Controversy Over Violet Blue's Harm Reduction Talk 562
Weezul writes "The Ada Initiative's Valerie Aurora got Violet Blue's Hackers As A High-Risk Population (29c3 abstract) talk on harm reduction methodology pulled from the Security BSides meeting in San Francisco by claiming it contained rape triggers [ed note: you might not want to visit the main page of the weblog as it contains a few pictures that might be considered NSFW in more conservative places]. It's frankly asinine to object to work around hacker ethics as 'off topic' at such broad hacker conference. Is Appelbaum's 29c3 keynote 'off topic' for asking hackers to work for the 'good guys' rather than military, police, their contractors, Facebook, etc.? Yes, obviously harm reduction is a psychological hack that need not involve a computer, but this holds for 'social engineering' as well. It's simply that hacking isn't nearly as specialized or inaccessible as say theoretical physics. Worse, there is no shortage of terrible technology laws like the CFAA, DMCA, etc. that exist partially because early hackers failed to communicate an ethics that seemed coherent and reasoned to outsiders."
The Ada Initiative responds that such talks do more harm than good. It could also be argued that "not working for the bad guys" type talks aren't off-topic, since the hacker community has traditionally cared about things like information freedom.
What? (Score:2, Interesting)
What is a rape trigger?
Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)
People who survive rape sometimes have Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), which includes an extreme sensitivity to anything reminding them of their experience (like a rape victim who later sees a rape scene in a movie). There's a growing consensus that, in some circumstances, warning people of potential triggers is considered polite, at least, to give them a chance to avoid it.
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no consensus that we should ban anything in public that might trigger this though. I don't see how this leads to banning a talk, if you think it might trigger your PTSD just don't attend.
Re: (Score:3)
If you mean banned by the government, sure, it shouldn't be. The argument, though, is that technical conferences should, in the sense of "the Ada Initiative thinks this is a best practice to follow", minimize triggering PTSD in unnecessary ways, especially those which might also fall disproportionately on some demographic groups. The Ada Initiative is a private organization that publishes some opinions on the subject, and publishes arguments in support of their opinions.
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
But they should NOT. That is ridiculous. If someone is so emotionally scared than a person of the gender that raped them, bumping into them in the conference is probably just as likely if not more likely to make them uncomfortable.
If you are a psychological wreck and need others to work around your weaknesses then go live in a padded white room in an asylum.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But they should NOT. That is ridiculous. If someone is so emotionally scared than a person of the gender that raped them, bumping into them in the conference is probably just as likely if not more likely to make them uncomfortable.
If you are a psychological wreck and need others to work around your weaknesses then go live in a padded white room in an asylum.
I'm sure that's easy to say if neither you nor anyone you love has ever been the victim of a violent sexual assault.
Go volunteer at your local women's shelter, then try and come back here with that attitude.
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
'm sure that's easy to say if neither you nor anyone you love has ever been the victim of a violent sexual assault.
Go volunteer at your local women's shelter, then try and come back here with that attitude.
And that is supposed to mean that because there are people who got hurt, we stop discussing the problem in the public? How has that ever actually helped anybody?
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, I understand that rape or any other assault is traumatic. That' a given, it is a horrible crime and should be punished.
That being said, it is a big world, and nasty shit happens. Is it up to everyone else in the world to be careful and tip toe around someone that is sensitive to some content for most any reason?? I think not. If that person can't handle something, then they themselves can self censor what they see or hear. Anyone that can't handle rape talk, should not attend a talk that involves that, they shouldn't prevent other people from having said discourse on said subject.
I'm getting very tired in our current society of basing everyone on the LOWEST common denominator. Someone might be offended, be traumatized or be allergic to something, so the MAJORITY of people that these things have no effect on, must be deprived of these sights, sounds, smells, consumables to protect the very small minority that should just take their bodies and minds elsewhere so as not to be exposed.
Re: (Score:3)
But that's not the case here...
In reference to the post I was originally responding to, yes, it is.
Rather than ban the whole talk that many people might have been interested in, why didn't they just put a sign on the door to that hall warning someone not to go in if they have sexual talk issues.
Geez, I'd have thought the topic they posted for this talked would have clued in any one with a bit of intelligence (and I'd think most people at a hackers convention type thing would be smart) would guess if things like that bothered them, they'd be best served by not going to listen.
From what I've read about the situation, it's a lot simpler than it seems: Violet Blue was to give a talk about, essentially, drugs and sexuality; a (let's call a duck a duck) liberal group, who is probably far more concerned with their own image than with protecting women's rights, found out about it. So, the liberal group decided to harass the event coordinators with vague threats and bullshit claims, until they (the ECs) finally gave in
Ban drinking and home occupancy... (Score:5, Interesting)
...with a man that you don't trust. Some facts:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape [wikipedia.org]
Drug use, especially alcohol, is frequently involved in rape. A study (only of rape victims that were female and reachable by phone) reported detailed findings related to tactics. In 47% of such rapes, both the victim and the perpetrator had been drinking. In 17%, only the perpetrator had been. 7% of the time, only the victim had been drinking. Rapes where neither the victim nor the perpetrator had been drinking were 29% of all rapes. Contrary to widespread belief, rape outdoors is rare. Over two thirds of all rapes occur in someone's home. 31% occur in the perpetrators' homes, 27% in the victims' homes and 10% in homes shared by the victim and perpetrator. 7% occur at parties, 7% in vehicles, 4% outdoors and 2% in bars.
One of six U.S. women has experienced an attempted or completed rape. More than a quarter of college age women report having experienced a rape or rape attempt since age 14.
For one-third to one-half of the victims, ... symptoms continue beyond the
first few months and meet the conditions for the diagnosis of
posttraumatic stress disorder. In general, rape and sexual assault are
among the most common causes of PTSD in women.
[motherjones.com]http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2013/01/rape-and-violence-against-women-crisis [motherjones.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Rape is very serious violation of a person's rights. That's why I hate it when people lie about it for their own advantage:
You get this by asking "Have you ever had sex when you really didn't want to?" and "Have you ever felt pressured to have sex?". Then you report the women who had sex because "well, it was our anniversary" or felt p
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
I would argue that there is a huge wealth of evidence that informing people about sexual issues is preferable to not.
What the Ada initiative is arguing for is the abolishment of sex-ed, something that does actual damage in either high school or any culture that struggles with its sexuality.
They are also arguing for survivors of rape never hearing the terms sex, rape, or and related terms or content ever again. They are arguing for repression, when we know that in many cases these people need to talk about these issues and hear them discussed. Yes, it is important to be tactful and knowledgeable about how to go about talking about these subjects, even just for normal well adjusted people with no traumatic issues in their past. But an absolute repression of all content is 100 times worst for these victims than anything even the most callous person might say in front of them.
Re:What? (Score:4, Interesting)
They aren't arguing for any of those things. Merely that technical conferences should not gratuitously include sexual or rape-related references when they aren't on-topic to the actual purpose of the conference. If you've been to any technical conferences, you'd realize this is a pervasive problem in a rather male-dominated, frattish industry, though it's been getting somewhat better lately (perhaps with the exception of game-industry conferences).
I don't see them arguing against sex education anywhere, or even entire sex-focused conferences.
Re:What? (Score:5, Informative)
How about some common sense, and rather than cater to a very small minority of people that might be offended and ban the talk altogether, to allow the talk and have a sign warning people that might be offended to NOT attend the talk and look for some other forum for entertainment.
Why censor based on the lowest common denominator of who might possibly attend the show?
And, as it turns out in this story, there was NO woman that was traumatized in this fashion, it was just a story this Ada organization was using to threaten the conference presenters into banning this talk.
I would take that action as much more despicable than possible offending someone...using a rape victim concern as a false pretense for furthering the Ada agenda, and controlling speech they way THEY seem to think it needs to be controlled.
Re: (Score:3)
The human body is a machine in its own right, so hacking it seems very applicable for a hacker conference.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes it is a specific context, ever context is specific. This woman is trying to educate hacker culture about sex and make it a more informed inclusive culture. She was completely willing to hold this as a after party, side event where you can go see it if you want to (similar, but more extreme, to kids opting out of sex-ed in highschool).
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
They are arguing for removal of sex and sexual situations from all discussions, unless there's (a) lots of warning, and (b) all discussion is "pro-consent and constructive". They also explicitly state that they believe that any audience WILL contain members that WANT TO RAPE (what do you think "is very unlikely that your audience has a uniformly, or even widely-held, negative opinion of harassment and assault" means?) and that your talk will trigger them to rape in the halls.
This is not a very constructive way to discuss anything. If this tactic was used for discussion of security holes, they would be advocating for the abolition of CERT public mailing lists, and revoking public notification requirements for successful hacks because it may cause people to be uncomfortable.
This topic is uncomfortable for people precisely because it is forbidden to talk about publicly in many circles. Security by obscurity never works, and the same can be said about taboo subjects like the combination of sex and drugs. The more you know, the more you can defend yourself. If you want to remain ignorant and present opportunities for others to harm you, that's your decision. Don't force me to remain ignorant because you want to be.
No. Just no. (Score:5, Insightful)
Sex is a perfectly ok subject at all times. It is a fundamental and ultimately healthy part of human activity. Arguing that it isn't puts you in the position of someone who is defective, or padding the room for someone who is defective.
If you're defective, you should get that fixed. Not expect the rest of us to modify our behavior.
Eventually, the path of "padding the room" leads to no discussion of any issues because someone might be sensitive to them. That's not the way of liberty; that's the way of the ultimate mommy universe, and it is fundamentally wrongheaded.
Liberty is not a condition where you won't hear uncomfortable things because everyone else is responsible for keeping you away from potential discomfort. It is a condition where you may hear anything, and you are responsible for keeping your own comfort. That's where a healthy human's center needs to be focused.
If you're not a healthy human, you should get that fixed, rather than inconveniencing the rest of us, either directly or via misguided advocates, however well intentioned they make think themselves. If you are one of those advocates, rather than one of the unhealthy, don't work on the rest of us to pad the room. Work on the unhealthy to bring them up to snuff.
Re: (Score:3)
One important question this raises is who gets to decide what a conference is "about". Ada Initiative makes a point of labeling its targets as "off-topic", but it seems to me that scheduling a presentation on sex is prima facie evidence that the conference is "about" matters which in some way relate to sex.
Looking at the conference program, it seems to me that the focus of the conference is DIY experimentation, in which case the topic of sex in substance altered states is certainly on-topic.
Re: (Score:3)
What puerile nonsense. Did I mention white, black, brown or any other racial marker? Did I mention male or female or neuter? Did I say there shouldn't be assistance for such fixing? Did I say that "us" was any particular section of the population other than healthy?
Re:No. Just no. (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't demand any such thing. I do demand he tolerate the existence of two-legged people, the mention of axes, cherry trees, and whetstones. Likewise for the raped individual; bad deal, no question. However, that doesn't make sex bad, relationships bad, or the gender that matches the one that did the deed bad. The deed was bad. Placing blame and/or responsibility on the people who didn't do the deed is defective behavior. Expecting the world to modify its speech because of some event in your life is defective behavior. This is worlds away from your ridiculous example of forcing a one legged man to crawl up stairs.
And you'd be 100% wrong. I recognize the injury. I do not recognize the world's responsibility to modify its speech because of an injury, visible or not. Furthermore, I would make a strong case that in doing so, one is making the injury worse.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Except - this story in no way suggests anything that remotely resembles "sane conference policies".
This zany bitch threatened that she would be "triggered" by the gentleman if he spoke. "Triggered". That is an aggressive word, not a defensive word. She threatened to go postal, if she didn't get her way. She committed an assault on the freedom of speech.
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
> Therefore, my personal conclusion is that someone designing a conference policy would be do better to read the Ada Initiative's well-argued opinion, and should not follow your rather poorly, emotionally-argued opinion. It's ultimately up to the conference organizers to decide what policies they wish to have, though.
Your conclusion is illogicall. If the subject matter at hand is risky subject matter for someone, then that someone should not attend, rather than shutting the subject down altogether.
Someone who has PTSD from a war who is at risk of "triggers", should not attend a talk about "Advanced Programming Techniques for Automated Targeting Systems", just as someone who as PTSD from a rape who is at risk of "triggers", should not attend a talk about the pros and cons of sex and drugs.
Re: (Score:3)
I read Ada's report on what happened and their reasoning behind their action. It was not "well argued." The gist of their argument is that talking about sex turns men into animals who can't help but rape women. Therefore, people shouldn't give public talks about sex. An offensive, irrational attitude that is dressed up in reasonable sounding words is still offensive. Also, it is quite clear, from their own words, that they asked to have the talk cancelled before knowing anything about it besides the title.
Re: (Score:3)
It seemed to focus more on the nature of the talk as off topic, especially given that at the time no one had seen the details on what was to be discussed.
That seems rather irrelevant since only the title of the talk, and not the abstract were known when the Ada Initiative sought to have the talk canceled. They didn't even know what the talk was about, and they didn't make an effort to talk to the speaker to figure out what it was about. In short, they didn't know if the talk was on-topic or not, and they just sort of assumed that a talk about sex was going to include "rape triggers".
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, it most certainly is not a "best practice", and damn the demographic group concerned. If this bullshit is acceptable, then we'll have to accept that a member of Race A might be "triggered" if exposed to a member of Race B. Or, a member or Religion Z, if exposed to a member of Religion Y. Or, Gender F, if exposed toa member of Gender M. And, actually, that is all it boils down to. Some bitch feminist didn't like this guy's talk, so she shut him down, with a threat to act hysterical if he were allowed to speak.
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, we didn't ban anything. The Ada Initiative takes the position that any sex content at a technical conference is out of bounds and hostile to women--and there's a good argument for that. Women at tech conferences are very much in the minority, sex is generally not a topic within the normal scope of technology, and the geek community has real problems with sexism, creeping on women at conferences, and just generally losing its shit when the topic of women comes up. So the rep from the Ada Initiative talks to the organizers, mentions this and their specific concerns that content of the talk (like use of GHB for sex) could trigger rape victims, and the organizers pull the plug because they're appropriately risk averse on this topic.
So who blew it? The Ada Initiative did by not approaching Violet Blue beforehand. Violet Blue is trained as a crisis counselor and has worked with rape victims. She knows the issues. They could have worked out a way to present the talk without triggering content and with sensitivity to the concern that discussing sex with a room full of geeks could have a negative impact on the women at the conference.
Re:What? (Score:4, Insightful)
So who blew it? The Ada Initiative did by not approaching Violet Blue beforehand.
If the talk should not have been cancelled then the fault lies with the person who made the decision to cancel the talk, period the end. You can't permit people to foist responsibility off onto groups because of your personal biases, that only leads to cognitive dissonance. The Ada Initiative did not make the decision to cancel the talk, they only advised doing such. You can scowl at them all you want, but it's still not their fault.
There's things I don't like about the Ada Initiative, like their high and mighty tone. But that still doesn't mean that they cancelled this talk, or that they are responsible for the cancellation of this talk. Blame the decision-maker, not the advisor. Our failure to do that as a species is one of the things that keeps us in a condition of suffering.
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What? (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah, too bad that's bullshit. By that line of logic, we can't blame fundamentalist groups for pressuring stores into not selling what they don't like with boycotts, or for getting people fined by harassing the FCC. Don't be such a quisling, Mr. Poo.
We blame Valerie Aurora for being a censoring anti-feminist hypocrite.
We blame The Ada Initiative for not immediately firing Valerie Aurora and repudiating her actions.
And we blame the Security BSides people for being spineless.
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
The Ada Initiative takes the position that any sex content at a technical conference is out of bounds and hostile to women--and there's a good argument for that.
OK, what is the good argument for that? It's certainly not the following.
Women at tech conferences are very much in the minority, sex is generally not a topic within the normal scope of technology, and the geek community has real problems with sexism, creeping on women at conferences, and just generally losing its shit when the topic of women comes up.
That's a great reason to get it out in the open, talk about what's acceptable and what's not. Making sex an uncomfortable subject will only make men more uncomfortable which will make more "creepers". You don't fix problems by not talking about it.
What's the actual argument that talking about sex openly is harmful in any circumstances? Are there any such arguments that are not as easily deflected as the one above?
Re: (Score:3)
though the argument is not that "talking about sex openly is harmful in any circumstances"
To clarify, I meant "is there an argument that any set of conditions exists where it is harmful to talk about sex openly". Ada is arguing that there is one such set of conditions, but their argument is easily dismissed with a moment of critical thinking. I was going further and asserting that no such argument exists and inviting someone to provide a counterexample.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
and the geek community has real problems with sexism, creeping on women at conferences, and just generally losing its shit when the topic of women comes up.
so the solution is not to talk about sexuality at all at conferences? If you feel the best way to deal with these "real problems" is to internalize the very issues you take a strong position against, that's fine. but to request someone "pull the plug" to a lecture at a technical symposium just because it disagrees with your political worldview is tantamount to burying your head in the sand becuase you don't like all the men at the beach. the sooner we can talk about sex like grownups, the sooner raise th
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
Any sex content is hostile to women?
That is the most misogynistic thing I have heard all week.
You do know that women are as interested in sex as men, right?
You do realize that the treating them with kids gloves you are endorsing is exactly what people expect of geek groups right? It is the other side of the creepy fratboy coin. Same not treating them like real people BS.
Your post contains wedgie triggers (Score:5, Funny)
Each time you use the word G**k, you validate the society prejudices that lead to violence against certain groups, especially minors, including violent sexual assault such as wedgies.
People who have experienced this violent sexual assault often re-experience their trauma when they are exposed to this kind of language, and the stereotypes you have used that promote anti G**k prejudice.
Your prejudice is so extreme that instead of objecting to the content of the talk itself, you are just as concerned with "discussing sex with a room full of geeks".
Attributing sexism in a community to the presence of G**k's is no more acceptable that attributing sexism in rap music to the presence of Black people.
Technical conferences should be technical. (Score:3, Insightful)
There is a consensus that people attending computer security conferences should expect the focus to be on computer security, not some very weakly tangentially related subject, especially when the title of the talk isn't announced until a few hours before the talk.
It isn't just a matter of not attending the talk if you don't like the subject. The talk itself turns the attendees' focus away from technical matters and onto sexual matters in an environment where women already have a difficult time being treated
Re:Technical conferences should be technical. (Score:5, Insightful)
The talk was completely off-topic and couldn't possibly improve the environment of the conference.
It's too bad that the talk was censored by Ada Initiative; otherwise the rest of the grownups could have made up their own minds on the subject instead of believing your opinion of a talk that never occurred.
extremely insightful that your idea of tangential, may be another person's epiphany. This is the exact purpose of a conference: to listen to new ideas, even if they are not in your narrow field of research.
Re: (Score:3)
Except the difference here is that on Slashdot at least at some point someone actually reviewed the content being rejected. And in fact, "rejected" isn't even appropriate since it is still possible to review the full measure of the content since it is only hidden.
The equivalent in Violet Blue's case would have been if the con organizers had taken her up on her offer to do the presentation elsewhere or to video tape it and show it after the con but still make it available to those at the con. Instead she was
Re: (Score:3)
Browse at -1 you pansy.
Re:Technical conferences should be technical. (Score:5, Insightful)
The talk was completely off-topic and couldn't possibly improve the environment of the conference.
And, of course, that opinion is the only one that matters, so it's OK to lie and use whatever other cheap, underhanded methods you can use to impose your perspective on everyone else, right? "Rape trigger" is a convenient tool because it shuts down all further conversation.
A: "Rape trigger!" ..."
B: "But I
A: "What, do you support rape? What kind of sleazy, disgusting asshole are you?"
B: (slinks away)
Re:What? (Score:5, Insightful)
There was no premeditation, and no conspiracy to silence Violet Blue or an interesting talk.
Yet that was what the first request was - silence the talk. Not a question of what was in the talk, not a request to speak with the presenter, but instead a request to shut it down. No, not a conspiracy, but something worse - a knee-jerk reaction that was honored as a "reasonable" request, causing a speaker to be silenced based on no evidence.
This was a really great way to make your point, Ada Initiative. As a person who supports the project's overall goals of fighting sexism in the high-tech community, I think that the person who requested this action is an utter moron who needs to be expunged from this group before she (or he - how would I know) does any more harm. If it happens to be the group's leader (as indicated in the article summary above), you need a new one.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Man, go read the post.
http://violetblue.tumblr.com/post/44107008572/what-happened-with-my-security-bsides-talk [tumblr.com]
Basically, if someone wants to shut you down, they can use anything sex-related as a weapon. And if anyone disagrees, you become the enemy.
Violet Blue got shut down because the presentation *mentioned* the sex.
And if you ever disagree with someone who claims to be sensitive to the topic (abuse survivor), then you are worse than hitler.
Outrage is called for.
Re: (Score:3)
Violet Blue got shut down because the presentation *mentioned* the sex.
Well no, it was entirely about sex and drugs, and not really about vulnerabilities at all, except maybe as a footnote to pretend to relevance.
Outrage is called for.
Maybe, I even think so, but not on the basis you suggest.
Rape trigger? (Score:3, Insightful)
WTF is a rape trigger?
Re:Rape trigger? (Score:4, Informative)
Apparently a bunch of feminists in San Fransisco (but of course) are concerned that any *mention* of rape ("rape trigger") in a speech or presentation will send any former rape victims in the audience into flashbacks and convulsions, thus re-victimizing them.
Of course, the term "rape trigger" is *itself* a rape trigger. Which leads to an interesting loop.
Re: (Score:2)
Because nobody can leave until the talk is over... This seems like a case of somebody not wanting the talk but not being honest about it. There were many more solutions that just "Don't give the talk".
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, the term "rape trigger" is *itself* a rape trigger.
Most likely not, and to keep repeating that is kind of a load of BS.
I note that neither of you has produced a citation on this subject. Intuitively, however, I would expect the phrase "rape trigger" to be as valid a rape trigger as any other phrase. We're talking about triggering rape, why wouldn't that idea trigger negative association?
just because some people use the idea of rape triggers as a way to push through other things, or because some people go over board white knighting the issue, doesn't mean the concept of a rape trigger is BS and should be disregarded in all cases
Straw man. No one said that.
I've had idiots claim that I am not allowed to remove comments from a blog on my own server because it violates their freedom of speech
Irrelevant, offtopic. No one cares what idiots have said. That's completely orthogonal to the topic at hand.
Re: (Score:3)
How are you going to have a flashback to an experience under a drug that specifically robs you of any memory of the occassion? How can you have a flashback to a state when, consciously, you weren't there?
Re: (Score:3)
You should get a colonoscopy done. They give you medicine like Versed, so there's memory of the event itself afterward. Hint: you can still tell someone stuck a tube up your ass.
Re: (Score:3)
Most date rape drugs are favoured for that purpose because they make the victim compliant and often cause some amnesia, which means victims are less likely to have PTSD. On the other hand, by far the most popular date rape drug, alcohol, often increases the likelihood of violence. Despite the dark alley fantasies, a large proportion of rape also involves drunk idiots at social gatherings. So if you want to avoid triggering rape-related PTSD, ban alcohol.
No? I agree. Recovery from PTSD (and many other m
Re:Rape trigger? (Score:4, Insightful)
However, as others have pointed out quite convincingly already, if you're the victim of a date rape suffering from PTSD with flashbacks, it's a good idea simply not to attend a talk titled "sex +/- drugs: known vulns and exploits" rather than complaining about it and/or preventing it from being given.
Re:Rape trigger? (Score:5, Informative)
You're being an idiot. You're not being sensitive, you're being patronizing, and you're contributing to real harm being done.
At no point did I say date rape was okay. Quite the opposite. Now, if you're not so stuck in your self righteousness that you can't engage in rational thought:
Discussion of date rape drugs is not more likely to be a PTSD trigger than discussion, or the existence, of any number of other things including rape, violence, drunk idiots or sex in general. Just to be clear for people (like you) who like to put words in other peoples' mouths, that doesn't make date rape, non-date rape, drugging people or violence against anybody in any way okay.
The Ada Initiative seems to agree with me. Their complaint wasn't actually about the discussion of date rape drugs, it was about the discussion of sex in general. Lots of other people have posted the quote here. They may have a point - perhaps Violet Blue's talk was off topic at the conference she was at. However, since she was invited, it seems the organizers didn't think so. While I suspect the AI was actually using rape as an excuse to get a speaker they dislike banned (which I find abhorrent), their claim is that discussion of sex can trigger flashbacks in women suffering from rape related PTSD. This is certainly true. Their solution was to demand the talk be pulled. That's not a good solution.
PTSD flashbacks (and not just with rape-related PTSD) can be triggered by literally anything. A random sampling of some I've heard: loud noises, dogs, baseball, churches, classrooms, street lights, motorcycles, men with dark hair, etc. Some of those ARE from rape victims. Probably not the ones you think.
As with many mental illnesses, an important criterion for the diagnosis of PTSD is that it interferes significantly with normal life (http://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/pages/dsm-iv-tr-ptsd.asp). So guess how you recover from such a mental illness? It isn't by sterilizing the world. It's by developing strategies to deal with your illness and get back as close as possible to living normally. In fact, guess what the recommended treatments are for PTSD? Counselling and support groups (i.e. talking about it) and, in extreme cases, desensitization therapy (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001923/). To refer back to your post, the only way to recover from a mental illness is to develop strategies to cope with it. Those might involve drug therapy (to reference your silly cancer simile) but far preferable, especially for disorders like PTSD, are non-drug therapies like counselling, support groups, etc. Avoidance is often a symptom of, and may even contribute to a mental illness. It does not treat it.
Having said that, it's quite understandable that someone with PTSD might prefer not to be exposed to easily avoided triggers in public. It seems that Blue knows that, and suggested moving her talk to one of several more restricted venues, but those suggestions were refused.
Violet Blue, by the way, is a trained crisis counsellor (as am I). As far as I can tell, Valerie Aurora is not.
It looks to me very much like Valerie Aurora and the Ada Initiative used (and I chose that word specifically, with all the disgusting connotations it has in this context) rape victims generally to further a political agenda and specifically to muzzle a speaker whom they dislike.
On a personal note, one of the most rewarding interactions I had as a crisis counsellor was with a woman the night before she was scheduled to testify against her rapist. She was dreading facing him and was in crisis at the thought. We talked about her experience, her feelings about testifying and not, and what she was likely to gain or lose from either decision. When we finished she had come to the conclusion that she was a hero, both for facing her fear and helping make sure her attacker didn't get a chance to hurt anyone else. She knew it would be difficult, but she was sure she was capable of doing it.
Re: (Score:3)
Each BSides is a community-driven framework for building events for and by information security community members. [securitybsides.com]. That's where I pulled that it should be considered "an information security conference". Regardless of what you think the events are about, I was responding to how they market themselves. Please do assume some people might actually RTFA.
You also seem to be confused about sex vs. rape in a way such that you really shouldn't be talking about the two in public. I don't know exactly what the a
Re:Rape trigger? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Rape trigger? (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Sometime you're going to have to "work through emotions" - even if you don't recognize it as such
Sure, please deal with those emotions privately instead of dragging all the rest of us into the drama.
Re:Rape trigger? (Score:4, Funny)
Re:Rape trigger? (Score:5, Insightful)
I suffer from combat related PTSD. It sucks, I get triggered all the time. I especially don't like the filled to the max hallways at defcon, I have had more then one panic attack from that. I don't like the hackers that wear leather and combat gear around thinking its funny or cool, it scares the shit out of me at cons. I know they are kids, they mean well, and no one is trying to hurt me. Unlike the drunk guy who gets in my face for no reason, their actions are not malicious.
Most of the time I am able to keep my shit together and no one knows how I feel on the inside. This is my trauma, my probleme, to think that others should change to satisfy me is pure stupidity. I am the one that needs to recover and be able to move on in my life, so I do it. Victims of crime are in the same position, if you have triggers, you need to be in weekly counselling until its resolved. Pretending that its OK and if others would just not trigger you will ruin your life. No amount of activism will ever heal the wounds you have.
Re:Rape trigger? (Score:5, Insightful)
So, all you whiny feminists, unless you are willing to be sensitive to people like this AC and ban all pseudo-military accouterments from all fashion forever etc. then you can STFU. That is of course if feminism wasn't already based on double standards run amok.
Well and more than that (Score:3)
If you have triggers, then you have mental issues that need to be dealt with. Pushing it aside is NOT healthy. If something traumatic happens to you, there will be mental consequences. You need to work through those. That means counselling, confronting, understanding, etc. If you don't, you'll never fully heal. The mind isn't like the body, you can't just leave an injury be and hope it heals on its own. You have to work on it.
So never mind telling others they have to change, if you ever want to truly recove
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
For the love of humanity, mod parent up. People need to be responsible for addressing their own difficulties, not force all of society to acquiesce and adopt arbitrary strictures to make sure they don't possibly ever cause somebody to remember something nasty.
Not the best way to put it, but there is some truth there.
So, all you whiny feminists, unless you are willing to be sensitive to people like this AC and ban all pseudo-military accouterments from all fashion forever etc. then you can STFU. That is of course if feminism wasn't already based on double standards run amok.
I was with you up until you started the name calling and the bigotry against feminists.
Yeah, sure, some may have double standards and some may be ridiculous. This is true of any group of people. This does not mean that all feminism is a double standard or that everything under the umbrella term feminism should be summarily dismissed. By that logic any group or cause can be ignored.
Re:Rape trigger? (Score:4, Insightful)
I would recommend you look at this video [youtube.com] ("Is feminism hate?"), which though a bit long, is very methodical in its examination of the intolerance that is at the core of feminism. If it piques your interest, I would recommend other videos by the same woman which precede it in the same vein such as NAFALT [youtube.com] (Not All Feminists Are Like That).
Re:Rape trigger? (Score:4, Interesting)
With regard to your general 'feminism isn't a monolith' argument, watch the videos I linked to, since you obviously haven't. They address the subject far better than I can ad hoc with no sleep.
(And I don't deny some prejudice sourced in my humanity, but that cuts as equally to you as to me. You might as well disparage somebody for breathing.)
Re:Rape trigger? (Score:4, Insightful)
It may be "your" problem. [Negating the fact that *we* sent you to war and you were doing your job in service for all of us - at least those in the USA. (I'm assuming you're a US combat veteran.)] ...As a start, I hope I've widened your thinking in how it's NOT really just _your_ problem. Lots of us contributed to _your_ problem, and you ought to be reasonable in letting some of the blame flow to others too.
---
But, for discussion sake - lets just *assume* it really *is* all your problem.
Is it too much to expect the rest of the world to take some care and have some empathy in helping you manage? I mean really - sure it's all a blind person's problem for being blind. Or an elderly person's problem for being elderly. But still, we make allowances for these "problems" and treat such people with dignity and respect. We make changes to how we'd interact with the world to accommodate them, and make them feel as comfortable as possible.
That's not to say that one can't go overboard on accommodation - because you certainly can. But, in general, in the world, we rarely do TOO MUCH for those who need our help and consideration. If there's an error, IMO, in the world, it is that we have _too little_ empathy and care for the perspectives of those outside our gender/race/ethnicity/social-group/family etc. The number of times we have too much empathy? Pretty damn insignificant IMO.
---
So, while I recognize your desire to stand up on your own two feet and I know that you want to succeed on your own - please realize that you need care and love from those around you too. It's not too much to want others to help, and while you can't *make* them do so, they ought to.
I wish you the best in your recovery. IMO, care and love from those around you and being realistic in viewing your responsibility in your "problem" is key in finding the best resolution you can.
-Greg
Re: (Score:3)
Is it too much to expect the rest of the world to take some care and have some empathy in helping you manage
The unspoken assumption is that avoiding these "triggers" helps the PTSD victim manage. I would suspect that exposing the individual to these triggers in a safe environment would serve to decondition their adverse response.
After all, isn't desensitization effective for phobias? Wouldn't it be reasonable to hypothesize that it would work for PTSD too? What does the actual data say?
Re:Rape trigger? (Score:5, Informative)
Yeah, this is a horrible summary especially considering all the useful links in the original submission are blocked at my work. However, the Ada Initiative link that the editors added explains the situation well.
The gist of it is that people attending this conference were expecting it be about computer security. One of the invited speakers decided to make their talk about drug use during sex, and didn't let anyone know about this until a few hours before they were scheduled to present. The conference organizers *asked* the Ada Initiative what they thought about this, and they told them it would make the women at the conference uncomfortable, so the conference organizers canceled the talk.
Looking past all the sociology/feminist terms, this is what it boils down to. The woman there just wanted to go to a technical conference and talk about technical things, and be treated like professionals. Putting sex on people's mind takes the focus off technical things, and onto sexual things. It does so regardless of whether the talk is pro-women or not. It will make interactions between the men and women at the conference more awkward at best. It will take what should be a comfortable professional environment, and make it less enjoyable and welcoming.
There was nothing wrong with Violet Blue's talk in general, if it was given in an appropriate setting, and people attending knew the subject of the conference. But springing it on people when they are trying to avoid people thinking of them sexually isn't cool.
Re: (Score:3)
One of the invited speakers decided to make their talk about drug use during sex, and didn't let anyone know about this until a few hours before they were scheduled to present.
This is disingenuous. Nobody can claim that they thought Violet Frickin' Blue was going to present about Wi-Fi security.
If they didn't want a talk that included sex, they shouldn't have invited her to present. None of the subject matter should have surprised anybody because she planned to give the exact same talk that she gave last year.
Re: (Score:3)
Something (a picture, words, etc.) that can cause a rape victim a flashback. The problem is that this could be potentially anything (including, as another poster noted, mentioning rape triggers), so while it might make sense to worry about this is in places like rape victim support groups, it's an odd thing to worry about in a hacker conference.
Also note that this is hardly a concept limited to rape victims, but could potentially extend to anyone who has suffered trauma (traffick acci
So, this is some hippie slap-fight, right? (Score:2, Interesting)
So, AFAICT from the summary and blogs, this was some hippie slap-fight between a bunch of feminists over "rape triggers" (a term so silly that it could only have meaning in San Fran, Austin, and Portland) in some presentation?
And isn't the term "rape trigger" ITSELF a rape trigger?
Re: (Score:2)
I don't say this often, but no, I'm absolutely sure I'm not the one who sounds like an idiot on this one.
Re:So, this is some hippie slap-fight, right? (Score:5, Insightful)
To summarize the Ada Initiative's argument, "You should never talk about sex, because if you do, you'll give women traumatizing rape flashbacks and turn all men in the audience into pathological rape-machines. Especially techies, because everyone knows techies are super-rape-happy already. So no talking about sex."
I hate it when I have to agree with people who think "feminist" is a dirty word, but in this case Ada's "Think of the children!"-esque rationale just seems absurd.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Luckily I have a car analogy for you. First question: do you know what a tail pipe is?
So what is this about? (Score:3)
Considering that the link to TFA is NSFW, and the other links are blacklisted at many sites for security reasons, it'd be nice if the summary actually explained what the presentation was about and what the objections to it were rather than jumping into their opinion of the situation and assuming we all know WTF they were talking about.
Re:So what is this about? (Score:5, Informative)
You should read the link under "The Ada Initiative responds that such talks do more harm than good." It's SFW and it contains the counterpoint to this biased/revisionist submission.
Here's the text of TFA:
"
What happened with my Security BSides talk
It had been decided months ago that I would give a talk at Security BSides San Francisco. The subject of my talk was up in the air until just before the conference started, and the organizers were okay with that, but to not inconvenience or surprise the organizers, I decided to present the same talk I had given at Security BSides Las Vegas in 2012. I submitted the talk description just before the conference began, and it went on the website immediately.
This is the talk name and description:
sex +/- drugs: known vulns and exploits
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.
I put this talk together for BSides LV knowing it would be seen at the same time as Defcon, which is reputed to be a con with lots of parties and wild behavior. The talk is structured with harm reduction methodology, the act of giving the talk is an act of harm reduction for the community, and also gives me another opportunity to tell the hacking/security communities about what harm reduction is.
I have presented talks about sexuality at tech conferences all over the world, and I make it clear each time that my talks are not technical and that they are about issues that affect the culture to which I am presenting.
This is the third slide in my sex +/- drugs talk:
I arrived at the Security BSides venue half an hour before my talk was set to begin, and I tracked down the main organizer to get connected with the speaker wrangler. I found him next door at DNA Pizza, where he was talking with this person. I apologized for the interruption, the organizer told me where to wait, and the woman he was talking to smiled at me. I smiled back.
The organizer came into the LockSport Lounge around 10 minutes later and asked if he could speak with me. I asked Eric Michaud to join me.
The organizer said, “So, I need to ask you: is there any rape in your talk?”
I said, “Is there any WHAT in my talk?” I was shocked.
“Well, there’s been a complaint about your talk.” He continued, “It’s from someone who is a rape survivor and they said they will be triggered by your talk if there’s any rape in it.”
“No, no, there’s no rape in my talk. I talk about human sexual systems and the effects drugs, including caffeine and alcohol, affect the performance of these systems and the dangers of mixing different things. What’s going on here?”
He replied, “Someone has said they will be triggered by your talk, and they’re a rape survivor.”
“Okay. In the talk I do cover ‘date rape’ drugs, and I explain their actions and how they’re dangerous.”
Then he said, “Do you describe how to use date rape drugs? They said that if you are going to tell people how to use date rape drugs then it
A little help here? (Score:2)
I ran this through Google translate and still couldn't figure it out..
Are you people doing this on purpose.. to make me doubt my sanity?
Re: (Score:2)
rape trigger? etc (Score:2)
What's a "rape trigger"? ( Remember, sfw link or explanation. That's why I'm asking, I can't go read the one MAIN link that the entire story is about. )
Without a definition of this word, the entire article/post is ... hard to follow and not worth my time pondering over. Heck, most people won't even be able to guess at what "harm reduction" is, nor have any idea what the Ada Initiative is.
If you're going to use "technical terms", you need to define them. This being the internet, maybe, oh, I don't know,
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Disclaimer: I think it's silly, but I'll try to keep my personal opinions restricted to parens.
A rape trigger is apparently anything that could cause negative feelings in a person based on their experiences with rape, or sympathy with those who have been raped. (as opposed to the norm, I guess, which is everyone is pro-rape?)
So, talking about rape is an obvious rape trigger. Talking about being powerless is a rape trigger. Talking about sex is a rape trigger. (even loving, consensual, romantic sex.). Ta
Mwahahaha (Score:2)
So women's "participation" in the "free culture movement" and "open culture" is having expressions censored? How many women feel represented by this "Ada Initiative" now?
Wait, police/military are "bad guys" these days? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Wait, police/military are "bad guys" these days (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, the police and military are the bad guys and have been for decades. They are designed to protect the general population in the same way an electric fence protects cattle. Every war since at least Vietnam has had nothing to do with protecting people, only securing global hegemony. And the main purpose of the police is to keep the peasants from revolting. Notice how robust the response to OWS was, when the real criminals on Wall Street went untouched? Look at how willing the police are to ruin lives over a little Cannabis or how much respect the military has for basic principles of justice like innocent before proven guilty.
These are not honorable institutions with honorable goals, and none can be associated with them honorably. We live in an upsidedown world where the authorities who are supposed to protect us are in fact the greatest threat. Wake the fuck up already.
Incoherent Award (Score:5, Funny)
This is the single most incoherent story summary that I've ever read at Slashdot. Congratulations!
Nothing will ever make them happy (Score:5, Interesting)
In short the Ada folks believe "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."
They have a complete lack of understanding of hacker culture, take one or two relatively minor, usually unreported, incidents out of a group of 10k+ people in a weekend and us it to drum up hate and a paycheck for their founder as they push their specific agenda. There concerns are not hacker specific issues that affect women, they are the same women's issues that have been out there for years. Their "initiative" is widely rejected by women who are long term attendees at cons. And that is what defcon and others are, cons, not technical conferences.
Their choice in venue (cons) has a very low rate of incidents compared to the general population. They have caused far more incidents of things that may be considered sexual harassment as backlash for their bizarre behavior. At Chaos Communications Congress 29 this group handed out "Creeper cards" to men who in their sole judgement did something offensive. The folks at the con responded with their own form of "anti-feminist" cards. Their surprise at this response reiterates that they don't understand our culture.
If there are incidents where someone is assaulted then call the police. Someone keeps proposition you at a bar? Tell them to go away, then call the bar's security, have you ever been to a bar? With defcon, the move to the more traditional strip hotels from the AP has brought in loads of Vegas trash. Pimps, bro's, etc roam the hotel and proposition every girl there for "shopping for sex" or other pimply schemes. No girl is safe in any Vegas venue from these guys, welcome to Vegas. If Vegas trash keeps hassling you, ask the passing group of hackers for help, they will solve it for you without any expectation in return, that's our culture.
Wrong Talk (Score:5, Insightful)
Violet was scheduled to speak about "sex +/- drugs: known vulns and exploits", not about "Hackers As A High-Risk Population".
While I don't agree with the cancellation, this talk was more sexually charged (hence problematic) and much less on topic at a hacker conference than her talk at 29c3 was.
The Ada Initiative (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, that's the nearest thing to a reason I can think of for this garbage to be on Slashdot.
Triggers (Score:2)
Triggers are not an invention of SF Hippies or Feminists.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trauma_trigger
Feel free to google "trauma trigger" or "PTSD trigger" for more.
That you've never heard of something and can't wrap your head around it immediately doesn't mean that is must be bullshit.
Solution: men only conferences (Score:3)
That way no wombyn can be raped, rape-triggered, demeaned, offended, creeped out or indeed involved.
Now, hush up and knit me a pie.
Re: (Score:3)
It does feel like that's their real agenda isn't it? I mean, how is treating women like unreasonably fragile creatures who are unable to handle the mere mention of sex feminism?
The most pathetic part is that men probably get raped more often than women in the U.S. *cough*prisonsystem*cough*
Ada Initiative is Anti-Feminist and Anti-Hacker (Score:5, Insightful)
From the Ada Initiative's own statement [adainitiative.org] on this:
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.
More simply put: "Any talk of sex at a technical conference is bad m'kay, because a rape survivor might get offended."
Sorry, but covering the ears and mouths of others to suppress information YOU DON'T LIKE is against feminism since it presumes that women are too fragile to handle sexuality in a positive and adult manner, is sexist to men since it presumes that the mere talk of sex, no matter the content of message of purpose will push some men to rape or "give women bad sexual experiences".
And how many of these men would attend this fabled "Conference on Sexuality" where Violet Blue's talk would be "on topic"? I predict none.
So a chance to raise awareness, engage, inform and encourage healthy debate has been lost because one group with a very clear agenda decide that no one t a "Tech Conference" should be able to be so educated and informed on subjects they feel are harmful based solely on their own ideals.
The Ada Initiative should be wholeheartedly shunned by the tech circles who value freedom of information and freedom of choice for being counter to the very principles upon which their culture is formed. This is a culture based on curiosity, exploration, boundary pushing and self-education -- we don't need Ada Initiative telling us where or how to educate ourselves or dictating what topics are "safe".
Re:Ada Initiative is Anti-Feminist and Anti-Hacker (Score:5, Insightful)
It's also against history and plain common sense.
First, they're trying to censor something in the hacker community. Mere words can't explain how much "fail" is involved in that concept.
Second, history is pretty clear that if you want to solve social behavioural problems (which, I'm assuming, is the fundamental reason behind the Ada Initiative), anything less than honest and open communications, even about things which are uncomfortable to some, is going to backfire. Suppression gives you stupid shit like abstinence-only sex education, and appealing to reason and/or authority without using reason or having authority is just denying reality. Particularly if your subject population is resistant to overt propaganda and manipulation, which this one certainly is.
So, I guess the Ada Initiative can probably manage to get tech conferences to completely shun sex topics... as long as they don't mind that it's not going to do anything to actually reduce these "negative effects on women at a technical conference".
Original Article (Score:4, Informative)
So basically the presenter said she would hold the talk in a separate room in the after party, so that only the people who knew what the content would be and consented to see it would see it.
This was the response: “No, they’re here and they’re not leaving. They told me they’ll make it into a bigger problem if you do your talk.”
"Walking on eggshells" is a red flag (Score:3)
It is a terrible thing that somebody has a traumatic experience.
If you're walking on eggshells around that person, you're part of the problem.
PTSD represents a bona fide injury and needs to be treated.
If you have an injury, the injury is almost always not your fault, but your recovery is absolutely your responsibility. In those cases where it is your fault (deliberate self-destructive behaviour), you have another problem, which is also not your fault. But dealing with it IS your responsibility!
This is a practical, not a moral judgement--nobody can make you deal with your issues. There's truth to the old punchline "the light bulb has to want to change".
Because there is a behavioural component--sometimes including denial--in psychological injury, the injured person may need some external help to get them started. But, even in this case, the injured person is responsible for their own recovery.
Demanding that the world re-arrange itself so that you can continue in your injured condition is NOT dealing with your problem.
Complying with such demands is--on a personal level--classic codependent enabling behaviour, and does not help anybody.
"Codependency" is not meaningful on an institutional level. The harm to the injured person, whether enabled by an individual or an institution, is exactly the same.
Somebody fresh from their injury is likely to emotionally raw to "get out there".
Stay in a safe place and work on your issues: Home. Halfway house. Hospital. Talk to your counsellor. Call your sponsor. Go to a meeting. Have a session with your psychologist. Pray. Meditate. Whatever your program for recovery is, work your program and get your life back. Get yourself ready to go out and live in the world, and then go out there and live.
Somebody who goes out into society and tells everyone "please don't talk about these things because it sets me off" is NOT dealing with their problem.
Rather than doing the painful, humiliating and frightening work on themselves, they're assuming the role of director and staging the world to suit themselves.
Even if it would work for one person (it doesn't), there is more than one psychologically traumatized person in any given place. It's simply not practical to ban everything.
"I was locked in a tiny room. If only there weren't all these closed windows, I wouldn't have panic attacks."
"I was abandoned in a big train station. If only there weren't all these open doors and windows, I wouldn't have panic attacks."
"I'm an alcoholic. If only there wasn't booze everywhere, I wouldn't get drunk."
"I'm a compulsive gambler. If only there weren't internet cafes on every streetcorner, I wouldn't gamble."
"I fought in a war. If only people wouldn't slam doors, I wouldn't have these flashbacks."
If only the world would re-arrange itself to suit my particular trauma, I could be comfortable in the world NOW, instead of after I've worked for my recovery.
Creeper Cards? (Score:3, Funny)
Does anyone have t-shirts with Creeper Cards printed on them? I'll take a size large in black please.
Re: (Score:3)
but how does one not survive
By committing suicide. The suicide rate among victims of rape jumps significantly.
Obviously those phrases are part of a culture the general populace (at least me) is not accustomed to using/hearing,
And it would be really beneficial if people like you and geeks in general were exposed to them.
Rape victims often suffer PTSD. People who suffer PTSD can suffer from things that trigger their PTSD response--like a rape victim who sees a rape scene in a movie, or a veteran who hears f
Re: (Score:2)
> And it would be really beneficial if people like you and geeks in general were exposed to them.
I'd love to, but they're stupid triggers. I have PTSD from dealing with stupid people all day long. I don't need triggering. It's insensitive and hurtful.
Re:language anyone? (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a common aspect of PTSD, and as we become aware of it, it's becoming common in some areas, at least, to warn people of triggers in your essay or blog entry or whatever to give them a chance to duck out.
A well-written essay will do that simply by being an essay. The introductory paragraph will give the reader a clue as to what kind of material follows.
In any case, we can't take all the rape triggers out of society because there will always be another trigger. I have various friends around whom I cannot play specific albums because it's the music to which they were raped. The problem with the idea of trying to avoid triggers is that they are individual-dependent. We all know that depictions or discussions of rape can trigger a reaction in people, at least, all of us who care even a little bit about other humans. But pretty much anything can do that. Maybe the problem isn't the trigger, but the societal surroundings that affect how victims deal with their problems.
Finally, I don't want anyone to believe I'm trying to diminish the actual problem. I was never sexually abused, but I was the target of systematic bullying and violence basically from the day I set foot in Del Mar Middle School, throughout my career at Branciforte Jr. High, and until the day I left Harbor High School. I didn't even get summers off since I was so regularly in summer school. I still sometimes have dreams about it. I can imagine that someone who had been subjected to still worse abuse might have still worse reactions. But I'm pretty sure that suppression of discussion is not the answer. It's just pretending the problems don't exist, and when you do that, you can't address them.
Re: (Score:2)
> while its heart is in the right place
One of the most dangerous creatures in human society is the well-meaning idiot.
Re: (Score:3)
The phrase "harm reduction" is most often used in the context of sex and/or drugs.