Being Amber Rhea

I felt like writing about a few things that I think were missing from Monday’s post, related to blogging, bottom lines, media (new, traditional, and otherwise) and WHAT IT ALL MEANS.

First of all:

I loathe the idea that if you make money from something, then it’s “selling out” and somehow less valuable to your audience and/or community. I love what Kevin Barnes had to say about this. And here’s an appropriate cartoon from Gaping Void:

Do I think it’s important to question a writer’s motivations? Well, yes, obviously. But this isn’t brain surgery; it’s all part of the general practice of media literacy and analysis that a lot of us do reflexively at this point, on a daily basis. What’s the NY Times’ motivation for leading with an inflammatory headline and putting someone’s life in danger? To make more money, of course. And is that problematic? YES, of course. (If you don’t know my answer to that question, then you haven’t been reading my blog for very long!) But what I’m saying is that this is an entirely different thing from making a generalization that anyone who makes money as a writer automatically, without consideration, has bad motives - and that people who do something “for the love of it” or whatever, and don’t make money doing it, are automatically better or more respectable. That’s some bullshit.

Now - to use a phrase my mom hates - with all that being said, I’ll go on and say a bunch of stuff that might appear, to the casual reader, to contradict the above two paragraphs:

Regina and Dacia and others have talked about how it sucks that, basically, the mainstream media* wants to use their writing when it’s convenient, as a way to make a buck, but doesn’t want to associate themselves with them too much; and/or wants them to do the work for free and then loosely cover it under the umbrella of “covering blogs.” And they’re right, it does suck!

But I know they would all agree with me, too, that this is where new media comes in and fills the void. No use waiting for mainstream media to get on the bandwagon and catch up; we all know how long THAT takes, if it ever happens at all. Instead, we can use the tools that are now available to us to get accurate information out there quickly, in our own voices, unpolluted by editors who are “uncomfortable” with certain topics or downright ignorant, and reach people who otherwise might not be reached (and they will have a voice, as well!). Sexuality can be discussed with the full level of nuance and intelligence it deserves, not merely used as a titillating eye-catcher; the voices of individuals can be respected rather than tokenized and used for cheap shots. No need to wait for MSM to get their shit together with how they cover sex work, for example - because sex workers are speaking for themselves (and even reaching out to try to educate the media) and slowly but surely, people are paying attention. People are going directly to the people who are experts in their own lived experiences, not to the MSM as a filter or, as one manager at the media company where I used to work said, “gate-keepers of the news.” No more letting them decide what’s important and relevant. We create the content and we foster a dialogue about it within our communities in a way that MSM just does not get yet. Hopefully they will catch up eventually, but if they don’t, that’s okay, because we’re doing just fine ourselves, and we have a drive and a passion that isn’t dependent on advertiser dollars.

* Let’s just use a rather loose definition of what that means; or maybe I should say corporate media? But I don’t think that’s exactly right either. Hmmm.

I was really happy to be able to go to BlogOrlando this weekend. Josh Hallett once again put on an amazing event (I say “once again” even though this was my first time going; but based on reports I’ve heard from people who went the previous two years, I feel justified in saying that!) and it was a great success.

I was nervous but also excited about my session. It ended up going really well - although I was very upset with myself because I forgot to bring the recorder, so I couldn’t record it for a podcast!! The room was full and we had a great discussion. I easily fell right back into “teacher mode” from when I used to be a TA in grad school; and you know, I really do like doing stuff like that!

The one thing that came out of my session was (as I predicted) we don’t have a clear definition of what is meant by the word “professional” when talking about blogs and social media. Everyone has their own conception of what that word means. To illustrate, here’s a photo of the whiteboard from my session; I started with an exercise where I had people shout out words/phrases that characterize a professional blog, and then words/phrases that characterize an unprofessional blog.

You’ll notice that some of the things in these lists contradict each other, and that’s exactly the point. One that I found very interesting was ‘lots of pictures’ under the Unprofessional heading; my response to the person who said it was something like, “That really depends on the type of blog we’re talking about, right? For a photography blog, lots of pictures would be appropriate, expected, and professional.”

After deconstructing what some of these words mean - e.g., it’s not okay to just use “credibility” as a qualifier for professional, because that’s another word that doesn’t have a common, accepted definition, so we need to define it, too! - I started presenting some examples. I mentioned a small business owner who wrote a post about her thoughts on the election, and asked what people thought of that. Two very interesting responses were shouted out at the same time. One person said it’s okay to write about her political views if she articulates what she means well. Another said it’s okay as long as it’s nothing too radical.

(Of course, you can imagine where I went with that: what is “too radical?” That’s subjective too.)

The two opinions diverged on what really mattered.

Later in the day, Nik Wilets and I were discussing how this was all very interesting because, we both agreed, to us professional/unprofessional has more to do with conduct - e.g., are you consistently late for meetings with clients, are you unprepared for meetings, etc.

Take-away: “Professional” is one of those words where someone says it and ten different people hear ten different things.

Other buzzwords:

• Credibility
• Monetization
• Non-starter
• Thought leader
• Personal brand - this term really creeps me out

Also:

And then in the afternoon, there was the Online Identity session… but I really don’t feel like writing about that right now. (Read the liveblog to get the gist of why; also, Dacia joined in the chat, which made it more bearable.) Maybe later. :\

If you have any questions/thoughts/opinions/talking points for my BlogOrlando session, please leave them in comments here! I’ll record the session and post it as an episode of (un)ConCast.

Reminder of my session description:

Professionalism 2.0
What does “professionalism” mean in the context of blogging? Is it a matter of the topics you write about, the language you use, the amount of research you put into a typical post - or all or none of the above? Social media tools offer us the opportunity to express our full humanity instead of compartmentalizing aspects of who we are. To what degree do we need to adjust our pre-conceived notions about what’s professional and what isn’t?

Thanks in advance!

This is so perfect I can hardly stand it:

I’m tangling hard with this notion of public persona. That for whatever reason, writing about sex gives some people the idea that you are available sexually to them (this is not new, this is something I’ve noticed a long time ago). But this being commonly understood as a consumable girl is hitting a breaking point for me. Does it mean I can’t flirt-for-real in public spaces without being perceived as buying into a role, without agreeing with that being pegged as The Sex Girl?

I was never that girl. I never played against my own intelligence to make men comfortable around me. I come on strong by being open, not teasing. I don’t look for strength in men’s eyes that way. As temporarily delightful as cocktail conversation may be — until our cabs come — I get my real and lasting courage from my own vulnerability. I can only trust my sense of worth to be safe with those unafraid to love me, not someone who finds me amusing five minutes at a time.

It kind of gives me déjà vu because it’s everything I’ve been thinking but, as usual, Melissa puts it into words so much better than I could hope to. (That sounds kind of assholish, doesn’t it? Argh…)

On Twitter I said: “This is what I would’ve talked about at BlogHer ATL” and “I’ll mention this at @blogorlando, too; I won’t have a prepared presentation but it’ll be a ‘talking point.’ We’ll see where *that* goes.”

I HATE it. I hate this stupid, asinine, absurd, insipid idea that if a woman writes about sex then she is The Sex Girl (as Melissa puts it). This pigeon-holing, it’s… well, there just aren’t enough adjectives for “ridiculous” to convey it!

I was never That Girl either - I wouldn’t even know how to be - and this is why, for instance, it makes me absolutely livid to see sex-positivity so COMPLETELY misrepresented by people who obviously have NO FUCKING CLUE what they are talking about. I’m staying out of blog wars with “radfems” for good - it’s just a waste of time - but occasionally I see them quoted on Ren’s blog or Caroline’s blog, prattling on about how “sex-pozzies” (yes, they really say that; can you believe it?) are all about pleasing men and the men love us because we do what they want and blah blah blah and I’m like, okay, this is the part where it is GLARINGLY obvious that you have absolutely NO GRASP of my life, my experience, my reality, and holy hell could your head possibly be FURTHER up your ass? I mean it’s kind of funny in a way, but it still just infuriates me. I cannot even convey to you how totally absurd it is.

Oh, and as for people assuming that because you write about sex, you obviously want to have sex WITH THEM - well, that’s nothing new, either. It’s as old as the hills and it, too, is a jaw-droppingly ridiculous depth of stupidity.

And, too, let’s revisit this.

As you’ve seen if you read my Twitter tweets, a few days ago BlogHer Atlanta, along with the three other Southern locations of the BlogHer Reach Out tour (Greensboro, Nashville, New Orleans) has been canceled.

:( :( :(

(I guess this means I don’t have to worry about writing that other post where I talk about how I found people’s reactions to my panel announcement to be weird and hurtful!)

I’m going to try to cover as much as possible in this post - and there’s a lot to cover. Admittedly it might not be the best time for me to be writing it, as I’ve just taken a Klonopin and drank some sort of espresso/mint concocation, discovered a mysterious crack in my car windshield, fought for 15 minutes to unstick my parking break, and am generally freaking out about staying in Augusta for another two days while Rusty is in Knoxville. I really really don’t want to, but I know I’ll end up staying - at least til Saturday evening. You would think my dad died yesterday with the way my moods are all over the place. So, yeah, maybe not the best time. BUT, I don’t want to keep putting it off, and I’m in this Metro Coffeehouse and it seems (for the time being, anyway; that may change when these fratty-looking fools who just walked in start shooting pool) like a conducive place for blogging - moreso than my mom’s living room, for some reason.

ANYWAY. Onward to BlogHer stuff. If I leave something out, it’s just an oversight, as there’s a lot of related stuff swimming around in my head, and I’ll probably do a follow-up post in that case.

Also none of this is a personal dig at Elisa Camahort, who I think is great. BUT I do think BlogHer as an organization handled this situation poorly, and I feel I have the right to share that criticism, and hopefully they will be receptive.

The official explanation was inadequate “sponsor and community support” in these cities. I think this is an unfair and dishonest way of rhetorically shifting the blame to the communities. We have LOTS of community support for social media here in Atlanta. If the problem is lack of sponsor dollars, that’s not the same thing as lack of community support. Yes, I know it says “sponsor AND community support,” but the way that’s worded, the conflation is bound to happen whether it’s intentional or not.

Also you simply cannot have the same expectations for Atlanta that you have for LA, San Francisco, or New York. We have a thriving social media community here, BUT it does not (nor should it) look like the scenes in those cities. That doesn’t mean we don’t deserve a chance. And it feels pretty shitty to constantly get passed by. I remember when I was in the early planning stages of Sex 2.0, somebody (Melissa, maybe? I can’t remember) suggested I move it to San Francisco to coincide w/ Arse Elektronika or the Folsom Street Fair or something. My answer was an emphatic NO! I live in Atlanta, so why would I hold a conference that’s my brainchild in another city? Also, I am sick and tired of EVERYTHING being in California and New York. There are other places out there, believe it or not, and a lot of ‘em are pretty darn cool. As Jen said on Twitter: “Assuming that said community support doesn’t exist, how it (sic) one supposed to build it up without conferences?”

Basically I think BlogHer was aiming to do too much too soon w/ these Reach Out tours. Yes, it is definitely awesome that they provide breakfast and lunch at their conferences; but that’s not necessary. Cocktail parties are also nice, but again, not necessary. Sex 2.0 didn’t have any of those frills and it was a blast - because of the people and energy in attendance. That’s what will truly make or break any event.

Another issue may have been purely logistical; Darcey pointed out on Twitter, “Maybe has to do with the conference being held for one day during middle of the weel (sic)? Maybe if it were a Friday, would be diff.” I think there’s definitely some truth to that - it can be hard for people to get time off work.

I don’t know if I can convey how much I was looking forward to this panel. And we had some really awesome panelists lined up: yours truly (duh), Tiffany Brown, Amy Davis, and Callie Simms, with Elisa moderating. An excellent diversity of opinions and experiences, and only one panelist was not from Atlanta. To recap, this was the panel description:

The “Naked” Blogging Double Standard
At just about every BlogHer event we end up discussing the ramifications of “naked” blogging; that is, blogging your true self. Blogging’s low barrier to entry has provided a platform for everyone, and particularly women, to tell our own stories, to create a more diverse cultural record than has been historically typical, and to own our experiences and how transparently we choose to share those experiences. Every blogger draws their boundaries differently. In a survey BlogHer conducted a couple of years ago bloggers indicated that it was more taboo to discuss finances on their blog than sex! But, let’s get real: Really? We’re not sure we’re buying it. Is anyone else out there blown away by how much conflict the issues of gender, sex and sexuality (and society’s expectations of how women “should” behave) still stir up… and by how much judgment is still thrown at women who ignore the admonishment that “nice girls don’t?”

Every year at BlogHer the debate rages: Can we talk about shoes and still be taken seriously? Well, let’s take it a step further: Can women talk openly about sex and still be taken seriously? And is it different for men? Women certainly don’t agree on the answer, so you can be sure the answer is even more unclear in segments of society, industry and the blogosphere that are more male-dominated. How do we challenge that status quo - and support women in their choices, even when they might not be our choices? Join Amber Rhea, one of the women leading the charge for change, in a frank discussion designed to expose the naked blogging double standard and challenge our preconceived notions of what it means to be taken seriously.

I feel VERY passionately about this topic, and I don’t see it being discussed very many places. (And by “very many places” I mean “at all.”) I was SO looking forward to having a somewhat formal panel of questions, also with time for plenty of audience input and sharing of experiences, on this very important and under-explored topic, in a space with primarily women who blog or use social media in other ways.

I’ll be leading a session next weekend at BlogOrlando on a somewhat-related topic; hence:

Professionalism 2.0
What does “professionalism” mean in the context of blogging? Is it a matter of the topics you write about, the language you use, the amount of research you put into a typical post - or all or none of the above? Social media tools offer us the opportunity to express our full humanity instead of compartmentalizing aspects of who we are. To what degree do we need to adjust our pre-conceived notions about what’s professional and what isn’t?

And don’t get me wrong, it’s not that I’m not excited about this, because I definitely am. But it won’t be a mostly-women space, and thus the conversation won’t center on how these deeply entrenched and unexamined biases affect us as women online, and how we (consciously or unconsciously) replicate existing arbitrary standards among ourselves. It will also be an unconference format (which, duh, I love) so there won’t be a formal panel with a moderator, and I think this particular topic is one that is well-served by having a bit of structure.

Elisa mentioned in an email to me that she really likes the topic and hopes I will consider bringing it to BlogHer ‘09. At this point, I don’t know. It kind of feels like, “Sorry you couldn’t present this in your own community and engage the opinions of local social media participants; but hey, fly your ass all the way to California and do it here, because this is the place that really matters.”

Not a good feeling. Once again the South is passed over, deemed “not good enough.”

And it’s not just me who’s sad - a lot of people on Twitter and in email were conveying their disappointment.

Now, I also want to be kind of devil’s advocate here - or not really devil’s advocate, but just address some things that would be valid criticisms if I left it just at this. First of all, it annoyed the shit out of me when I saw people whining and complaining on Twitter about BlogHer ATL being “too expensive.” Well, what do you expect? Do you really expect to be handed an awesome event on a platter for free? If it pisses you off that much, try organizing your own event and then maybe you’ll see how it’s not exactly a walk in the park. The two conferences I’ve organized, which are much smaller in scale than BlogHer ATL would have been (although, tangent: there’s no reason it couldn’t have been on that smaller scale, and in fact originally I thought that was the whole point of the Reach Out tour) drained me completely, so that I will never do anything like that again. And guess what, that shit COSTS MONEY. Even Sex 2.0, where we had no frills whatsoever, cost just over $4,000 - and there were STILL people bitching about paying the $40 admission!! (And you know how much I hate the word “bitching,” so I must be pretty worked up to use it here.) I just get so damn irritated with people who just expect that everything should be handed to them and wah wah wah if it costs “too much.” Fuck that. You want community events, let’s sack up and make ‘em happen - and quit whining!

But all that being said, I do think BlogHer could have (and should have) scaled back the event and then the admission would’ve been able to be lower and then more people might have signed up. Of course, you can’t make people go to anything - and lord knows I’ve dealt with more than my share of lazy asses who say they’ll do something or come to something and then they JUST DON’T - but that might have helped a bit. And then next year people might be willing to pay more for an event with more frills. (Keep in mind, too, that salaries and such in Atlanta aren’t what they are in LA!)

And now I have totally lost my train of thought. There was more I wanted to say, and certainly some of the above that I didn’t say nearly as eloquently as I should. I’ll go ahead and stop for now, though, and put this up in its imperfect state, and let the flamage commence, I guess. I better go get a chicken salad sandwich at New Moon… all I’ve had to eat all day is a banana and a plum, and that can’t be helping my frazzled state.

Overall I am just really, really sad about BlogHer Atlanta being canceled. I’m not sure many people truly understood how important this was to me. Now I don’t know if I’ll ever get a chance to hold a forum on this topic that I’m so passionate about.

Still not feeling up to writing a post of my own, and things are basically shit; but, here’s a repost from BlogHer:

If you can’t make it to BlogHer ‘08 in San Francisco this year, maybe you can join us in one of our SIX “Reach Out Tour” cities this fall? We’ll be condensing our annual event into one-day extravaganzas in Boston, DC, Nashville, Greensboro, Atlanta and New Orleans. And you can register now for any or all of them!

We’re still finalizing the various agendas, but you can expect each city’s sessions to feature fantastic speakers, relevant sessions, and a lot of local flair. Plus, we’ll have a track just for beginners (so if you know someone — your friend, sister, mother, grandmother, neighbor — who should be blogging if she just had the right tools and motivation, send her over!).

Read more about the Reach Out Tour on our official Conference Blog, or simply click on the city below to learn more about where, when, how much and how to register:

October 11 - BlogHer BOSTON

October 13 - BlogHer DC

October 16 - BlogHer NASHVILLE

October 18 - BlogHer GREENSBORO

October 21 - BlogHer ATLANTA

October 25 - BlogHer NEW ORLEANS

As of now, I’m on the fence about whether I’ll go. BlogHer ‘07 was a lot of fun, but I just haven’t decided about this Atlanta version. Not sure if I want to pay $100 to hang out with a lot of the same people I hang out with anyway. Fortunately, there’s plenty of time to decide.

On Friday, Rusty and I will be heading to Baltimore for Balticon. We’ve never been before, but as I understand it, Balticon is like a mini Drangon*Con. I guess I’m showing my Atlanta-centricness here; maybe Baltimorans(?) would call Dragon*Con an overblown Balticon?

I’m going to be on four panels, which I’m very excited about. Here’s where I’ll be:

• “Sex Tech, Now and Future” - Saturday, May 24, 11:00 p.m.
• “Erotic Podcasts and Sexy New Media” - Sunday, May 25, 12:00 a.m. (a.k.a., midnight Saturday)
• “Don’t Be That Guy: Advice From the Women of New Media” - Sunday, May 25, 2:00 p.m.
• “So You Want to Be a Sex Podcaster” - Monday, May 26, 12:00 a.m. (a.k.a., midnight Sunday)

All of these panels are in the Chesepeake room (which I always read as “cheapskate”).

Here’s an episode of the Balticon Podcast that talks about the “late night” (a.k.a., sex) track. I would’ve called in via Skype but they recorded it on the evening of May 9.

On the latest episode of Mostly ITP, Rusty and I talk about how it’s funny that some people now classify our podcast as a sex podcast simply because we occasionally talk about sex. We’ve been pegged… right into the pink ghetto?

Anyway, we are very excited about Balticon. I’m looking forward to hanging out with Regina Lynn (we didn’t get to talk nearly enough at Sex 2.0) and meeting Nobilis and Helen Madden. And I’m also very excited about spending most of Saturday with Jenny! It seems weird to say we haven’t seen each other in over a year, since we keep in touch so much through email, IM, blogs, and now Twitter. Yay social media!

Check out these interviews Rachel Kramer Bussel did with me, Viviane, and Twanna. They’re a precursor to an upcoming Huffington Post piece. Here’s an excerpt from my interview:

How do you see the “sexual community” where you live vs. the community you’ve found online? What do online communities offer that offline ones don’t regarding sexual openness?

It’s not always a simple matter of delineating “online” and “offline” community; the beauty of social media is that those barriers are breaking down. My online community is my offline community. Maybe not all the time, when things like geographic distance comes into play; but all these people who knew of each other thanks to the internet came together at Sex 2.0 and had a really kick-ass time in Atlanta.

But speaking of geographic barriers, online community can fill the gaps when people aren’t able to get together IRL. If you live in an isolated area, you might feel pretty cut off from others who share your sexual interests; but with access to the internet, suddenly you’re not so alone anymore.

Also, online, people may feel more comfortable talking about things that are painful or embarrassing for them to discuss face-to-face. This is a useful facet of online community regardless of what one’s offline community looks like.

Sex in the Public Square has put out the call for a sex-positive wiki.

One of the things that made this seem like such a good idea to me was the surge of media coverage in the wake of the Spitzer scandal, and especially the Diane Sawyer 20/20 special, which repeatedly seemed to make a deliberate effort to snatch bullshit from the maw of truth.

We really do have an incredible collection of fiercely intelligent, independent people in what can loosely (VERY loosely) be called the sex-positive community. We have everything from dedicated activists working at clubs and agencies to scholars like Elizabeth, and I think that putting all those brains together to build a resource devoted to providing information about the intersections of sex and culture could produce a helluva powerful and valuable site.

The question I usually get when pitching this idea at people is, “What about Wikipedia?” Wikipedia is a great resource. If the rest of the web was as useful as Wikipedia, I’d probably spend the other 10% of my life plugged into the internet as well. The Sexology and Sexuality Project on Wikipedia, among others, deserves praise for their work. But Wikipedia itself isn’t specifically focused on sexuality, and a focus can be invaluable in attaining depth of insight into a topic. Also, Wikipedia is, by definition, open to just about any damn fool with a computer and an attitude. Most of the truly obvious lunatics get combed out by the collective efforts of the saner majority, but in working on volatile subjects like sex work or pornography, there are often polarized factions trying to get their viewpoint into the article. The Talk section of the Wikipedia pornography article has a lot of long arguments over the nature and appropriateness of various approaches to the subject. In short, it takes an effort just to be able to get to the starting line for sex-poz people. One of the benefits of having our own wiki would be that we’re already at a comfortable starting point, where we can begin with the assumption, for instance, that sex work can be a legitimate occupation. Then from that point, we can move on to our our own internecine battles. We don’t have to waste time explaining why prostitution and trafficking aren’t necessarily the same thing.

(emphasis mine)

Read more here.

It is definitely time for this. Please contact Elizabeth and Chris if you would like to get involved! The more people/ideas/perspectives/knowledge, the better!

In addition to all its other benefits, think this is a wonderful opportunity to foster more of a sense of cohesion among what is and has been a very loosely-defined community.

And I agree that Wikipedia is not the place for this project. Unfortunately until sex-positivity makes more inroads into mainstream society (which is what projects like this can help accomplish!) we really do need a space where we know we won’t be inundated with BS.

Sex 2.0 was last weekend, and I think people are finally starting to come down from the post-orgasmic bliss state that characterized last week’s tweets, blog posts, emails, etc. (On a less pleasant note, I have yet to shake this case of con crud.)

A few days ago, I posted a big round-up of what other people had to say about the conference; but I have yet to post my reactions. So here are a few.

First of all, simply the fact that all of last week seemed like a post-orgasmic bliss-like state - and Twitter was a downright lovefest - is testament to Sex 2.0’s huge success. I had hoped for it to be successful, bring people together, foster community, blah blah blah… but it really did all that and more in a way that exceeded my wildest dreams. I am so pleased!

The only complaint I heard was that there were too many interesting sessions going on at once! I lost count of the number of people who told me they wished it had been two days.

Dacia and I were talking about how one thing that was unique about Sex 2.0 was that people seemed to be more interested in actually talking and interacting face-to-face, rather than obsessively documenting the event via liveblogging, photos, Twitter, etc. Don’t get me wrong, all of those things were going on; but it definitely was a different vibe than any other social media-related conference I’ve been to. People were so interested and engaged in the discussions, that they couldn’t be bothered to stop and pick up their iPhones. And to me that’s what it’s all about! Social media should foster the social, after all.

Also - and this might seem paradoxical to the last point, but it’s really not - instead of just talking about the various social media tools available, people were actually using the tools to create original content and do cool things. Whether it was showing people how social media can help sex workers form an online community for real-world activism, or role-playing the ups and downs of being internet famous (I’m still annoyed with myself for not going to Melissa’s session), this conference was about doing and not just being meta. Several people were inspired to create new blogs or other social media projects last weekend, and I look forward to seeing how they develop.

Overall, I believe it was the combination of strong content, the energy of the people there, and the comfort of being in a judgment-free space that created Sex 2.0’s unique heights of awesomeness. There are already plans in the works for next year; I love to see this excitement! The consensus seems to be that it will be in DC next year. Sounds good to me… I’ll see y’all there!

What is Sex 2.0?

Sex 2.0 will focus on the intersection of social media, feminism, and sexuality. How is social media enabling people to learn, grow, and connect sexually? How is sexual expression tied to social activism? Does the concept of transparency online offer new opportunities or present new roadblocks — or both? These questions, and many more, will be addressed within a safe, welcoming, sex-positive space.

Respecting the confidentiality and protecting the identities of participants who wish to maintain a degree of anonymity will be a top priority at Sex 2.0.

When? April 12, 2008
Where? 1763~A Deviant Place of Decadence, 1763 Montreal Circle, Tucker, Ga., 30084
How much? $50.

REGISTRATION IS MANDATORY. We will not be taking any walk-up registrations at the door.

At Sex 2.0, everyone is a participant rather than a passive attendee. This is YOUR event!

I arrived here in Boston (for WAM!2008) a few hours ago, and am chilling in the hotel room, trying to catch up on email, and waiting for Dacia to arrive. I’ll try to do as much blogging as possible this weekend - I still need to blog about last night’s APC panel, although you can already see some of my commentary in my tweets - but for now, I just want to link to Regina Lynn’s latest Sex Drive column in Wired. She interviewed me, Dacia, and Melissa. Here’s an excerpt:

“Lots of people were at South by Southwest [when the Spitzer story broke] and didn’t have time to check e-mail every five minutes,” says Amber Rhea, organizer of the upcoming Sex 2.0 conference in Atlanta. “It didn’t matter. They used Twitter, text messaging — they did interviews with hardly any advance notice.”

Rhea says that for the first time, there’s a critical mass of people putting forth a concerted effort to make sure the media can’t ignore sex workers. Building on a foundation built by former sex workers of the past 30 or so years, many of whom went public with books, articles and speaking engagements after they retired, modern sex workers have the message — and the means to get it out.

Mobile connectivity makes it possible to channel the collective wisdom of a broad, geographically diverse group directly to a smaller number of public faces, almost instantly. Sex workers across the country could share their thoughts on the subject without outing themselves, while those who could put their real names and faces forward in the media could speak with a strong peer-support network.

Be sure to read the whole thing!

You’re probably thinking, “But Amber, you had just started there!” Yeah, I did - in January. And two months later, I’m quitting. All my posts are here, but there won’t be any more coming.

The comments in my last post spiraled out of control, quickly. Right now it’s up to 92 comments (but for the past twenty or so it’s been the same two guys beating their chests at each other). From the beginning, I probably should’ve created a Gmail filter to automatically delete comment notifications (which I did later), but I didn’t want to miss any good comments.

Then the attacks started pouring in.

I didn’t want to comment, because I knew it would be pointless. But then I left one snarky comment, and then a few more. Even as I was doing it I was feeling the emotional toll, and yet it was like the car accident phenomenon of not being able to look away.

And then I got some emails from fellow Download Squad bloggers who said they found my comments “reprehensible,” “close-minded,” and “mean-spirited.” They characterized the trolls, slut-baiters, and anti-feminists* as “disagreeing” and “addressing [me] civilly and, for the most part, maturely.”

So.

After lots and lots of thought on the matter, I’ve decided that I’m not going to continue writing at Download Squad. The kind of thing that happened on that last thread is just not a healthy environment for me to be in. I know how those kinds of situations affect me, and it would be extremely detrimental for me to continue putting myself in such a position.

It’s not that I’m all that surprised, really. I mean I’m not stupid or naïve. I guess I just… thought? hoped? wanted to believe? it would be different this time. But I’ve gotten that kind of reaction so many times, in so many different places, that at this point I can’t even try to enumerate them. That’s why I made the commenter Bingo card; it really is like marking squares off a board. They say the same shit every time. And some people have a thick skin, and that stuff doesn’t get to them, and they stand tall in the face of it and shout their message out to people who are determined not to hear it, in the hope that maybe 1 person out of 1,000 will listen and really think about what they’ve said…

But I’m not one of those people.

I’ve mentioned before that this is why I don’t consider myself a hardcore activist. I’m not cut out for it. I can say with reasonable certainty that being on the front lines of this kind of stuff would turn me suicidal.

I do very well in face-to-face one-on-one interactions where I know the other person sees me as a fully equal human being and is willing to listen respectfully and thoughtfully to what I’m saying. I enjoy those interactions; I enjoy respectful, intelligent debate. I do not enjoy or do well in verbal onslaughts where people are telling me I need to shut up, go away, show ‘em my tits, get laid, change who I am if I want to be taken seriously, and by the way why am I so ugly, why am I such a whore, etc. etc. etc.

For the sake of my own health (not to mention self-respect!), I won’t allow myself to be spoken to that way. And as I learned a long time ago, the “just ignore them” adage does not work.

As I said in the fateful Download Squad post, it’s important to keep hacking away at these bullshit barriers. And I completely believe and agree with the sentiments expressed here. But, I can’t do it on a large scale. This is something I know about myself; I can fight this fight with individuals and very small groups, but not with large groups or (god forbid) “the public.”

It’s an important fight. But it’s one we all have to do our own way, and that is not my way.

Maybe Download Squad can find someone with a thicker skin to write what was my column.

* Funny thing… I was called a radical feminist on that thread. That’s one thing that does make me laugh. Inevitably, in discussions (and I use that word loosely) with people like the lovely DLS commenters, I will eventually be called a radical feminist. Usually I’ll be called a lesbian as well, or the question will be raised of when I last had a good deep-dicking. Oh, if only they knew… actual radical feminists can’t stand me! And they accuse me of being some kind of girly-girl embodiment of the common man’s wet dream, which also cracks me up. Little do they know, the common man is calling me one of them!

I already posted a quote of the day, so this one will have to be for tomorrow (let’s just pretend I do these on a regular basis). Susan Mernit has written a seriously kick-ass BlogHer post, and really I should just say this is the post of the day instead of the quote of the day, because it’s hard to choose an excerpt.

I was going to write a post, at my friend Viviane’s urging, about women sex bloggers who are persecuted and their blogs shut down because their frankness offends members of their extended real world community, but I think the real issue we need to talk about is the high price women are made to pay, again and again, both for being sexual and for speaking their mind.

It’s not about the blogs, you see, it’s about the right for complete self expression. In other words, it’s about being silenced.

In my view, as much as we have strong women coming forth to share their experiences and beliefs, the culture at large is still making those who don’t fit the standard models—whether because of their sexual practices or their social mores—pay a price, and this is particularly true for women.

This kinda coincides with my latest Download Squad post (note the warning label is still intact, with irony apparently lost), but Susan is more eloquent. Read the whole thing. Oh, and she mentions Dacia and Paris Hilton one right after the other. Ha!

(But Susan, one question… Dave Winer is your friend? Really? Glad you guys get along, but geez, personally I cannot be friends with guys who say shit like, “Women are always accusing men of being sexist!” Cue tiny violin, take 5,676,372.)

There’s been some discussion going on about sex bloggers within the larger social media community. See Graydancer’s post about his experience at the BlogWorld Expo, and Melissa Gira’s Sexerati post from today. (Why yes, they are both session leaders at Sex 2.0, why do you ask?)

In a perfect world, none of it would make a damn bit of difference. This would all be a non-issue. We wouldn’t even be able to conceive of it as an issue.

On one hand I feel stupid writing about this at all… like I shouldn’t be writing about it because what do I know, and it’ll just look like I’m co-opting other people’s experiences. I’m not a current or former sex worker, I’m not a sexuality educator, I’m not a “big name” in social media or sex… so what am I even talking about? But, I do have my experiences to draw from, so that is what I’m talking about. And I need to push through these feelings about not being good enough, because otherwise I’d be contradicting one of my fundamental beliefs about blogging: that we’ve all got a story to tell, and yes, it’s important.

In comments on her post, Melissa says:

[T]he way sex is being changed by the internet, and how it effects people outside the sexblogosphere, is so much bigger and more important than how any of us is treated at a conference. Yes, it’s a drag to be looked down on, but look who’s doing the looking-down-on. Compare that treatment with the stigma we face outside the web scene. How does it, as a million guys in striped shirts have said before me, scale?

Bigger and more important?

I don’t think so, because I don’t think the two realms - sexblogosphere and offline “everything else” world - can be so easily separated. As any of us who are at all involved in social media can attest, social media is contributing in a major way to the breaking down arbitrary barriers. And on a more fundamental level, I don’t think sexuality and the rest of one’s life can or should be easily separated.

I do understand that, in the offline world, being unashamed about your sexuality can have more immediate consequences, and the world in general can be much more cruel. It depends on where you live, too; I bet offline sex culture in San Francisco is different from in Atlanta. But little by little, we’ve got to keep chipping away at this stuff, otherwise no changes will ever be realized offline.

Okay, I feel like I got off on a Theory Tangent there. Ugh, sorry about that. Here’s what I originally meant to say about Melissa’s comment/question…

The purpose of my blog is for me to write about what I want, simple as that. Of course, I’d be lying if I said I don’t impose any filters on it; I’m writing in public about real people, after all, and the intersection of my life with the lives of everyone else I know is always something I’m trying to negotiate properly. But the main thing is, I don’t have a blog so that I can get a message out, or serve some “greater purpose,” or fill the gaps left by old media, or anything like that. Some people do have blogs for those reasons and more, and that’s great; that’s their choice. It’s just not my reason for blogging.

As such, to me, it doesn’t make sense to pose the question of “how does this compare to how other people are treated in other settings?” It’s a non-sequitur. Yes, lots of people are treated poorly in lots of situations. And that sucks. But, what are you* going to do about it? You can’t fix all of it. You can’t even focus on all of it. So why not focus on where you can have a real impact and make a difference? I know it might sound trite, but I really do believe that you start changing the world by making small changes in your own life and in the lives of those around you.

I don’t think it’s unreasonable of me to be offended if someone blows me off the instant they find out I write about sex. That’s not okay, and I certainly should call them out on their bullshit. Look what happened with that BlogNetNews guy. He wanted to build a nice ghetto I mean “special aggregator” for me and mine, ’cause we weren’t fit to mingle with all the serious bloggers. (But even the serious bloggers could get away with writing about sex, as long as the blogger in question was a man.)

-I just realized this post has gotten long, and I haven’t said much. I feel jumbled. I don’t know where I’m going with this. In my head, it was all nice and coherent. Melissa said I “always nail issues of community & sex blogging so well” - guess I didn’t live up to that expectation this time! But, just… I’ve experienced what Graydancer talks about, and at this point I’m starting to lose count of how many times it’s happened. And it’s part of why I’m wondering if I’ll lead the PodCamp Atlanta effort again next year (although that warrants a separate post). I’m just not willing to do the compartmentalization thing, and I’m not okay with being typecast and/or labeled as less relevant because of it.

Sorry for this hodge-podge of a post.

* generic “you”

Sherry wrote about her son who won’t stop playing those goddamn video games. She mused:

This got me to thinking about online social networking. I have friends that I text message more than I speak to. I have friends who will only engage in email conversations because they are too ‘busy’ for lunch meetings. Are we allowing our lives online to affect the way we see the world?

I am still a proponent that social media and the way the Internet is evolving is capable of making the world much better in a variety of ways, but perhaps we need a parent reminding us to stay focused on our priorities and make sure we maintain some sort of balance.

And in the comments, I replied:

Eh, I don’t know. This is the kind of thing the alarmists, haters, and curmudgeons always use to try to show that technology is ruining the world. But you know, there’s a HUGE difference between planting yourself in front of a computer/video game/whatever for hours at a time such that you neglect your other responsibilities (e.g., homework, chores, family time), and integrating technology into your life in a responsible way as a means of supporting or growing offline relationships.

Her kid playing X-Box all day long really isn’t about technology at all - it’s about a kid trying to get out of doing the shit he’s supposed to do. If it weren’t a video game, it would be something else. That’s what kids do, and that’s why they need parents to teach them that dog won’t hunt.

Unfortunately there are adults who exhibit, ahem, attentuated growth. You hear stories about people whose spouses spend almost every waking hour playing World of Warcraft instead of keeping up their half of the relationship. Or “porn addiction,” for that matter. It could be anything, really.

I think that’s where a lot of people get confused; they put the focus on the wrong thing. The particular technology in any situation isn’t what’s cause for concern; it’s the behavior.

Adults don’t need parents to remind them of their priorities. Adults need to take responsibility for their own damn lives; and if they don’t, well, there are consequences. That’s the way it goes.

Frankly, people who are constantly too “busy” to have lunch once in a while are obnoxious. I don’t want to be friends with someone who’s always got a cellphone plugged to their ear. But I also don’t want to be friends with someone who doesn’t pay attention to our friendship because of any other stupid activity.

At this point, I’ve been to half a dozen social media unconferences, and at almost all of them, there has been much discussion about how/why/if PR and marketing folks should “reach out” to The Bloggers.

Should PR and marketing departments be embracing social media? Of course they should; and fortunately, a lot of them seem to be past the if and focusing on the how. But for some reason, that’s where there seems to be a major roadblock to understanding.
Read the full post »

This post will be an amalgamation of emails…

First, I received this email from Chris Brogan:

I might have venue space for a PodCamp Atlanta on Dec 5-6. Weekday timeframe, so I know it might draw different, or might not work out for you. What do you think?

I replied that I would be out of town Dec. 6-7, and that I’m currently too overloaded with other projects at the moment to take on anything else, but that it sounds like a good idea and if people are interested, we should try to do it. (A weekday timeframe isn’t great for me personally, because I work during the week, but I think the fact that it would draw a different crowd makes it an interesting idea.) So I sent this email to the Atlanta Podcasters Google group and the PodCamp Atlanta Google group:

See note below from Chris Brogan. The location is Cobb Galleria. I think doing a “mini” PodCamp Atlanta would be cool; however, I’m going to be out of town on Dec. 6th, and have a lot going on between now and then, so I really cannot commit to being the organizer. If anyone else is interested in seeing this happen, please reply ASAP. I will forward names of those interested to Chris.

The only responses I received were two terse emails which basically dismissed the entire idea out of hand.

Today I emailed both groups again:

Okay, well, so far, the only responses I’ve gotten have been two people saying they don’t think a mid-week PodCamp would work. (Which I take to mean, *they* wouldn’t come to a mid-week PodCamp. Whether anyone else would come is another matter entirely, but I’ve not received any other input.) I still think it would be a good idea and a worthy experiment, if nothing else; but like I said, I am not able to take on the task of single-handedly organizing it right now. So, I’ll give it until the end of this week for someone else to volunteer to handle things (it wouldn’t be a ton of work, if you’re on the fence) and if no one speaks up, then we’ll just nix the idea of a December mini-PodCamp Atlanta.

Frankly, I think it would not be a big deal to do this and make it very hardcore BarCamp-style. That is, no advance planning of sessions, people just show up and propose sessions the day of, and then see where things go. Get your own food, no T-shirts or other fancy schwag, just people hanging out and sharing good ideas and conversation. (Side note: if I hear the word “conversation” used to describe the ethos of social media one more time, I think I might vomit.) Brogan seems to think there needs to be more advance organizing than that, and generally I would be inclined to agree, since I don’t like leaving stuff up to chance - it makes me nervous and sometimes physically ill. But I think that if this is a “mini” PodCamp, there’s no need to go overboard. But he’s apparently not comfortable doing it without something a little more formal. And I can understand that.

So if any of y’all are interested, please speak up ASAP. Otherwise, I hope you’ll still plan to participate in the next full-on PodCamp Atlanta, which is scheduled for May 17-18, 2008. (And I will need a lot of planning assistance with that, so consider this your heads-up!)

If interested, comment here, email one of the groups, and/or email me directly. Thanks.

I’m presenting at ConvergeSouth, a little less than one month from now. My session is called “Podcasting and Beyond.” I think the ConvergeSouth people gave it that name; or else I did and just don’t remember. Anyway, I want to focus on the “beyond” aspect, rather than getting tied up in boring technical details and talking about the pros and cons of various audio editors (I hate talking about that kind of shit) and explaining what an RSS feed is, and such. But “beyond” is pretty broad, so if you’re going to be there and have an opinion about what the general theme of the session should be, let me know.

ConvergeSouth is an unconference, so it’s not like I’ll be yakking the whole time. I plan to talk for like 5-10 minutes at the beginning, and then just do the open-ended discussion thing; but even with an open-ended discussion, you need some kind of unifying theme.

Share your thoughts!

Friday evening, I talked with a guy (not using his name at the moment in case he doesn’t want me to) who has coordinated lots of events and is very well-connected in terms of knowing people who would be interested in Sex 2.0. I told him some of the stuff I was stressing out about: how to get sponsors, how to make it look like an attractive venture without compromising what we want to do, what to do if we can’t get enough sponsors to cover the overhead costs, my worries that other people involved weren’t doing their fair share, and so on and so forth.

His advice?

Charge $10 admission rather than relying on sponsors to cover costs. That way, we’re not beholden to sponsors’ wants or squicks, and we can do it our way. As for the $10 admission, he said, if people say they’re not going to come because we’re charging $10, then they weren’t going to come in the first place, because that’s not a valid excuse. And if they really are pissed about such a paltry price, then we don’t want them there anyway. Also, people tend to be more invested in something if they have to pay, even if the price is low. For one thing that’ll make our headcount much more accurate.

Additionally, we can have vendor tables at a low cost. I think this is great, because one of the things I’ve wanted to do with this ever since I came up w/ the Sex 2.0 idea is showcase local sex-positive businesses and organizations. This way, that goal will be accomplished, and I won’t have to beg them for money. I know many of the places I have in mind don’t have the kind of money that we would need from sponsors, but I don’t want them to be excluded from the event, which is what would’ve happened with the old model.

All in all, I feel about 100 times better about Sex 2.0 after that conversation, and I have a renewed feeling of inspiration and vigor! I also decided to ditch the wiki and make a WordPress-based web site instead. There will be a blog component, of course. It’s pretty much complete: http://sex20con.com. The registration page works and everything. Did I mention, Eventbrite rocks my socks?

So, once again, mark your calendars for April 12, 2008. Sex 2.0 is going to be an amazing event!!

[Cross-posted on the Sex 2.0 blog]

Last night’s Social Media Club meeting was certainly better than last month’s! It was a smaller group - six of us - and I feel like we started to make some progress on investigating the issues of new media vs. traditional media (including, of course, the question of whether it has to be one versus the other) - but there’s a lot still to unpack. The thing that struck me the most last night was the use of certain terminology to both disparage new media and prop up traditional media. The word in question last night was “artistic.”

A guy named Mike, whom I hadn’t met before, criticized vloggers/vidcasters by saying they aren’t professional, they aren’t trained… etc., etc., all the usual stuff… but then: “Professional videographers know how to find the art in a shot.”

So, videographers in traditional media are artists, not just amateur hacks. And that’s a good thing.

But - remember last month’s meeting? - bloggers are artists, and that’s a bad thing. Real reporters are much more serious, you see. They’re not just artistic. They’re professional.

Honestly, I am baffled by this.

“Artistic” is, at once, a compliment to certain people, and a dismissive wave of the hand to other people. Bloggers are unprofessional, irresponsible, unreliable, amateur hacks - and part of the problem is that they’re too artistic. But, vloggers/vidcasters are also unprofessional, irresponsible, unreliable, amateur hacks - and the problem is that they are not artistic enough.

I mentioned this disconnect to the meeting participants, but the discussion ended up going in a different direction, and I never heard an explanation of why artistic is sometimes good and sometimes bad in media. I wonder if people just say these things without really thinking about what they’re saying. I’m not sure, which is why I would’ve liked to discuss it further. Interestingly, Mike and a few others seemed to get very defensive when I asked the question. I don’t think I asked it in a confrontational or accusatory manner; I was honestly curious. Like I said, I think there’s a lot to unpack here. And yeah, it might get uncomfortable at times, but really, that’s part of the point.

I don’t want to just write it all off as, “Well, old media types are scared, and they say reactionary things, using whatever terminology suits at the time.” Because I really do think there’s more to it than that (although certainly, there’s quite a bit of that, too). I think it’s worth exploring in more depth.

Other quick thoughts from last night:

• Why the continued emphasis on drawing and maintaining lines between “bloggers” and “journalists?” Why is the divide so important?
• How and why do certain bloggers (e.g., Michael Arrington, Arianna Huffington) come to be known as journalists, not “just” bloggers? What is the tipping point? Why are labels important, anyway?
• I’m tired of being discussed as a third-person concept. Bloggers this, bloggers that. HELLO. I am a blogger, and I’m sitting right here. Instead of making a bunch of grandiose generalizations about bloggers, talk to me. And listen.
• Frankly I’m getting pretty tired of being verbally kicked around and talked about in dismissive ways because I’m “just a blogger.” Well, I’m a person. It’s really not cool to sit there and talk about how stupid and unimportant a large, diverse group of people is, when a bunch of them are in the room - and expect them not to notice or not to mind.
• Why do some people see “bloggers” as a monolith? Is it honest ignorance (just not knowing much about blogging), or willful ignorance? Again, why is it important to maintain this monolithic view, and the distinction of “blogger” and “not a blogger?”
• Somebody said last night, as if it were a bad thing, “We could’ve been having this conversation in a bar” - ostensibly to lament that there weren’t more people, or it wasn’t more structured, I guess. But I was thinking, “Yes, we could - and that would be awesome!” I love having conversations like that, at a bar or anywhere else - let’s just leave the egos, the stupid little power trips, the weird superiority complexes, all the rest of it, at the door.
• When managing online communities, don’t start from a place of condescension or assumed superiority. It puts people on the defensive and (rightly) pisses them off. Also, people rise to the expectations set for them.

Would write more, but gotta get going for now. Looking forward to more conversations like this - some at bars, some in conference rooms. :)

ETA: This Gaping Void cartoon makes me laugh. I thought it was somewhat relevant to, well, not really last night’s meeting in particular, but just a general type of conversation that tends to go on at social media events and unconferences.

What Grayson said, about the Creative Loafing “five shining swallowed pennies in the overflowing toilet bowl that is the Atlanta blogosphere” story:

This piece was just wrong on so many levels, Andy. But essentially, you missed the ENTIRE story. To single out a few blogs (and they’re all great blogs… that’s not the issue here) and give the readership the impression that those five blogs are somehow BLOG FUCKING ATLANTA is such a slap in the face to the entire social media community here.

The many bloggers, academics in citizen media like Leonard Witt at PJNET.com, podcasters, the techno entrepreneurs, videobloggers like Amani Channel for instance, who have worked long and hard, and those who have helped organized social media events and conferences like PodCamp Atlanta and SoCon07 were reduced to five blogs you want to make a teen style, MySpace style list over. You and Ken should be ashamed of yourselves for trivializing and reducing an entire new direction in media to five blogs with this “starter piece” on social media.

It’s just lazy, uninspired journalism really. Just look to the state of the music industry to see how long you have to “get it.”

While we’re on the subject of traditional media, I should mention that Rusty, Grayson, and I went to the Social Media Club event last night where a guy from the AJC and a guy from WSB were there to, ostensibly, converse about how they’re embracing social media. (Har har.) You can listen to our podcast review of the thing, if you’re so inclined.

And I didn’t even mention all the sexism. We tried to keep it to about a half hour. This was after the full-on rant session at Central City Tavern… be glad you got the “toned down” version. (Yes, it’s all relative.)

It’s hard to say what my favorite part of the night was, but I think I’ll have to go with WSB’s Steve Riley saying to me, “What you’re doing seems more… artistic.”

…

*blank stare*

Obvious notes: 1) he has no idea what I’m doing; and 2) artistic? the hell?

Clue Phone ringing… it’s for you, Mr. Riley!

On a completely unrelated note, the next time I hear some asshole ask plaintively, “What crime is not a hate crime?” I’m going to verbally eviscerate them while assuring them that no, don’t worry, this is not a hate crime.