next organization team? Maybe they didn’t get why the words they were using, which we all understood, weren’t the “right” words — and yet I remember a long thread on the group about this very topic. I knew that speaker meant session leader and that all was subject to change at the event, as did everyone else. We also all voiced discomfort at the idea of a “pure” unconference and spending the $ and time to attend something so vague.
It’s too early to judge whether feminism is central to Sex 2.0 2009 because the event hasn’t happened yet. Many people have come forward suggesting sessions and I’m sure more will spontaneously erupt at the event itself. The google group has discussed and discarded and accepted topics — no one sent out a list of sex-negative or un-feminist topics and declared them to be The Agenda.
And of course the discussion has had a lot of focus on these social gatherings (and jokes about “getting laid” and is it really sex-negative to claim it’s not okay to look forward to celebrating sex 2.0 with, well, sex?), because that’s something one already knows about; parties are parties, but we’re not going to talk the session topics to death because we need to wait for the actual live sessions!
I’ve been lurking on the group and I see how many people have pitched in, the long discussions about what it “should be” and “could be,” the good faith efforts to publicize and write press releases and organize the registration and social gatherings around the con.
And for whatever issues people have with all the pre-planning and pre-communication and this and that … Match and his team have not only had the best of intentions, they’ve plugged away and done the best they can, volunteering around full-time jobs and family obligations and the like. From where I sit, they’ve done a tremendous job.
Event planning & execution SUCKS. It is one of the most thankless jobs in the world. It takes 17 phone calls to get any one detail taken care of — with no guarantee that it will actually manifest correctly on the day. And since you can’t please everyone, you hear from many directions what you’re doing wrong/bad/not-up-to-standards. I’m not sure how many of you have ever put together a wedding, but I have, and an unconference is even more involved than that.
The reality is, the space that was available and affordable for the event was only available on May 9-10 weekend. There was a long thread on the group, with no one wanting to do it on Mother’s Day, but the alternatives were even less appealing. Also, the event is Saturday and ends around 5 or 6; people can go home in time for Mother’s Day if they skip the after-conference parties. Yet another hard choice but one in the “doing the best we can” category.
I understand that it’s hard to see one’s brand/creation/event go off and be in the charge of someone else and have circumstances and personality and momentum change it from one’s original vision. I know I’d have a hard time reading the first several columns in Sex Drive if Wired hired someone else to do it under the same name. At the same time I’d have a strong sense of “better you than me” and be glad, again, that I’m out of there. But that’s the price of founding something that is a group/community effort instead of simply benevolently dictating whatever one wants.
So. Deep breath. Exhale the fear and anxiety. Go to the event and be the example of what you want it to be. I betcha it’s going to be great (and I regret more than ever that I can’t be there). And you don’t have to participate in anything that doesn’t feel right; isn’t that the point? No one is going to get in trouble for voting with their feet and walking out to get coffee with like-minded folks you wouldn’t normally get to see because everyone lives so far apart.
Threw my 2 cents in here
http://renegadeevolution.blogspot.com/2009/04/its-coming.html
Amber,
I know it was tough for you to post this, as sharing ones fears, anxiety and hope all at the same time is VERY hard, so first, I want to say GO YOU! :)
Last year was a disaster personally for me, I got lost, showed up late, and was in a terrible terrible head space, based on what was happening just prior to Sex 2.0, and yet I managed to come home more or less in one piece! I got to meet some amazing people, and get to know some of my friends better, who really were there and supported me when I needed it.
As a transgendered woman (and the only out transgendered person there as far as I know), I felt very much isolated and alone from that aspect of my life, not to mention I was excluded from stuff! Yet, I was allowed to be a speaker regardless!
All of that said, I thought the event last year was good, and based on the planning for this year it does look that this year the event will be MUCH different and also larger. I have found that using the word feminist does get rid of the ‘creepies’, but for those of us that have some clue about feminism, it also gives us a very huge loaded meaning, that could make the event anything from Transgendered and Male persons bashing hatred (and sometimes actual bashing), to the beauty that was the Sex 2.0 event. Most things with the word Feminist, I would not be welcome in, and probably actively barred from, simply because of the way I look. Whenever the word Feminist comes up, I cringe, because of the loaded meanings people can take/expect from that word alone.
Amber, your ‘feminist’ event however was GREAT, and I loved the energy, and the way that feminism was brought to the event.
I’m very sorry that I can’t go this year, but it has nothing to do with the event this year, and everything to do with $$’s and timing.
Match, I love that you’ve stepped up, and kept your Man Privilege away from Sex 2.0 as much as possible, and for keeping it open, and exposed, as Furry Girl said, I think you are awesome, and I wish all Men would aspire to be more like you.
Amber, thank you for making Sex 2.0 happen last year!
Let me add my voice to the chorus of others saying that Sex 2.0 will be what it will be.
Every conference starts out as one thing and ends up morphing into something else. I’ve never been to a first-year con that managed to replicate the experience the following year. It always just felt different.
And while I understand your wanting to keep Sex 2.0’s feminist roots, that’s not really the unconference model, is it? Actually, I never felt that Sex 2.0 was an unconference to begin with–everything was planned and structured. By the community, to be sure, but what conference isn’t? I was a guest at every conference I’ve ever spoken at, so I don’t actually see much distinction there.
But that being said, if the volunteers that come forward don’t want to focus on feminism per se and the participants enjoy it all the same, the conference will be a success. We can always check feedback afterwards and see if there is a desire for a more feminist focus next year, right?
And THAT being said, I’m wondering if my tongue-in-cheek How to Get Some at Sex 2.0 session should revert to its original title of How to Join the Community and Get the Most out of a Conference. Not as catchy, eh?
You did a great job initiating Sex 2.0, and it’s going to be a great con this year, too. Maybe just a little different.
All – thank you for your input so far. I do not have time at the moment to write a long response (work stuff) and I also want to continue to let others speak up first. However I did want to add one piece of clarification. It seems like some people think that this is just me griping. However what moved me to write this post was the fact that 6 or 7 different people have approached me independently w/ concerns about lack of feminist focus this year. I did not mention this fact in the post because I did not want anyone to feel that they were put on the spot (even without identifying information) or that they suddenly are expected to account for private conversations. But, I feel it’s important to clarify that this is not just me griping, but my hope was to provide a safe space for those who have approached me to voice their feelings. I don’t know if I’ve succeeded in that, but just wanted to clarify.
Amber: It’s not something I want to overly split hairs on, but you said,
> “to me it is VERY important that the feminist nature of the event be centered. As feminists and women it’s too easy for us to put our needs on the backburner and downplay them. I did not want to do that with this event. And I do not see it as just a word.”
I guess I’m not sure what you mean and it feels like you ignored the semi-rhetorical question I asked: Would it make a difference if the word “feminist” was shoehorned into more panel titles and descriptions? Or, _how_, exactly, is this conference less feminist than the last one? That’s what I’m not getting. I suppose the panel descriptions and stuff use the _word_ feminist less, but the topics are in the same vein as before.
The realization I’ve come to in my own life, as someone who’s expended a lot of my energy fighting for the title of feminist in the past, is that it’s the content and contexts and real-world-stuff that matters most to me, not the label of “this is feminist”. I’m sick of fighting over words and labels, and I think too often the focus _is_ on words and labels rather than the big picture. Such as: Match is sex-positive and kicks ass, so why does it matter if he calls himself a feminist? Does that really make him a less awesome person? Why is he automatically suspected of being some kind of boogeyman if he doesn’t cling to the “feminist” label?
Also, in the vein of what Tara said, while putting “feminist” front and center could very well scare off “the creepies”, it could also scare off a lot of good people. The older I get, the more I avoid the hell out of “feminist” things, since I, as a sex worker, am frequently excluded from, and attacked by feminists. More often than not, feminist= my enemy, in the bigger picture of the world outside of the sex-positive pink ghetto. So, the word scares off the creepy guys, but it can also alienate politically-oriented sex-positive people who are not a part of the Big Happy Magic Loving Sisterhood of Feminism. The sword cuts both ways.
***
Catalina: remember, many women are not moms, too. As a sterilized childfree chick, I have to fight extra hard in a world (both mainstream and lefty circles) that sees “woman” as interchangeable with “mother”. While I understand that Mother’s Day is an important holiday for you, it’s not something that’s inherently important to all women.
[...] Rhea, the founder of Sex 2.0 posted these thoughts on the development of the event. Read her post to see all the [...]
I don’t really feel qualified to make much of a comment, as I have not participated at all in the planning of this year’s Sex 2.0 and am not attending. I also have not been following the mailing list. Not that anyone probably cares “why,” but a lot is because I haven’t been a sex worker in over four years and I don’t want to be known as a “former sex worker” first and foremost. I’m still an ally and strongly believe in the de-criminalization and de-demonization of sex work, but I’m also, happily and by choice, in an uber-vanilla, uber-monogamous, uber-hetero marriage. Even though I was a sex worker for a little over two years, the poly/bondage/kink stuff was never my cup of tea. Not that by ANY MEANS I disdain those communities. Many, many of my friends over the years have been kink enthusiasts.
Anyway, the point — Is this a fear of yours, Amber, that the event may be focusing too much on the “kink” aspect and less on the feminism, and even tech aspects? And that it may become something more like Frolicon, with people going thinking it’s more of a swingers’ convention, where the sessions and conversations take a back seat to the sex itself?
All this being said, I did have a blast last year and am still kicking myself for sitting up too late on Friday and being so tired on Saturday that I went home and didn’t make it back out to the Clermont and later the Sunday brunch. I did enjoy meeting all of you and keeping in touch with many of you and wish I’d bonded more with everyone.
Hey, *I* think feminism’s still pretty relevant. If I wasn’t in crippling need of Minx’s “conference shy” workshop I’d probably convene a session riffing on, to start with, Dacia’s cool recent “Healing My Broken Feminist Heart” relating to her mixed but deep self-identification as well as how she’s identified as feminist by outsiders. That was a seriously moving post, and maybe a good place to start an inquiry into how of the term “feminist” has been defined in the media primarily by anti-feminists beginning with Rush “Mr. Feminazi” Limbaugh and Laura Ingraham but also a lot of “I’m not a feminist but…’s” and a few people who are just so ticked off by a small handful of “rad-fems” and paleo-feminists they don’t want to use the term themselves at all.
I’d also do one on the impact on men (and, obviously, women) of maintaining of the Two Rules of Desire inside the dominant no-sex class paradigm.
I’d do a *big* one on the alienation between so-called “2nd-Wave” feminism’s outsider characterization of so-called “3rd-Wave” feminism as “‘do me’ feminism”… as it triangulates with men’s apparent persistent agreement with the 2nd-wave’s characterization… and the consequent, ongoing failure by most men and way too many paleo-feminists to recognize and respect women as decision makers and not just grantors of “consent.”
And, for extra credit, I’d do something on social aversion to representing, especially, heterosexual or bisexuals-as-bisexual men as independently erotic objects based on Shulamuth Firestone’s observation in Dialectics that “Homosexuals are … ridiculed because in viewing the male as sex object they go doubly against the norm: even women don’t read Pretty Boy magazines.” Because, hello, as Maymay, Erotica Cover Watch, and I, but just a handful of others point out, there’s a major collision at the intersection of feminism, (non-social) media, and sexuality in the resulting systematic avoidance of (straight or when-with-women bisexual) men as anything but consumers of sex. Despite, as one begins to notice from participants of the HNT meme, considerable-if-anonymous interest from non-male consumers.
I dunno. I’m a bit unfamiliar with the unconference format (though it sounds cool) and I’m good one-on-one but easily flustered in front of groups, but I’d be very willing to participate in any workshops dealing with those kind of intersection-intersection with feminism, social media, and sexuality. Because like Amber I’m not sure how its possible to authentically be sex positive without also being pretty solidly feminist. Anyway, I guess if anyone want to talk about any of that over breakfast, lunch, dinner, or between sessions I’d love to join them.
figleaf
p.s. and since there’s a big sex-worker contingent coming I’d *really* like to hear why people think the ratio of male to female sex-work customers is so huge even though the ratio of male, female, and trans providers is much more balanced.
I’ve been a little reluctant to chime in, since I wasn’t at last year’s conference–it was held the same weekend as Leather Leadership Conference, an activist event I’ve been participating in over the past decade–and haven’t been a part of planning this one. I also know how much work goes into putting together such a conference and it does seem like Match is doing a fantastic job with this next upcoming.
I do remember noting the inclusion of feminism as a primary focus and really wanted to attend because of it. I’m generally fairly steeped in the sexuality aspect and am really looking forward to gleaning lots on the social media front, but to explore both of those with feminism as an assumed grounding was/is a unique and appealing opportunity.
I understand why some may feel the term is so loaded and why they might be wary of it. Raised a feminist, that background was something that really caused me to question my own desires as I was first coming into kink and S/M–how could I possibly want to submit to a man?! I’m supposed to be powerful!
And I know that my current positions on/involvement with porn, sex and kink are anathema to many feminists. But that’s precisely why I feel it’s so important for us to keep claim of the word – and not cede it’s use solely to those who want to marginalize us.
Going into this conversation, I also would have thought a feminist grounding might have just been assumed for a sex-positive event, but since several commenters have made a point of not being identified as such, I’ll obviously have to rethink that. Perhaps we could benefit from some of the discussions/workshops that figleaf has suggested?
Lisa
I fully understand your concerns and the reasons behind them that you did not make public. I too have had some of my own also and rather than leave a long comment I wrote a post today about My Hopes for Sex 2.0. here,
http://debaucheddomesticdiva.blogspot.com/2009/04/my-hopes.html
What you created last year seemed like an amazing event from everything I read and the people I have spoken too and I plan on walking away with those same thoughts this year. I’m looking forward to finally meeting you in person along with several others.
See you for cupcakes next week!
[...] I’ve been a jumble of emotions ever since I put up my post about my concerns about this year’s Sex 2.0 event. [...]
I’m not part of this community, but wanted to express my admiration for your attempts to center feminism. ((((giant feminist hugs)))) You have earned the title of “serious feminist” from me, for going that extra mile. Lots of respect from me, Amber, you rock.
@Furry Girl
Language is always important, not just when it’s convenient to a particular person or cause.
It’s not okay to call sex workers whores, is it? Whore is just a word afterall.
@All
Speaking of language, I know it can be difficult to understand the context of what someone writes without all the backstory, which isn’t always available. But I can tell you since Amber and I discussed her concerns before she published this post that trashing the event was the furthest thing from her mind when she wrote this.
I’m not at all involved in this event, I’ve only read about it, but after reading this thread I am curious – Why the reluctance to identify as a feminist? (For those that don’t.)
Feminism means, plain and simple, belief in the equality of the sexes… is that *really* a goal people aren’t behind?
I understand there are connotations to the label “feminist”, the angry man-hating feminist grr, but c’mon now… in a group of smart sex-positive technologically connected people, I can’t imagine any of you don’t know the real meaning of the word. Or worse, that you believe in, what? Inequality of the sexes? (Though maybe I shouldn’t presume to know what you believe).
Maybe the negative connotations would change if all people, who actually believe in the goals, are willing to take up the label too. You don’t need to be a radical activist, completely indepedent, perfect woman, or even a woman at all, to be a feminist.
@Rusty I don’t disagree that language is important, but it still didn’t answer my question.
For the third time, I’m curious _how_ is the second conference “less feminist”, and would it be “more feminist” if all the session titles had the word feminism shoehorned into them? The session topics are all quite similar to before, similar people are being drawn to the event, and the ONLY difference I can see is that this time, there’s a bit less use of the WORD feminist on the conference’s web site.
Amber’s post, while obviously thought-out, is very vague, lacking the specifics of what she’s upset at, other than pointing out that Match is a dude (which seems like a a cheap shot) and that he doesn’t label himself a feminist. I’m not trying to be snarky, but it left me scratching my head wondering, “Wait, what is the issue?”
Sophia- Other feminists have ruined the word feminist for some of us.
Amber- My comment is also one that is not qualified from the vantage point of having attended a past Sex 2.0 or being involved with this year’s planning. And sadly, I won’t be able to experience it this year as I can’t be in DC that weekend.
Your post is courageous, vulnerable , and and elicited such an amazing response of community voice. Not knowing you except though an email query last year, that was not really follow-up’d by you (as emails have a tendency to do– i forgive you :) your concerns here somehow have me “trust” you more.
Everyone has expressed valid points and perhaps a session can be led by you at the end of the day re people’s experiences of the day and how to plan for next year (e.g.: does it have to be in May).
For myself, I wanted to attend to personally meet and understand the issues and successes of the sex community. My own project
to celebrate March 3 ,the anniversary of Comstock, as a symbolic date for sexual free speech for everyone in America ,is nowhere near what you have accomplished for Sex 2.0. My advise–Be proud of what you’ve done and continue to question , and it’ll evolve organicly.
What Sophia said.
There are many women, attorneys, mothers, pet owners, friends, and yes, feminists, who I believe act in a way that I don’t want associated with me. Yet that does not mean I am not all those things. Nobody is able to take away an identity or a belief system.
I can understand the idea of people spoiling the movement for somebody, and somebody not wanting to be part of particular events. But I have to believe the belief system — in women’s equality — would stay constant.
So therefore, to me — and granted, I am coming here because of an email about this thread, and have not been to a Sex 2.0 event — I am sympathetic to Amber’s concern re why an event with the genesis she describes would have a decreasing feminist focus and be organized by someone who doesn’t identify as a feminist.
The world is full of sex without feminism, organized by men. To me, the idea of a conference that centers feminism in this context is noteworthy. The idea of one that doesn’t, or that is backing off from doing so even by moving away from the label (which, Rusty, I agree with you is important)? Not so much — again, in my view.
Octo- that is reminiscient of the attitude displayed when I get invited to blog at feministe…”she does call herself a feminist! what is SHE doing here?”
Like it or not, a lot of us have reason to no longer id using the term feminist.
Ren, I don’t think there’s much of a parallel there, honestly. These things have to be considered on a case by case basis, in my view. I can talk more with you about it in person if you want. Just one more week!
@Amber and Ren: yup, I’d be interested to talk about ways to keep a really, seriously small handful from appropriating a perfectly usable term. I mean… it’s sort of like a generation-long repeat of the 2000 election where a relative handful of extremists effectively decided they’d rather let waterboarders and ‘wingers continue running the show than compromise with the not-quite-green-enough-for-them future, um, Nobel Prize winner. And they were so ferocious about it they actually took money from the biggest polluters on the planet to further their cause. Well. Same with the tiny handful of extremists who say you’re not a feminist unless a) you’re a woman and b) you manifest patriarchy’s no-sex class paradigm and use withholding sex as leverage against men. (Oh, and c. claiming somehow that the same men they claim would have sex with goats if they’d hold still would buckle under a sex strike.)
Now… if I’m not mistaken, in 2000 people went into retreat when the extremists claimed they were insufficient and… they lost to Mr. HeckufajobBrownie. And then later, when they said fuck that shit and reclaimed what they stood for and didn’t let splinter groups appropriate the whole fucking movement either in terms of name or intention they… got it together, in large numbers, and won.
Sure, that might be the only time anyone compares Ren to Al Gore but… there’s probably a lesson in there, hmmm?
I mean Jill & Co invited Ren to blog at Feministe! Who gives a rip if it made Twisty pull a muscle in her upper lip? And some people bumped about it. Well fine, they bumped even harder when Jessica Valenti hosted Jennifer Podkul at Feministing too but neither of them backed down. Because they knew they were right. So…
Yeah, I think it could be a pretty good “hang together or hang separately” conversation around all that.
figleaf
p.s. but hey, what do I know? Unlike standard N.O.W. type feminists who think “equality of sexes” is some kind of gold standard I seem to be a radical feminist (not a rad fem) who believes there should be equality of power, not just opportunity, and relegating “gender” to the same importance as, say, height or handedness: significant and useful if your team needs a relief pitcher against a right-hander or a center against Shaq, or if your orientation/kink needs a cock or high heels… but otherwise not worth setting up differential pay scales and special insults for.
I don’t see the parallel either, Ren. You could call yourself Andrea Dworkin or an MRA and they’d still treat you just as badly because of what you represent to them and because of what your arguments are. Whether or not you id as a feminist, your (eminently worthy) arguments about treatment of sex workers are feminist arguments, they will be recognized as such and resented by those who disagree with you about sex work and porn no matter what your personal label is.
[...] Museum) but I’ll deal. I’m a little concerned by the things Amber brought up in this post (namely by how some of the feminist stuff has fallen by the wayside and the more kink-centric [...]
Please note that everything I say here is from the perspective of a total outsider who is inly viewing this discussion from a distant window, being merely a supporter of rather than a participant in the upcoming Sex 2.0 events.
Having said that, I have a comment or two to say.
I can understand the feelings of Amber that that the stated goals that she brought out for Sex 2.0 may have been morphed a bit, and that the feminist aspects have been pushed a bit to the background in favor of the more sexual aspects….but isn’t that usually what happens with growth?? The success of the first Sex 2.0 inevitably attracts new people with mew perspectives, and thusly, conflicts inevitably arise when visions conflict with each other.
I will give a great deal of props to Match and all the other planners for doing such a bang-up job of preparation for this upcooming “un-conference”….and would hope that people would hold their fire until the event actually happens.
I must say, though, that part of the nature of free-wheeling structures is that there will be a bit less control of the objectives…that is one of the things that come with less-structured “un-conferences”. If some folk here do feel that the event is becoming a bit too “kink”-centered and less “feminist”-centered, then perhaps they should have exercised a bit more message control at the beginning of the planning if they felt that strongly. (This is not directed at anyone in general, especially not Amber; this is just me making a general point.)
I’m with Regina on this one…..let the conference happen and let the planners and participants and the topics discussed speak for themselves. Given the depth and diversity and awesomeness of the participants, I’d say that feminism (at least, the “sex positive” type…sorry, Ren, but I still like the term) is more than adequately represented….and there’s nothing wrong with a little kink, either.
Just an outsider’s opinion…take it as you will.
Anthony
BTW: side note to figleaf: Being one of those “extremists” who voted for Ralph Nader in 2000, Gloria la Riva in 2004, and Cynthia McKinney in 2008 because my Libertarian Left principles simply won’t allow me to vote for a conservative/”centrist” Democrat who does not repesent me well, you will pardon me if I take a bit umbrage to your depection of us as “spoilers”. I don’t disrespect your support of Obama; please don’t disrespect my political choices. Besides, Al Gore WON that election even with Nader on the ballot; the Supreme Court and Katherine Harris and the Brooks Brother Rioters are the ones responsible for taking it away. (Well..that, and Joe Lieberman, and Gore tacking to the Right.)
Sorry for that brief thread jack…just had to get that off my chest.
I have to say I’m getting pretty annoyed w/ all the comments that express this sentiment. Nowhere have I ever said there was anything wrong w/ kink, and anyone who knows me even very casually just from reading my blog, would know that I definitely do not feel that way. I can’t help but think folks might be projecting some of their own issues onto what I wrote, since nowhere have I ever asserted that kink itself is the problem.
Never intended that statement to imply that you were anti-kink, Amber…and I sincerely apologize if you got that implication from it.
Anthony
totally random comment from one who’s admired Sex 2.0 from afar… how on earth can a specifically non-feminist identified person organize a conference on Feminism, Sexuality and Technology? regardless of gender! Might as well have a non-sex-positive organizer too! I don’t get it. Or a non-techie.
Amber, I don’t think you’re anti-kink in the least. I gathered that part of your fear that the event was becoming more sex-centric and less feminist-centric was your comment on Dragon*Con, Frolicon, etc.
Events that I do not enjoy for the same reasons you don’t.
Dragon*Con. Frolicon. Swingers’ parties. Sex-focused events that were not sex-positive, and centered a heteronormative, male-dominated version of sexuality. Events that made me feel icky and objectified and petulant. Events that could potentially be fun if all the creepy guys weren’t always fucking things up.
follow-up:
And as a sex worker, trans rights supporter, and kink activist, I really don’t see the conflict about calling oneself a feminist. All of those things pretty much require feminism for survival, in my experience.
Just as a clarification, I used the word “kink” originally b/c events like Frolicon are kink-centered, so I ran with that in using “sex-centered” and “kink-centered” interchangeably.
[...] my mind, Sex 2.0 2009 kicked off online, with a critical post by previous conference organizer Amber Rhea. Coupled with the many comments, it was a perfect [...]