response 51 of 470:

Mar 24 02:14 UTC 1996

  The problem misti is that with the "sex" pointer going to AD, noone
bothers to go to sexuality or even knows it exsists.  This goes back to
what I keep saying about the need to "sell" the confs better, find a
better way to present them.  In the absence of such, I dont see much of
a way that a new sex conf is going to do any better.  It needs to be
broader.  Can't call it the "adult" conf because kids will run to that
like flies and the idea is not to have another drift conf, but one 
that can deal with serious discussion of serious issues relating not 
just to sex but to life in general, and problems we deal with everyday
with friends and family.  Things like death, and aging and sickness, and
sex of course, and marriage and the like.  

I remember when Jessica (Maria's) mom died a while back and I thought
it was a shame that there wasnt a conf really suited to discuss things
of such a serious nature.  And it goes for certain sex-related topics too.
It would seem out of place to discuss AIDS in the AD conf, or even
attempt any serious item about birth control for instance.

So, I propose instead of Human Sexuality.....THE HUMAN RELATIONS CONF!
A conference for serious discussion on topical items about human nature
and how we relate as human beings in society and the world.  This wouldnt
be a drift conf by design and would be limited to reasonably serious
discussion about items and events that affect our lives and how we relate
to other people.  

response 53 of 470:

Mar 24 02:24 UTC 1996

Well, lets discuss off-line what our visions for this conference are.  If
they're close enough to the same to synthesized then I'm all for it.

response 55 of 470:

Mar 24 06:26 UTC 1996

I think there are plenty of people who would be attacted to the fact that it
would be limited to serious discussions. While such a limitatino would drive
off some, I'm not sure it wouldn't attract as many or more.

response 57 of 470:

Mar 24 16:58 UTC 1996

        Even on GREX, it'd be tough to pull off a conference with that deep
of a topic.  It helps to give people some fire behind their intellectualism
- religion or controversial advice always does the trick.

response 59 of 470:

Mar 24 21:46 UTC 1996

  The only way it can work better than hsex did is if the nature of 
the conf is broad enough so that sexual issues can be discussed,
but also the other implications of those discussions.  The scope
of human relations would be such that it could encompass all serious
discussion of sexual issues and at the same time not be in competition
with After Dark, and hopefully it would be serious and topical enough
that the temptation to drift into jokes and flirting, which is 
natural when talking about sex, could be avoided.

Valerie, I must say I'm a tad confused.  you say you have hesitation 
about linking your name to a "sex" conf, and here I'm mentioning a better 
name and scope for it that would satisfy your concerns, yet you wouldnt 
want to be a c-fw of a "human relations" conf?  What would you call it 
then and how specifically would you make it work where hsex didnt?  Hsex 
had active fw's limiting discussion to serious things, and it dint work.  
What specifically do you have against changing "human sexuality" to 
"human relations"?  Based on your stated concerns about wanting to call 
it something other than "sexuality", I dont see your objections to this
I also think that some people are interested in talking about topics 
related to sexuality, but dont want to involve themselves in a 
conference called "sex" or "hsex", simply because such a name could 
encourage distasteful discussion.

Anyway, Misti and I have discussed this at length in email and we're ready
attempt this, but Valerie would be better as fw because she knows more
people and I'm convinced some confs work where others dont at times 
because of the popularity of the fw.  However both misti and I view 
fw'ing as a background job, and wouldnt be inclined to force the tone of 
the conf in the way valerie suggested.  

response 61 of 470:

Mar 24 22:21 UTC 1996

  But we dont want a name for it thats going to draw the wrong crowd.  A
name like "bedroom" will draw kids to it like "sex" does, who want to
joke and flirt, and the idea is for the conf to be topical and serious.
But maybe that doesnt matter.  How  'bout Intercourse: The Relations
Conference!  (sorry I couldnt resist)

response 63 of 470:

Mar 24 22:57 UTC 1996

The word sexuality attracts the wrong crowd as much as relationship does.
Human Sexuality never got going because people kept assuming (no matter
how much Selena and, later, I repeated that it wasn't limited to *just*
hormonal release).  Misti, the phrase "grownups talk about sex" or
whatever precisely you used is offensive... it implies that flirting and
talking jovially isn't grown-up.  I think a lot of the continued problems
here is that people are holding to very closed-minded views of sex, love
and relationships (and that wasn't directed to Misti... sorry if it sound
like it was =} ).  

So, it sounds like we'e talking about maintaining the split, but redefining
it?  And having non-overlapping FWs?  And allowing serious discussion in 
the flirt conference, but not allowing flirtatious discussion in the 
serious conference?  All of these sound problematic to me.

At best, we should so broadly redefine the parameters so that it's clear that 
allowed drift in the new Sex conference is of a much difference caliber.
But we're taking humanity's oldest and most controversial topic of 
conversation and trying to make a clear binary split down the middle of it.

What we *don't* talk about in After Dark includes the non-sexual aspects
of relationships, so that might be a foundation.  But even then, I do 
remember items on polyamory, and also possibly on BDSM... *ponders suggesting
"Vanilla Love" as a name for the new conf, then decides against it*

Where were all of you, allegedly interested in serious discussion of 
sex, when there was such a conference available, and how is a new conference
likely to succeed when it looks like it's going to be defined almost 
exactly as Human SExuality was?
That's what's confusing me.

response 65 of 470:

Mar 24 23:17 UTC 1996

How about "life"?

response 67 of 470:

Mar 24 23:53 UTC 1996

 well I still think human relationships, or just "relationships" would
work, and I didnt mean for it to sound like I was proposing a crisis
or therapy conf.  Just that most of what it seems like would be 
discussed are largely the non-physical aspects of sex that would apply
to apply on some levels to any relationships between sentient beings.
Hence, the Human Relations conf...not that I meant that only humans are
sentient of course!  Point is that is HAS to be different than hsex, and
even different than the old sex conf, which also died because most of
the obvious "sex" topics had been discussed and none of the items were
ever re-started.

response 69 of 470:

Mar 25 02:48 UTC 1996

"What is the definition of 'bachelor'?"
        "A man who hasn't thought seriously about getting married."
"No, a man who *has* thought seriously about getting married."

response 71 of 470:

Mar 25 07:48 UTC 1996

I like some derivation of Partners...
although it still leaves out issues of celibates... or does it?

response 73 of 470:

Mar 25 19:57 UTC 1996

Partners sounds fine to me.  Especially if we subtitle it something like 
Human Relationships and Gender Issues.  OK?