US Controversy over canceled sex talk at hacker convention

[ledboots]

According to this site, that was the lecture she was going to give.

For some reason, after the controversy and it was already canceled, someone changed the talk name and description. The original schedule of events is on this site (scroll way down past the sponsors) and you will see her name and her subject (sex +/- drugs etc).

The article I linked to mentions the same 'sex +/- drugs: known vulns and exploits' title. Then ends with:

Hackers who wanted to hear Blue's talk are in luck—the version of the talk which she presented at 29c3 is available on YouTube—hopefully without date rape instructions.

And the YouTube video in post #55.

I watched a few minutes of it and it seems to have nothing to do with sex or drugs. She offered to do a video presentation of the sex+/-drugs so they could show it after the conference, so I feel it is a different speech entirely. Why would she offer if she already had her speech on video?

The youtube above is about harm reduction and how hackers are vulnerable. The title is different and her intro seemed to have zilch to do with the description in the conference schedule.

 

[das_nut]

-One poster upthread said that drugs and fuzzy handcuffs said coercion to her, while another said it said light consensual bondage to him. This to me, seems to speak to male privilege, and the fact that women are in a constant state of "yes" unless they clearly and verbally say "no" - and even then, some times they're seen as just being coy. Is this talk going to teach these men to acknowledge their privilege, and pay attention to their partners verbal/nonverbal cues, or will it just teach them how to get what they want via drugs?

I'm not sure if you're assuming that only women can be locked up with handcuffs, or that you believe that a woman subjecting a man to handcuffs is still a form of male privilege. (And we'll just ignore the whole heteronormal assumption you're making.)

I dont see Violet Blue as some kind of sleazy porn queen. I just dont see the point of this particular topic, especially in this kind of setting, where there was been a history of sexual harrassment for women who go to those places.

Do you have any data showing that hacker cons are more likely to be places where women are sexually harassed?

 

[Spang]

I watched a few minutes of it and it seems to have nothing to do with sex or drugs. She offered to do a video presentation of the sex+/-drugs so they could show it after the conference, so I feel it is a different speech entirely.

I'm watching it now. Sex and drugs have already been mentioned within the first 3 minutes. It's possible she revised the title. Also, C3 is a hacker con.

 

[kibbleforlola]

-One poster upthread said that drugs and fuzzy handcuffs said coercion to her, while another said it said light consensual bondage to him. This to me, seems to speak to male privilege, and the fact that women are in a constant state of "yes" unless they clearly and verbally say "no" - and even then, some times they're seen as just being coy. Is this talk going to teach these men to acknowledge their privilege, and pay attention to their partners verbal/nonverbal cues, or will it just teach them how to get what they want via drugs?

I'm not sure if you're assuming that only women can be locked up with handcuffs, or that you believe that a woman subjecting a man to handcuffs is still a form of male privilege. (And we'll just ignore the whole heteronormal assumption you're making.)

Point: missed. I was trying to say that you seeing it as consentual where as a woman may not is a form of male privilege.

But that's pretty on par for you, so I guess I really shouldn't be surprised.

 

[das_nut]

According to this site, that was the lecture she was going to give.

For some reason, after the controversy and it was already canceled, someone changed the talk name and description. The original schedule of events is on this site (scroll way down past the sponsors) and you will see her name and her subject (sex +/- drugs etc).

The article I linked to mentions the same 'sex +/- drugs: known vulns and exploits' title. Then ends with:

Hackers who wanted to hear Blue's talk are in luck—the version of the talk which she presented at 29c3 is available on YouTube—hopefully without date rape instructions.

And the YouTube video in post #55.

I watched a few minutes of it and it seems to have nothing to do with sex or drugs.

She mentions sex and drugs within the first two and a half minutes. At around the 2 1/2 minute mark, she starts talking about abstinence-based drug education and how it fails.

How much of it did you watch?

 

[das_nut]

Point: missed. I was trying to say that you seeing it as consentual where as a woman may not is a form of male privilege.

But that's pretty on par for you, so I guess I really shouldn't be surprised.

It can either be consensual or not. Obviously. But assuming that the whole point of fuzzy handcuffs is to engage in rape is a little over the top. That's like saying that condoms are designed for rape, since they can (and have been) used by rapists to avoid leaving DNA evidence behind.

 

[kibbleforlola]

You are still missing the point. But I'm not really interested in arguing with you.

 

[Freesia]

Do you have any data showing that hacker cons are more likely to be places where women are sexually harassed?

Do you have any data showing that hacker cons are places where women are unlikely to be sexually harassed?

See, I can ask for data too.

 

[Spang]

18:00: "Hackers are an at-risk population too."

I'm not feeling titillated yet.

 

[das_nut]

Do you have any data showing that hacker cons are places where women are unlikely to be sexually harassed?

As far as I know, there's no actual studies done on if hacker cons deviate from other gatherings when it comes to sexual harassment.

If you know of any, I'd like to see it.

Until then, I don't know why we should assume that hackers are going to be more likely to harass women than the general population.

18:00: "Hackers are an at-risk population too."

I'm not feeling titillated yet.

Neither am I. Maybe I'm not pervy or misogynistic enough.

 

[Spang]

First quote isn't mine.

 

[das_nut]

Fixed quoting problem (dunno how that happened, sorry).

I'm thinking this talk I'm listening to was probably reworked for BSides. Not enough sex and drugs. Or it could be that the talk was badly titled.

Supposedly, the canceled B-Sides talk was supposed to be the same talk she gave at Defcon in 2012. But I can't find that one online.

 

[Pickle Juice]

I really don't care what the subject of her talk was supposed to be. She can say it was about anything she pleases now, since it will never be given. My problem with Ms Blue is her siding against the people the Ada Initiative are lending support to, trying to make them look like a bunch of uptight prudes, much like some of the men in this thread are attempting. Women like Violet Blue have no problem pandering to misogynists if it will make them a quick buck, and when the drunken crotch-grabbing commences, are conveniently nowhere to be found.

She's got the temerity to say that being prevented from giving this talk (translation: prevented from earning income) is more harmful to women than the sexual harassment already documented as having been experienced by women at hacker conventions. More harmful to her maybe, because she lost income. That's obviously way more important than listening to rape survivors or respecting their points of view.

She clearly does not give a **** about how misogynists are going to see her attitude as being given permission by a woman to keep being a misogynist. Siding with them means she condones, approves of, and supports misogyny, so as far as I am concerned she's fair game for anyone who wants to judge her and look down on her as a sell-out.

 

[Spang]

She clearly does not give a **** about how misogynists are going to see her attitude as being given permission by a woman to keep being a misogynist. Siding with them means she condones, approves of, and supports misogyny, so as far as I am concerned she's fair game for anyone who wants to judge her and look down on her as a sell-out.

Violet Blue tweeted this image in response to sexism at Defcon (naughty word follows):

Spoiler

 

[Moll Flanders]

Still confused. I listened to bits of that talk and that didn't seem to be about drugs and sex. Harm reduction was one of the topics at the drugs talks I have been to, ways to stay safe, needle exchanges etc...

 

[Freesia]

Until then, I don't know why we should assume that hackers are going to be more likely to harass women than the general population.

And there is no reason to assume why they would be less likely (seeing you are so crazy about statistics). Indeed they are a collection of people who like working out how to break into things, which means that there is a likelihood of more people there being open to deviant behaviours than the general population.

And ledboots has already posted some accounts of women report having been harassed at hacker conferences (though according to you they probably should not be believed unless there is footage or some kind of "physical evidence" of it happening).

 

[yally]

I'm having real trouble articulating my thoughts on this. I think my general feeling is that it can only be healthy for men to be confronted with a women speaking confidently and sensibly about sex with zero intention to titilate. For women as well.

 

[Spang]

Still confused. I listened to bits of that talk and that didn't seem to be about drugs and sex. Harm reduction was one of the topics at the drugs talks I have been to, ways to stay safe, needle exchanges etc...

As I understood it in her talk, hackers, drug users and sexually active people are all at-risk populations. Sex and drugs is merely a method of framing the discussion.

 

[ledboots]

She mentions sex and drugs within the first two and a half minutes. At around the 2 1/2 minute mark, she starts talking about abstinence-based drug education and how it fails.

How much of it did you watch?[/quote]


I skipped the beginning when she was telling her credentials and zipped in a few minutes. I didn't have time to watch more than a few minutes; I guess I watched the wrong part. Does it seem to go along with the description in the conference schedule? Maybe it is the same speech with a different title and description.

 

[Spang]

The entire talk is 41-ish minutes, and it would take a very unusual fetish to be sexually aroused by it.