Thoughts on Sex 2.0 past, present, and future

Amber Rhea, the founder of Sex 2.0 posted these thoughts on the development of the event. Read her post to see all the comments

Thoughts on Sex 2.0 past, present, and future
Tuesday, April 28, 2009 | 11:11 pm
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.

I started conceptualizing Sex 2.0 a little over two years ago. I remember the night I hatched the plan: Rusty and I were at a party at Decaturguy’s house, and we were sitting in the backyard and talking about some common themes we’d noticed in the various unconferences we’d recently attended. In the span of three months we’d been to BlogSavannah, SoCon07, PodCamp Atlanta, and PodCamp New York, so there was a lot that was still fresh in my mind. I had pangs of anger and sadness every time I reflected on the fact that at all of those events, the flashpoint issues were: separation of online and offline identity, what can and should get you fired, what not to share if you want to be taken seriously (especially as a woman), and what’s beyond the pale for anyone (but especially women). The typical joke was, “…it’s not like I’m posting naked pictures of myself!” and everyone laughs, because we all understand that would just be the worst. And then there was that woman at BlogSavannah who declared that if you work nights as a stripper, you deserve to get fired from your day job. Oh, and too, the man monopolizing the “Women and Blogging” session, until I raised my hand and suggested that he should maybe let the women talk.

I was tired of having to be what often felt like the sole voice of reason. I was tired of challenging people to examine their preconceived notions and ask themselves, why is posting naked pictures the worst thing ever? Where do these ideas come from? I was tired of doing 101-level damage control around feminism and sex-positivity. Not that it’s not important to challenge people and do 101 work, but it felt like that’s all I was doing, and the conversation was never moving forward. Where were “my people” and what could we be talking about (and then taking out into the world to share with others), if only we had a space of our own?

And from the other side: Dragon*Con. Frolicon. Swingers’ parties. Sex-focused events that were not sex-positive, and centered a heteronormative, male-dominated version of sexuality. Events that made me feel icky and objectified and petulant. Events that could potentially be fun if all the creepy guys weren’t always fucking things up. Where are the people who know what “heteronormative” means? Why is girl-on-girl the best thing ever but guy-on-guy is verboten in swinger culture? Can I please not be leered at for once?

Social media, feminism, and sexuality. This is what I wanted, all at once. And there were plenty of people already living it! Regina Lynn, Dacia, Melissa, Elizabeth Wood… I rattled off probably a dozen names right there that night. Smart sex people. Mostly women.

I started kicking the idea around among some friends and the response was immediate enthusiasm from all of them. This told me there was a real need for this kind of event; that something had been lacking and people are hungry to get together and stimulate each other’s brains. This would not be an event where sexuality was shamed - and at the same time it would not be an event that people attend with the sole goal of getting laid. This would not be a 101-level event; this would be a time for the smart sex people to come together to learn from each other and build a better movement.

I had a lunch meeting with Steve Eley where we plotted a bit about how to keep the creepy guys out. He said, “If you put ‘feminism’ in the subtitle, that should automatically eliminate about 95% of the creepy guys.” True allies would not be threatened by the centering of the work women have done around sex and tech.

Fast forward to April 2008. If the tweets and blog posts were any indication, this crazy scheme that I dreamed up in a political blogger’s backyard was a huge success. There had never been anything like it and I think we were all reeling from the total nerdgasm of it. Another thing that I think speaks to its success? The relative lack of photos and liveblogging. People were too engaged in the moment to maintain the necessary detachment for something like liveblogging.

Later that night, after getting off on each other’s big brains, many participants found other ways to get off with each other. It was an organic off-shoot of a big love-in of sex-positivity and smartness.

So, about my concerns.

I feel like in the planning of this year’s conference, the “feminism” aspect of the triad of “social media, feminism, and sexuality” has quietly fallen by the wayside. I am concerned about what it might mean that a man, who does not identify as a feminist, is the main organizer. In some ways even the “social media” aspect has felt like an afterthought as well. The “sexuality” aspect is just as important as the other two, which also means it’s not more important. The word intersection is in the subtitle for a reason.

When I came up with the idea for Sex 2.0, it was critical to me that feminism be centered. I did not want another instance of “ew, the F-word, get it off.” No; this was a feminist event and we would not apologize for it or downplay that aspect. We would not play out the script that says feminism and sexuality are antagonistic. And I think for the most part, the people that participated last year got that.

This year, I have to admit I am a little concerned about what some people’s motivations for attending might be. If people - especially people who have been anti-feminist or even baldly misogynistic in online communities - are attending, with the goal of getting laid… then I have to think something has gone wrong.

A quick note about language. Note above, I said “participate” rather than “attend.” The first time around, there were “session leaders,” not “speakers” or “presenters.” You could “add a session to the schedule,” not “propose a topic.” This language has always been intentional.

In some ways I feel like I don’t have a right to bring up these concerns if I’m not going to offer any solutions. After all, I’m not the main organizer this year. But that was part of the point to begin with. The unconference spirit requires community buy-in and a sense of ownership from the community as a whole; how can that be achieved if one person is hoarding control of an event that relies on the community for its success? Several things happened in the months following last year’s Sex 2.0 that made me realize it would be emotionally impossible for me to head up organizing another one, but I had planned to hand it off anyway - a new city, a new organizer, a new twist every year.

And you might say, well, it’s getting a new twist this year. The community has spoken, and if they want more sex and less feminism, then who am I to say they can’t have it. But, the community wanted the unique vibe that was Sex 2.0 last year, and we - yes, we - made it happen. The truth is, it’s not as simple as “the community wants this” or “the community doesn’t want that;” the individuals who are often lumped under the umbrella of the online sex community make up many different communities, all of which are vibrant and diverse in their interests and needs.

Transparency is thrown around a lot as a buzzword, but it is fundamental to the unconference spirit. I don’t think there’s been enough of it lately, and so I invite anyone who is at all involved with Sex 2.0 to share your thoughts here. Do you have concerns too? Do you think I should stop whining? Do you think this is unfounded worrying, or maybe there’s something to it? Was an event like Sex 2.0 bound to change because of its very nature? Share your thoughts, please; and no matter what happens, I hope that the passion that fueled the first Sex 2.0 will live on, in whatever form it needs to take.

[From Being Amber Rhea » Blog Archive » Thoughts on Sex 2.0 past, present, and future]

Sex 2.0

Sex 2.0

Saturday, May 9 2009, Washington, D.C.

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.

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

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.