US Controversy over canceled sex talk at hacker convention

[Freesia]

So in short, I dont think Violet Blue is a bad person, I just have 2 issues

1) It peturbs me a bit that there are likely few female speakers there and that one of the only ones is giving a talk on sex. I would rather see a 50/50 representation of people talking about sex and more women talking about technology

and

2) I think that her topic about drugs mixed with sex would be a faux pas in many situations, but especially this one with the unusual gender balance and particular culture of this gathering of people. Maybe if her discussion was sex without the drugs, that may have been a bit less unnerving.

 

[Pickle Juice]

Ms. Blue's harm reduction talks are not educational,

This link leads to the following post: "I think if it were a talk being given by Dr Ruth it would have a totally different vibe from a talk being given by Violet Blue the sex "educator". And yes, I am judging her by her name and appearance, because she has deliberately chosen both to advertise a very specific service that doesn't look like it's got much to do with educating anyone.

But don't take this too seriously. I find it kinda funny."
You do know the difference between an opinion and a claim I trust? I don't know too many accredited instructors, professors, or teachers who choose to present themselves in the style of Violet Blue. If she's got any teaching credentials awarded by a university I will stand corrected on this one.

What I find fascinating is the negative connotation attached to simply making an observation about how Violet Blue has chosen to represent herself, and the assumption that by suggesting she is a sex worker I am attempting to insult her. I suspect that if she looked like and presented herself in the style of Hilary Clinton there's no way she would have been sought out by Security B-Sides to talk about sex.

that the purpose of her talks are public titillation

That link leads to the following post: "Well the whole post was exaggerated for comic effect. However, for good or bad, how a person chooses to present themselves in a public arena and market their services most certainly is being judged by anyone seeking to avail themselves of said services. Apologies to "Violet Blue" if she had the misfortune to be given that name by her parents, but as a chosen business name it's only a few degrees more subtle than Anita Lotta Cox, for someone who works in the sex industry. I doubt it is the aim of the Ada Initiative to stop people from talking about sex for the purposes of titillation, but there are times and places for public titillation, and trying to legitimize it as sex "education" in this instance is a pretty transparent ploy."

Still getting opinion mixed up with a claim I guess.

and may lead to an increase in the number of incidences of harassment.

That's a long post, so I won't paste it here. You have failed, probably deliberately, to understand that that is not my opinion, but the concern of some of the people the Ada Initiative were supporting. I just happen to agree with it. It's a concern that not only Violet Blue casually dismissed, but one you and das_nut and your fans have also casually dismissed. Can't help but wonder why that is. However, what you call falsehood is again an opinion, not a claim.

additionally, you assert that Ms. Blue isn't being honest when sharing content from the talk she would have given.

I take it you don't know the difference between suggestion and assertion either.

Ms. Blue has given harm reduction talks at hacker cons in the past. The idea that the BSides version would be less about harm reduction and more about sexually arrousing a room largely full of dudes is ridiculous.

Don't tell that to me, tell that to the women who contacted the Ada Initiative for support. All I was trying to do was counter ridiculousness with yet even more ridiculousness. It worked too, judging by the vehemence of your and das_nut's and a few others' reactions. It's not much fun to have your concerns casually dismissed, is it.

 

[das_nut]

You're not getting it. I don't know whether that is on purpose or not. But what I would like to know from das_nut is whether he would be whining about censorship if this had been about anything other than men being denied the chance, by women, to be lectured about sex in an environment that is supposed to be safe for both sexes, but clearly is not. Constantly trying to make this look like it is all about being against public lectures about sex is deliberately misleading and clouding the real issue.

I'm very against almost all forms of censorship.

No one here has a problem with talking about sex. But there are times and places for it. A hacker convention with a history of male aggression against female attendees isn't one of those places.

What is the history of sexual harassment and male aggression at B-Sides SF? Since you've stated that this con has a "history of male aggression against female attendees", you must have an example, right?

Although I'm not sure why you'd be against a harm-reduction sex talk in a place that has had a history of sexual aggression. It seems to me that such a place should be the target of such a talk.

If you think that criticizing someone harshly because they do not respect the interests of people who are triggered by certain issues because they have been sexually harassed or raped is "crap" then I just don't know. *shrug*

I'm all for events being clearly marked to prevent triggering people.

But I'm not for removing serious adult discussions about sex from almost all aspects of society just because someone might have an issue with it.

A compromise can easily be made - mark such material so that its apparent it is about sex, and let people be free to attend or not to attend as they wish.

If you think such actions are disrespectful towards rape survivors, then there's a lot of disrespectful actions you must be against. Any safe-sex campaign that targets the public would be disrespectful. Any anti-rape campaign that targets the public would be disrespectful. Any sex-education that targets the public would be disrespectful.

 

[mlp]

I don't care about Violet Blue one way or another, other than that it appears from what I've read in the last 24 hours that she has one standard with respect to her sensitivities and another standard entirely when it comes to the sensitivities of others. That's not a quality I respect in anyone, woman or man.

There are assumptions being made in this thread that people would react differently if the Blue were a man. For myself, I can categorically say "no."

An immense amount of time and energy is centered on sex. Frankly, I find the extent of it ridiculous. I don't want it permeating the workplace or professional meetings on top of everything else, just like I never wanted to spend my professional life hearing about people's bowel movements, their kids' behavioral issues, what dreams they had the night before, etc. Frankly, I don't want to spend my time listening to that stuff from anyone other than people I'm close to, and even then, I listen to be supportive, not because it interests me.

It strikes me that this whole brouhaha is a lot like Time's breastfeeding cover story last year - they put an intentionally provocative photo on the cover to attract attention and sell magazines. Blue and the conference organizers did the same thing, and then Blue decried the response. It's just a cheap trick, like Time's cover photo.

 

[Pickle Juice]

...If you think such actions are disrespectful towards rape survivors, then there's a lot of disrespectful actions you must be against. Any safe-sex campaign that targets the public would be disrespectful. Any anti-rape campaign that targets the public would be disrespectful. Any sex-education that targets the public would be disrespectful.

You're deliberately not getting it too. What's disrespectful to rape survivors is Violet Blue's casual dismissal of them on her blog. I'm all for free speech, but if there are people who don't want to look like utter fools, they should learn to keep quiet when it would be to their advantage to keep quiet. If instead they insist on having their say, they and their advocates should expect criticism.

 

[das_nut]

And yes, I am judging her by her name and appearance, because she has deliberately chosen both to advertise a very specific service that doesn't look like it's got much to do with educating anyone.

Here's a picture of Violet Blue giving a con talk:

Now tell me, is it normal to look at someone dressed like that on stage and think "this woman is dressed to advertise that she wants sex and wants to titillate the audience"?

 

[mlp]

I'm very against almost all forms of censorship.

One of those exceptions being, as we have already established, Blue's attempts to quash online criticism of herself.

 

[Pickle Juice]

And yes, I am judging her by her name and appearance, because she has deliberately chosen both to advertise a very specific service that doesn't look like it's got much to do with educating anyone.

Here's a picture of Violet Blue giving a con talk:

Now tell me, is it normal to look at someone dressed like that on stage and think "this woman is dressed to advertise that she wants sex and wants to titillate the audience"?

Where did I say she wants sex and wants to titillate anyone?

Nice way to try to cloud the issue and avoid the real question, which is, why does what you want trump what a rape survivor wants?

 

[Spang]

I don't know too many accredited instructors, professors, or teachers who choose to present themselves in the style of Violet Blue.

Ms. Blue is a writer, a writer who happens to write about sex. She also has experience on the topic of harm reduction. Ms. Blue has given harm reduction talks at at least a few hacker conventions. The slides of one of her talks can be found here and the YouTube video below.

Slide 3 in the above talk is identical to slide 3 in her canceled BSides talk, according to Violet Blue's response to the cancelation.

What I find fascinating is the negative connotation attached to simply making an observation about how Violet Blue has chosen to represent herself, and the assumption that by suggesting she is a sex worker I am attempting to insult her.

My problem with referring to Ms. Blue as a sex worker, is that there's a huge risk differential between people who write about sex for money and people who engage in sexual acts for money. When I think of a sex worker, I don't think of a person sitting in the comfort and safety of his or her own home writing books about sex. I think of a woman, mostly, on the streets, engaging in a profession that should be legal, but regardless, is very risky.

You have failed, probably deliberately, to understand that that is not my opinion, but the concern of some of the people the Ada Initiative were supporting. I just happen to agree with it. It's a concern that not only Violet Blue casually dismissed, but one you and das_nut and your fans have also casually dismissed.

What evidence do you have that a Violet Blue harm reduction talk results in an increase in incidences of harassment at hacker conventions?

 

[mlp]

My problem with referring to Ms. Blue as a sex worker, is that there's a huge risk differential between people who write about sex for money and people who engage in sexual acts for money. When I think of a sex worker, I don't think of a person sitting in the comfort and safety of his or her own home writing books about sex. I think of a woman, mostly, on the streets, engaging in a profession that should be legal, but regardless, is very risky.

How does that translate to "sex worker" being an insult?

Ah, that's where you got the idea that she has published "over forty books" - she makes that claim about herself in her video (a claim that seems to be exaggerated by about thrirty three percent, even if one counts multiple editions as completely separate books, as well as counting "books" that have never been in written form, just audio).

 

[Freesia]

This talk was not going to be a harm reduction talk though. It was about having sex on various drugs and substances.

 

[Spang]

How does that translate to "sex worker" being an insult?

Because a sex worker, and by sex worker I mean prostitute, is largely not considered to be a lauded profession.

 

[Spang]

This talk was not going to be a harm reduction talk though. It was about having sex on various drugs and substances.

Based on Violet Blue's previous talks at hacker cons, I don't think the description of her BSides talk was very accurate. I also don't think she was responsible for said description.

According to Ms. Blue, this would have been slide 3:

 

[mlp]

How does that translate to "sex worker" being an insult?

Because a sex worker, and by sex worker I mean prostitute, is largely not considered to be a lauded profession.

That's true for a lot of professions.

 

[Spang]

That's true for a lot of professions.

I agree.

 

[mlp]

This talk was not going to be a harm reduction talk though. It was about having sex on various drugs and substances.

Based on Violet Blue's previous talks at hacker cons, I don't think the description of her BSides talk was very accurate. I also don't think she was responsible for said description.

According to Ms. Blue, this would have been Slide 3:

The second sentence of that slide doesn't say much for her writing skill. It's pretty indecipherable - whatever the subject is supposed to be doesn't match up with the verb. I think it does a good job of undercutting your claim that she's an "accomplished writer" or whatever adjective you used. I think that even a big fan like das_nut might be forced to back off from comparing her to E.B. White.

ETA: What really strikes me about that video is (1) how very nervous she is - she's very uncomfortable in front of an audience, and (2) there's no actual information conveyed, at least none of any substance.

 

[Spang]

ETA: What really strikes me about that video is (1) how very nervous she is - she's very uncomfortable in front of an audience, and (2) there's no actual information conveyed, at least none of any substance.

I agree that she's not a very good public speaker.

 

[Pickle Juice]

What evidence do you have that a Violet Blue harm reduction talk results in an increase in incidences of harassment at hacker conventions?

Why do I need evidence? I wasn't one of the people who contacted the Ada Initiative.

According to you, no one can make the common-sense suggestion that there may be an increased risk of harassment when sex is being discussed at tech-cons without any evidence, and according to das_nut, the people who said they have experienced sexual harassment at tech-cons need to back this up with evidence as well, but of course Violet Blue's claims need no evidence because she is the true victim here. [/sarcasm]

At least it was sufficient for the Ada Initiative to advocate for the people making the complaint, and sufficient for Security B-Sides to acquiesce to the request. Ask them to justify their actions if it's that vital an issue to you.

 

[Spang]

According to you, no one can make the common-sense suggestion that there may be an increased risk of harassment when sex is being discussed at tech-cons without any evidence...

Nonsense.

I don't agree that Violet Blue's BSides' talk would have been a "sex talk". If her previous talks at hacker conventions are any indication, it would have been about hackers and harm reduction. As I said in a previous post, I think the description of her BSides talk was inaccurate and written by someone other than Ms. Blue.

 

[das_nut]

And yes, I am judging her by her name and appearance, because she has deliberately chosen both to advertise a very specific service that doesn't look like it's got much to do with educating anyone.

Here's a picture of Violet Blue giving a con talk:

Now tell me, is it normal to look at someone dressed like that on stage and think "this woman is dressed to advertise that she wants sex and wants to titillate the audience"?

Where did I say she wants sex and wants to titillate anyone?

So tell me, what about that picture are you judging her about? What is it about how she dresses and her appearance that makes you doubt her ability to give a serious talk about sex, drugs and harm reduction?

That picture is taken at a con, and she has dressed in a similar manner when giving a presentation at other cons.

If you're judging her on your appearance, at least please share what about that picture is offending you.

Nice way to try to cloud the issue and avoid the real question, which is, why does what you want trump what a rape survivor wants?

Even though you seem to have difficulty answering my questions in this thread, I'll answer yours:

IMO, the interest of rape survivors must be balanced with the interest of society at large. Rape survivors should be free to avoid any talk they want. Talks should be clearly labeled so they can avoid them (as, in this case, the talk was).

But when it comes to harm reduction (or even information that other adults may find useful in their own lives), it's not in society's best interest to censor the information in order to avoid offending a rape survivor somewhere.

Instead (as I said) clearly mark the information so that people who would wish to avoid such a discussion can. That way, the interest of the rape survivor is balanced against the need to spread information for harm reduction.

So again, I'll ask you: If a rape survivor was against billboards or other advertisement for safe sex, or information about safe sex being taught in school, or free condoms being advertised and made available, would you be against that?

According to you, no one can make the common-sense suggestion that there may be an increased risk of harassment when sex is being discussed at tech-cons without any evidence

Tell me, if sex is being discussed in harm-reduction terms, are you aroused? Are you wanting to go out and sexually harass someone?

and according to das_nut, the people who said they have experienced sexual harassment at tech-cons need to back this up with evidence as well, but of course Violet Blue's claims need no evidence because she is the true victim here.

Why do you see things in such narrow terms? There's a rape survivor, she's obviously been a victim in the past, and may still be victimized by PTSD or a related disorder. Nobody is saying otherwise. But that doesn't mean that the rape survivor is not in the wrong when she wishes to shut down all discussion about sex among other adults.

As for your other claim, I'm not disagreeing that sexual harassment has happened at cons. Sexual harassment may have even happened at this con (but I'm not aware of anyone making that claim). I'm asking for you to show me the information that B-Sides SF is a situation that has a problem with systematic sexual harassment which proves its attendees are not capable of discussing sexual harm reduction in an adult manner.