Thoughts on Sex 2.0 thoughts
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 do not regret posting it, nor do I feel it was the wrong thing to do. I struggled w/ whether or not to post anything – I’ve been going back and forth for months – but what finally made me decide to do it were two things: 1) multiple people had contacted me privately to express concerns that were similar to my own; and 2) I resolved that, dammit, Sex 2.0 would not replicate dysfunctional family dynamics if I had anything to say about it. And of course, all I can control is me, so that meant I decided that the risk of being seen as a Debbie Downer or any other “negative” perception was worth it; I wasn’t willing to keep my concerns (which were also others’ concerns!) bottled up for the sake of keeping up appearances or pretending everything is just peachy keen. I lived my life that way for too long and nothing but heartache comes from it. Sure there is heartache that goes along w/ speaking your feelings and putting yourself out there, but it is ultimately far less self-harmful than to not say anything for the sake of some bizarre “party unity” or something.
What’s difficult is that much of the foundation for my concerns cannot be blogged. I know this seems like a cop-out; people are probably thinking, well isn’t that convenient, she writes a screed that totally harshes everyone’s mellow and then says, hey, I can’t tell you why! If people perceive it that way, then I have to be okay with that, because I can’t control it. The fact is, there is backstory and behind-the-scenes stuff that can’t be blogged because it would potentially compromise people’s privacy, and that is also not something I’m willing to do for the sake of making a point. So, understandably, many people who do not know all the details can draw their conclusions based only on the information they have. That’s what we all do every day when we draw conclusions about anything, so I am not faulting anyone for doing that! I’m just saying that it’s a tough spot; people don’t have all the information, they don’t know that they don’t have all the information, but for the most part I can’t share all the information for a variety of reasons.
So why didn’t I just shut up, if it was going to be half-assed, you might ask. Well, as I said above: I felt compelled to speak, and I felt the costs of not speaking would be worse that the costs of speaking and opening myself up to negative reactions.
Also, I had hoped that maybe if I wrote a post, some of the people who had approached me privately would feel safer coming forward and sharing their concerns. I don’t think we do ourselves any favors as a community by not communicating about the stuff that’s difficult and not so fun. At the same time I understand people’s reluctance, and sometimes, given the unique nature of the online community around sex, that reluctance is based in more than just a fear of criticism, but the potential for very real, damaging repercussions.
Still I hoped that maybe if I opened up a thread, asked for input and thoughts from anyone involved in Sex 2.0 in any way, that some of those who voiced their reservations to me might share there. In my post I did not mention that others had approached me, because I did not want anyone to feel (even without me naming names) that they had been put on the spot and were now expected to account for private conversation. I realized this would make it look like just me griping, but I hoped that that would be assuaged when others spoke up. But, most of those others have not spoken up, and so the picture of what’s going on is skewed to observers. I later clarified in a comment on that thread that people had contacted me, even though I felt a bit uncomfortable doing so. But I was also not happy about letting the inaccurate and unfair perception that this is all just me stand. I cannot force people to comment if they don’t want to do so, but I also do not want to be misperceived as just a complainer or someone who can’t bear to see her precious conference change.
I also do not want to give the inaccurate impression that I am not excited about Sex 2.0. If that were the case I would not be going! As I said in my previous post, I am looking forward to seeing old friends again and meeting new ones, and participating in some really interesting sessions. As an unconference, it is the responsibility of each of us to make Sex 2.0 what we want it to be, so I also do not want my previous post to be interpreted as passive complaining. But it would be disingenuous and naïve to suggest that “make it what you want it to be” is never influenced by external factors, because hello, if it’s up to all of us to do that, and some of us have conflicting ideas, then yes, there’s potential for some tension there. That’s not necessarily a bad thing except when the potential for true harm exists – but this comes back to what I said above about the stuff that can’t be blogged.
I know this post is even more circular and confusing to the casual reader than the last one. I have a knee-jerk temptation to apologize, but I don’t think that’s the right thing to do. I am not apologetic about speaking my feelings; but I am sorry that circumstances are such that I cannot give the whole story to everyone and make sure everyone understands 100% where I am coming from. And I am sorry that writing this will probably come off negatively even though my overall intent is resoundingly positive.
Let’s make Sex 2.0 what we want it to be!
Debbie Downer should be your porn star name!
I am one of the folk that has spoken with you. Initially, I was unnerved with the kink-heavy focus this years event was seeming to have, and that it might end up in some ways being uncomfortable due to creepy dudes looking to get laid ala a meat market club scene. But as it goes, i guess the focus for me will be where I choose to put it for myself, and since I really kind of dig most kinky folk, I hope they have fun… and as for creepy dudes…well, I have that do it yourself home jaw wiring kit.
There are a few things I am still iffy with, and yeah, not best to disucss because of privacy issues….but I am looking forward to the event, and well, it will go how it goes.
I am having a lot of trouble reading between the lines here. In going through the sessions and special events that are listed, I do not see a “kink-heavy focus.” If anything, I see a sex worker-heavy focus and I am okay with that.
I am disturbed when it is said that the “potental for true harm exists.” What does that mean?
BTW I am a kinky person with a lapsed membership in NOW. I am not attending this event for kink reasons. I am not out to do anyone harm. I am tired of feminists who equate kink with harm. I was hoping not to see that at Sex 2.0.
That is not remotely what I was referring to.
In fact, if you peruse my archives, you will find many posts that directly challenge and take down the asinine idea that feminism and kink are antithetical.
As I said – it’s a tough position to be in. People have to draw conclusions based on incomplete information – and I can’t give complete information. Probably some would say the best route would have been for me to shut up. But somehow I just couldn’t bring myself to do that.