3 ms·

To give a sincere response, "sex-negative" doesn't mean embracing sexual behavior and discussion in every possible context.

mackem 14y ago
Nor does it imply the exclusion of sexual behaviour/discussion in every possible context. (assuming here you meant to say "sex-positive") This conference was a big event with lots of people and lots of talking. I think it would be odd if in all those countless discussions someone didn't mention something sexual just by accident. Whilst I don't think sexual innuendo's are particularly witty, I would hardly count 2 of them in a conference with hundreds of people as a grotesque and unnecessary insertion of sexuality into a non-sexual context. This incident does reek of sex-negativity. If this was any other form of joke someone didn't find funny, it would be a non-issue. But peoples uncomfortability with anything remotely sexual means it gets perceived as sexist. I mean, sex kind sounds like sexist right?
- illuminate 14y ago
  "assuming here you meant to say 'sex-positive'" Yep. "This incident does reek of sex-negativity." Again, it's all about context. Feeling negative about sexual discussion at work and at conferences does not mean that you can not promote positive attitudes in your private life and among your friends. I don't find the specific example that all this originated the best representative of the attitude, but you do not have to be okay with every childish/naive dirty joke in every environment to have a healthy attitude towards sex.
  - moron4hire 14y ago
    I'm sorry, but I fundamentally disagree with your core premise.
moron4hire 14y ago
I've thought about it more, and I think my question is more appropriately, "why are corporations so sex-negative"? Adria Richards didn't tattle on these two men because she is a "feminist". Is she a feminist? Who knows. I don't think "not working to the detriment of women" counts anyone as a feminist--being decent towards women should be the default state without a specific name. Her actions were more likely driven by a need to seek validation for being a good, compliant worker, in the corporate mold, as expected of her. Her expectation that she would gain more attention for complaining about the absolutely minuscule sexual content of their jokes than she would for complaining about disruptive noisiness indicates a corporate culture that is so sex-negative that it cannot tolerate even the mere mention of sex. By extricating such a fundamental aspect of the human condition from the place where people spend most of their waking lives, it serves to dehumanize the worker. The message is, when you are at work, you are not a person with needs, you are a part of the corporate machine. The dehumanization enables further. Why dip into record corporate profits for seniority-based raises when the worker fulfills no greater functional role to the company, regardless of inflation impacting the employee's real net worth just as much as it helps the company's valuation? And the self-policing compliance of informant systems builds a distrust between coworkers, thereby preventing attempts to collectively act against the corporation. The worker is thus merely one, solitary unit, easily bullied into the most profit maximizing mold.
- illuminate 14y ago
  "I've thought about it more, and I think my question is more appropriately, "why are corporations so sex-negative"?" Because of power hierarchies. It is in their best interest to find behavior of a sexual nature inappropriate, fairly independent of context.
  - moron4hire 14y ago
    how? why?

mackem 14y ago

Nor does it imply the exclusion of sexual behaviour/discussion in every possible context. (assuming here you meant to say "sex-positive") This conference was a big event with lots of people and lots of talking. I think it would be odd if in all those countless discussions someone didn't mention something sexual just by accident. Whilst I don't think sexual innuendo's are particularly witty, I would hardly count 2 of them in a conference with hundreds of people as a grotesque and unnecessary insertion of sexuality into a non-sexual context. This incident does reek of sex-negativity. If this was any other form of joke someone didn't find funny, it would be a non-issue. But peoples uncomfortability with anything remotely sexual means it gets perceived as sexist. I mean, sex kind sounds like sexist right?

illuminate 14y ago
"assuming here you meant to say 'sex-positive'" Yep. "This incident does reek of sex-negativity." Again, it's all about context. Feeling negative about sexual discussion at work and at conferences does not mean that you can not promote positive attitudes in your private life and among your friends. I don't find the specific example that all this originated the best representative of the attitude, but you do not have to be okay with every childish/naive dirty joke in every environment to have a healthy attitude towards sex.
- moron4hire 14y ago
  I'm sorry, but I fundamentally disagree with your core premise.

moron4hire 14y ago

I've thought about it more, and I think my question is more appropriately, "why are corporations so sex-negative"? Adria Richards didn't tattle on these two men because she is a "feminist". Is she a feminist? Who knows. I don't think "not working to the detriment of women" counts anyone as a feminist--being decent towards women should be the default state without a specific name. Her actions were more likely driven by a need to seek validation for being a good, compliant worker, in the corporate mold, as expected of her. Her expectation that she would gain more attention for complaining about the absolutely minuscule sexual content of their jokes than she would for complaining about disruptive noisiness indicates a corporate culture that is so sex-negative that it cannot tolerate even the mere mention of sex. By extricating such a fundamental aspect of the human condition from the place where people spend most of their waking lives, it serves to dehumanize the worker. The message is, when you are at work, you are not a person with needs, you are a part of the corporate machine. The dehumanization enables further. Why dip into record corporate profits for seniority-based raises when the worker fulfills no greater functional role to the company, regardless of inflation impacting the employee's real net worth just as much as it helps the company's valuation? And the self-policing compliance of informant systems builds a distrust between coworkers, thereby preventing attempts to collectively act against the corporation. The worker is thus merely one, solitary unit, easily bullied into the most profit maximizing mold.

illuminate 14y ago
"I've thought about it more, and I think my question is more appropriately, "why are corporations so sex-negative"?" Because of power hierarchies. It is in their best interest to find behavior of a sexual nature inappropriate, fairly independent of context.
- moron4hire 14y ago
  how? why?