US Controversy over canceled sex talk at hacker convention

Status
Not open for further replies.

das_nut

Forum Legend
Joined
Jun 4, 2012
Reaction score
579
At a recent hacker conference by the name of "Security B-Sides", sex educator Violet Blue was scheduled to give a talk titled "sex +/- drugs: known vulns and exploits". Here's the description of the presentation:

What drugs do to sexual performance, physiological reaction and pleasure is rarely discussed in - or out of - clinical or academic settings. Yet most people have sex under the influence of something (or many somethings) at some point in their lives.

In this underground talk, Violet Blue shares what sex-positive doctors, nurses, MFT's, clinic workers and crisis counselors have learned and compiled about the interactions of drugs and sex from over three decades of unofficial curriculum for use in peer-to-peer (and emergency) counseling. Whether you're curious about the effects of caffeine or street drugs on sex, or are the kind of person that keeps your fuzzy handcuffs next to a copy of The Pocket Pharmacopeia, this overview will help you engineer your sex life in our chemical soaked world. Or, it'll at least give you great party conversation fodder.

Before the talk could be given, one of the organizers was approached by a member of the Ada Initiative (motto: "supporting women in open technology and culture") about the nature of the talk. The presentation was then canceled.

According to Violet Blue, the presentation was on an issue that would affect the target audience, and the purpose of the talk was to educate and to engage in harm reduction.

According to the Ada Initiative: "Simply put, even the world’s most pro-woman, sex-positive, pro-consent talk about sex is likely to have negative effects on women at a technical conference."

Looking at the con schedule, the con itself seems to be somewhat average. Violet Blue's talk is a little unusual for the schedule at the con, but wouldn't be out of place at other hacker cons. (To put it in perspective, Security B-SidesSF also had a presentation on lock picking at the same con. Which is far from abnormal from these type of conferences (lockpicking contests are common).)

I'm having a hard time siding with the Ada Initiative on this. They seem to be trying to shut down a legitimate discussion.
 
Puhleeze. There's no shutting down of "legitimate" discussion going on. I'm sure the Ada Initiative would have no problem with them hiring sex "educator" Violet Blue for a private stag party. If there are women who are not interested in being in the same room as a bunch of dudes getting "educated" by a sex worker about how rape drugs work why should their views take a back seat to what men want?
 
Puhleeze. There's no shutting down of "legitimate" discussion going on. I'm sure the Ada Initiative would have no problem with them hiring sex "educator" Violet Blue for a private stag party. If there are women who are not interested in being in the same room as a bunch of dudes getting "educated" by a sex worker about how rape drugs work why should their views take a back seat to what men want?

Wait, what? You make it sound like Violet Blue is giving a strip show on stage.

If you want to make a decision on her, look up the other tech/sex talks she's given. Here's one (obviously the talk is NSFW) talking about the ramifications of the internet on sexuality.

I've never been to a stag party, but I'm thinking that such a presentation isn't typical for stag parties.

As for rape drugs, isn't that rather loaded language? Many of the drugs that can be used for date rape have other recreational uses. The most obvious example of this is alcohol - widely used as a recreational drug, even used as a recreational drug that people enjoy before consensual sex (well, as consensual as sex can be when two people are drinking), but also a drug associated with risky sexy behavior (such as failure to use safe sex methods) and is also the drug most commonly used in date rape. Other "rape drugs" have similar recreational uses - GHB is a rave drug, for example, since its effects are not unlike MDMA.

To say that she's talking about how "rape drugs work" is to imply she's advocating how to use drugs to commit rape. But that doesn't seem to be what she's doing. Instead she's talking about recreational drugs and sex in the interest of harm reduction.
 
They are there at the convention to learn about technology. If they want to have a perv fest, they should go look at one of their Playboy magazines or something.

It is a silly thing to complain about anyway.
 
They are there at the convention to learn about technology.

It seems more like a cross between a Security Con and a Hacker Con. Look at the talk on social engineering - that has nothing to do with technology, but does have hacker interests.

If they want to have a perv fest, they should go look at one of their Playboy magazines or something.

Why do you assume the talk was supposed to be pervy?

Is it because it was given by a woman?
Is it because many in the audience were male?
Is it because the topic is sex and drugs?
 
It seems more like a cross between a Security Con and a Hacker Con. Look at the talk on social engineering - that has nothing to do with technology, but does have hacker interests.



Why do you assume the talk was supposed to be pervy?

Is it because it was given by a woman?
Is it because many in the audience were male?
Is it because the topic is sex and drugs?
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.
 
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.
I didn't realize that it was okay to base judgements on how people are named or how they dress.

Have you even looked at the link I posted earlier to another sex/tech talk she gave?

(NSFW topic)

So quick question - is it the hoop earrings? ;)
 
There is no question in my mind that the conference would have been sexualized by having that talk. And since I am guessing that there are many more male than female attendees, it may have made some of the women uncomfortable.

That said, it really sounds as if that outside organization may have a beef with Violet Blue.
 
I actually think it's just a sign of the rift between porn-positive and anti-porn feminism. But I'm not sure if the Ada Initiative is an anti-porn org.
 
Ada Initiative's site has a piece about this. http://adainitiative.org/2013/03/cl...-cancellation-of-violet-blues-bsides-sf-talk/

" The short version is:
The BSides SF organizer requested the Ada Initiative’s advice on the talk.
The Ada Initiative did not threaten the conference with retribution.
The BSides SF organizer made the decision about the talk.
The Ada Initiative does support talks about sex, rape, drugs, pornography, and similar topics when they are relevant and organized in a way that is considerate of conference attendees’ differing levels of comfort with the topic. (See our guide on how to discuss porn and sex at conferences.)
 
It does seem that despite Ada Initiative's claims that there was no threats of retribution, Violet Blue felt that giving such a talk could lead to "unnecessary drama".

How and why she had that impression would be interesting to answer.

On one level, I find this level of fighting to be somewhat humorous, considering that everyone involved probably considers themselves pro-women, yet the end result was a restriction on a woman's ability to give a presentation on a topic she chose.

But on a different level, I find this rather offensive. It's offensive to think that any discussion of sex must be for a pervy or titillating purpose. It's offensive to take the position that "even the world’s most pro-woman, sex-positive, pro-consent talk about sex is likely to have negative effects on women".
 
"The Ada Initiative continues to advocate against all off-topic sexual material at technical conferences because of its tendency to disproportionately harm women attendees, regardless of how or by whom it is presented. Certain sexual topics can trigger PTSD in people who have been sexually assaulted, and can be perceived as encouragement to humiliate, objectify, and assault women, regardless of the intent of the speaker.

The Ada Initiative explicitly supports discussion of sex when it is on-topic for the conference and done in a woman-positive way, and has published specific guidelines on how to achieve this.

Background

The computer security conference BSides SF (held in San Francisco on 24–25 February 2013) invited Violet Blue [note: sexual imagery at link] to give a talk, subject to be determined. The title of the talk was listed on the conference’s online schedule as “TBD” until a small number of hours before the talk, when it was updated to “sex +/- drugs: known vulns and exploits”

In computer security jargon “vuln[erabilitie]s and exploits” are respectively weaknesses in computing and related systems, and ways to take advantage of them in order to break into or “penetrate” the system. The precise meaning of the title is ambiguous, but to people familiar with the jargon, a reasonable interpretation of the title might include using drugs to exploit someone into having sex without consent (i.e., rape).

The abstract of the talk was not available until after the decision to cancel the talk, and does not reflect the same topic as the title of the talk suggests." http://adainitiative.org/2013/02/ke...with-discussing-sex-at-technical-conferences/
 
So if they were concerned that this talk may included a guide on how to use drugs to rape people, why not seek clarification first?

And if they were concerned that the conference could have included information on how to sexually harass women, why not go after the social engineering talk as well? That would have provided some good information to stalkers about how to get information about, and access to, their victims.
 
So if they were concerned that this talk may included a guide on how to use drugs to rape people, why not seek clarification first?

And if they were concerned that the conference could have included information on how to sexually harass women, why not go after the social engineering talk as well? That would have provided some good information to stalkers about how to get information about, and access to, their victims.
Since the topic was only announced hours before the conference began, time was likely a factor. Ada's focus is helping women find careers in male-dominated fields by attempting to remove some of the sexual harrassment that women experience at conferences.

Many men support their work as well, according to their site. I never heard of Ada before today, btw. I think the conference organizers were wise to seek counsel on whether or not Violet's speech was appropriate. They decided no.

I have to say that the drug/sex topic gives me the creeps, and I would have skipped that one if I were an attendee. I know too many women who have been drugged and raped.
 
Since the topic was only announced hours before the conference began, time was likely a factor. Ada's focus is helping women find careers in male-dominated fields by attempting to remove some of the sexual harrassment that women experience at conferences.

But obviously, nobody had to attend such a talk. It was labeled before it was to begin. And since this con (like many) had an alternative talk going on, there was another talk to attend.

I have to say that the drug/sex topic gives me the creeps, and I would have skipped that one if I were an attendee. I know too many women who have been drugged and raped.

I'm not arguing against skipping a con talk if you're against it. I could see someone skipping talks for one reason or another. For example, at this con was a talk about SCADA vulnerabilities - I'd probably skip that if I was suffering from military-related PTSD, due to the likelyhood that geopolitical concerns and conflict would likely be mentioned, even in passing. But I wouldn't try to persuade the speaker not to give such a talk.
 
I'm not sure what that talk had to do with (other than titillation) the conference, which is supposed to be a professional conference of some kind.

I mean, at a conference for lawyers, the only seminar session on sex I would expect to find would be related to sex crimes or something else focusing on legal aspects.

Is there something about hacking that makes this (Whether you're curious about the effects of caffeine or street drugs on sex, or are the kind of person that keeps your fuzzy handcuffs next to a copy of The Pocket Pharmacopeia, this overview will help you engineer your sex life in our chemical soaked world. Or, it'll at least give you great party conversation fodder.) a relevant topic?
 
  • Like
Reactions: ledboots
I'm not sure what that talk had to do with (other than titillation) the conference, which is supposed to be a professional conference of some kind.

Well, it's a hacker con, from what I can tell (never been to it). Those can vary in scope and seriousness.

I've been to one where one of the speakers gave a talk on Captain Powers and the Soldiers of the Future (and if you catch that reference, I can tell you're probably above a certain age). Another speaker gave a talk on the Cthulhu mythos. Oh, and the end of the con included a drunken rant. (All of that was quite good, actually.)

It's not uncommon for such cons to have some weird stuff. If it'll interest hackers, they tend to include it. Especially at the smaller cons, where getting speakers is harder.

Here's what an upcoming B-Sides conference (one in Rochester) is calling for in presentations:

Talks we find interesting range from highly technical exploit development discussion, to insane ranting about how the moon men are here to take over the world and ways we can use tin foil and duct tape to save the planet.
 
this
the kind of person that keeps your fuzzy handcuffs next to a copy of The Pocket Pharmacopeia
screams out - malicious intent.

Especially when the target audience is a group of people who use their skills to circumvent existing channels / legitimate approval processes to obtain unauthorized access.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.