Reflections on Sex 2.0, past and present

In an email thread with potential organizers of next year’s Sex 2.0, I said something that I felt was worth reposting here, as it kind of gives a basic idea of what my “vision” was with Sex 2.0. It can also be extrapolated to other causes/events/etc.

In response to Match’s question:

3. Did the conf pay for travel/boarding for any speakers?

I answered:

You’re funny! Unless you count Dacia staying at my place, nope.

On the one hand I wish we could’ve, but that would’ve taken a shit-ton more money than I even dreamed of being able to raise. I do feel very strongly that people deserve to be paid for their hard work, including speaking, presentations, etc. - and I resent the fact that oftentimes in “progressive” circles, it’s taken as a given that people will do things “pro bono,” or they’re seen as greedy or somehow bad if they expect compensation for their efforts.

On the other hand, since fundamentally this was an unconference, setting up a hierarchy of “speaker” vs. “not-speaker” defeats the purpose. There was no call for papers. Sessions did not have to be pre-approved. Basically if somebody wanted to lead a session, they said so, and sent me a description and I posted it on the web site. It was first come, first served.

So I would caveat my first statement (”on the one hand”) by pointing out that those expectations are reasonable in some circumstances and not in others. I feel like w/ Sex 2.0, there’s a real spirit of community and all of us working for a greater good - and recognizing that we DON’T get a lot of funding, bc we have to fight tooth and nail for what little we get bc of the stigma. I feel like there was passion behind Sex 2.0 that I’ve rarely seen elsewhere.

Y’all certainly don’t have to structure it as an unconference next year if you don’t want to. Seriously, you can and should do whatever you want! Personally I think the unconference model works for Sex 2.0 in maintaining and fostering the sex commons that Elizabeth Wood spoke about. To me it makes sense for Sex 2.0 to be a space for non-hierarchical, collaborative learning. We all have things to teach and things to learn.

Finally, I will caveat THAT by saying that while I really enjoy the unconference model, I think if taken too far it descends into unmanageable chaos. I’ve had a few people lecture me on why I shouldn’t call Sex 2.0 an unconference, since it doesn’t use the “open space” model. I think these people are, quite simply, assholes - and I welcome them to run their own sex conference if they’re so full of bright ideas. I just think asking people to travel across the country without SOME idea of what to expect in terms of sessions, participants, etc. is unrealistic. I think it works best to strike a balance between the two extremes - build a general framework of expectations, and let the content grow organically.

[Cross-posted at Being Amber Rhea]