Audio recording of Revisiting Naked on the Internet panel (Sex 2.0)
The audio from the Revisiting Naked on the Internet panel at Sex 2.0 has been posted as an episode of (un)ConCast. Listen below or download it here.
Panel at Sex 2.0: Revisiting Naked on the Internet
Two and a half years ago, Dacia interviewed me (and 79 other women) for her book Naked on the Internet. The book was published, according to Amazon, on May 9, 2007, which serendipitously makes Sex 2.0 the exact two-year anniversary of its release! (Not to mention Rusty’s and my fuckiversary, but that’s been addressed elsewhere.) During the 4:05-4:55 time slot this Saturday, Dacia is hosting a panel of women at Sex 2.0 who were interviewed for the book – me, Melissa Gira, and Furry Girl. (I don’t know if there will be any other late additions.) Here is the panel description:
Revisiting Naked on the Internet
My book Naked on the Internet: Hookups, Downloads, and Cashing In On Internet Sexploration was published by Seal Press in 2007. This session will include a panel with some of the women I interviewed for the book; we will discuss what has changed and stayed the same in past two years. Questions include: How has the sense of community in online sexual networks changed since 2007? How have new technologies, applications, and websites (like Tumblr and Twitter) shifted the ways we think about sex online? How have shifts in law enforcement like crackdowns on online prostitution, arrests of teens for making child porn, and the obscenity trials of pornographers affected sex online?
Panelists: Audacia Ray, Furry Girl, Melissa Gira & Amber Rhea
If you are coming to Sex 2.0, I hope you’ll join us at the panel! And hopefully there will be video and/or audio of it (I think Rusty and I can swing the audio portion, at least).
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!
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.
(more…)
Sex 2.0.2: coming soon
I’m tempted to start off w/ a long explanation of why I haven’t been blogging much lately, but I’ll save that for another time. What I want to mention now is that the second Sex 2.0 will be held in Washington, DC on May 9 (which also happens to be Rusty’s and my 4th fuckiversary; I think that’s a good omen). I can hardly believe it’s been almost a year since my dream of Sex 2.0 came to fruition! I’m not a part of the organizing team this time around, but everything is coming together and I can tell you there are some really amazing sessions lined up, including hands-on tutorials on podcasting and shooting video, discussions on identity, sexual commerce online, transparency, the sex commons, gendered implications of technology, erotica in the digital age, and my personal favorite: “How to Get Some at Cons.” Match has revamped the web site and it looks awesome. Register soon – the early bird rate ends on April 9. Those of us who were at Sex 2.0 last year can attest that it’s a damn good time. There is a block of rooms reserved at the hotel at a really good rate (the conference itself is taking place at a hotel this year). And there are some cool attendee-organized events coming together for the day before and after the conference. Join the Google group if you want to get involved and/or stay up to date on the latest developments. Hope to see you there in May!
Feminism2.0, SoCon09, and Sex 2.0(.2!)
What events will I be attending over the next few months? Well I’ll tell you…
- Feminism2.0, February 2 in Washington, DC. I’m staying with Ren, woohoo! Watch out, we’ll be all sexee in our big coats and scarves! I’ll try to do some liveblogging. And I’ll try to keep the Twitterrhea to a minimum, which is easier for me than some because I don’t have an iPhone or Blackberry.
- SoCon09, February 7 at Kennesaw State University. Rusty and I went to the first one in 2007 but missed last year’s, regrettably. I’m supposed to be leading a session but I haven’t heard anything else about it from the organizers. Stay tuned.
- And of course Sex 2.0, in its second year, the organization effort being headed up by Match et al. It’ll be in DC on May 9, which also happens to be Rusty’s and my 4th anniversary. Talk about a testament to the power of sex and social media!
BlogOrlando wrap-up (part 1?)
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. :\