I'm not trying to defend the behavior described in the article, I'm just saying that men act like that because it works.
If you haven't noticed that different women want different things, and are attracted to different kinds of guys, that might explain why you have trouble telling the difference between flirtatious give-and-take, and one-sided harassment. Or for that matter, the difference between assertive but respectful self-confidence, and blind aggression.
"when the girl is attracted to the guy, it's flirting, but when she isn't, it's creepy/sexual harassment"
How about if we correct that to: "when the girl responds positively to the guy, and he keeps going, it's flirting, but when she responds negatively (or tries to avoid him) and he keeps going anyway, it's creepy/sexual harassment".
Never underestimate the power of generalization. Women are shorter than men. Women are slower than men. Women are physically weaker than men. These generalizations allow for individual exceptions, of course, but they are true in an important statistical sense. They allow us to predict that, for example, most top basketball players, powerlifters, and sprinters will be men. Indeed, it's no coincidence that the recently completed Olympics had separate competitions not only for physically disabled athletes (the Paralympics), but also for women. They could not in general compete otherwise.
Returning to your point, I doubt you really believe that it's meaningless to talk in terms of "what women want". Despite variation in individual tastes, in general women are attracted to charming, confident men. Moreover, I'm sure you could add a few more adjectives to that list. QED.
How about if we correct that to: "when the girl responds positively to the guy, and he keeps going, it's flirting, but when she responds negatively (or tries to avoid him) and he keeps going anyway, it's creepy/sexual harassment".
I wish you were right. Much of the time, men have no slack in this regard—in today's hypersensitive environment, it's often "one strike and you're out". The costs of being accused of sexual harassment are high, while the costs of making false accusations are low; this leads to predictable results.
It took me a long time to realize this because I didn't have very good data to work from--I didn't have a large set of observations of interactions between men and women, and out of those I did have there were very few instances of harassment. It seemed to me that based on the complaints of harassment vs. the small number of cases I'd witnessed, the problem must be that women were choosing to call normal behavior harassment when it was unwelcome. Which I think is your argument. But I've realized that that's not the case. The kinds of harassment being complained of are not borderline cases. In most of the recent cases I've read about (Readercon, etc) the harasser was explicitly told to stop at least once. That is not ambiguous, and it's not based on the perception of the person being harassed.
I guess what I want to say really is, 'stop feeling threatened by this.' If you are a person with even a barely-functioning social instinct, and recognize and respect when someone feels uncomfortable in a situation, there is only a microscopic chance that anything you do will be misinterpreted as harassment. And if you do say something that someone interprets as sexist, the first response will simply be to call you out on it. That's a conversation it's ok to have if you're confused, 'I'm sorry; I didn't mean to offend you. Could you tell me what about what I said bothered you?' Again, if you're a person with a basic social instinct, you will prefer to modify your behavior in small ways to make the people around you comfortable. If you truly feel someone is being unreasonable, just avoid them.
No, it most certainly does not. There is a big difference between being confident and showing leadership, and groping strangers in public.
And the "agressive, alpha male" (which is a term that I hate, by the way) persona doesn't work for everyone, either. I know plenty of women for whom that's a huge turn off.
> It's almost as if when the girl is attracted to the guy, it's flirting, but when she isn't, it's creepy/sexual harassment.
It's creepy and harassment if it's creepy and harassment. You can flirt without grabbing someone's crotch, without trying to lick them without permission. There are also more appropriate venues for flirting, and less appropriate venues. At a hacker conference, people are generally more interested in talking about hacking and less about flirting; and in particular, there are many women there who will already feel a little ill at ease and marginalized due to how few of them there are relative to the men, who might not take kindly to many people treating them more as a potential date than a peer. At a singles bar? Flirting is probably more appropriate.
And yes, there is a certain degree to which some behavior will be interpreted as flirtation by some people and creepy by others. To avoid that, it's good to try to cultivate a certain sense of self-awareness, and when in doubt, err on the side of not being creepy.
Even if I were trying to pick someone up at a conference, I'd talk about hacking, engage their interests, ask them what they are working on, etc. Intellectual flattery.
Physically, I'd be cool. If, after some time, the woman initiated some innocuous physical contact (shoulder & arm touching, for example), I would not reciprocate in kind. No, I would reciprocate with more platonic interest. This might be slightly disappointing at first, but it would build trust. Physical reciprocity only later, like a long-delayed echo.
Really, the physical stuff is entirely dispensable in the courtship phase. So is any kind of sexual innuendo. Keep it cerebral, boys. Ask questions, listen.
But, I'm not looking to pick anyone up.
Theres this myth that men who are assholes succeed with women. I suppose they do technically succeed - in getting women with low self esteem to sleep with them through manipulation and "pickup artist" techniques. But how successful do you think they are at finding a truly fulfilling and meaningful relationships? How successful do you think they are with bright, intelligent, worthwhile women who have their act together. You really think those women are walking away from defcon wishing they met some guy who "negged" them, and physically forced himself on them?
As someone said already, theres a huge difference between being an aggressive asshole and being assertive. The asshole licks a random womans tattoo to start a conversation. The asshole grabs a womans crotch and hides in a crowd. The assertive guy decides to start a conversation with a woman he thinks is interesting, and if hes at all socially aware he knows when shes uninterested in continuing to talk and he moves on.
The line that shouldn't be crossed is being an asshole that sexually assaults women, its really not that blurry.
"How successful do you think they are with bright, intelligent, worthwhile women who have their act together."
This trope is bullshit. People who respond to methods that you disapprove of are somehow less worthy people? Where's your evidence for this? This sort of insult shouldn't be any more welcome than the behavior this thread is supposed to be about.
Here's the thing, plenty of the guys lamenting don't know what a fulfilling and meaningful relationship IS, therefore they conflate an abusive one they can't have with what they should have.
Yep, and that makes it incredibly hard to be a guy. You're almost "damned if you do, damned if you don't" when it comes to flirting and initiating things. Unfortunately, it's almost impossible to know - in advance - how someone is going to react.
That said, there is a line somewhere, of behavior that is never appropriate towards someone that you don't already have an established relationship with. Asking a random female (or male, for that matter) to "come up to my room for a pillowfight" is just stupid in almost every conceivable context.
Appreciate how privileged you are when your worry isn't "i hope some random man doesn't try to grab my ass" but instead "how am i supposed to know if this random woman wants me to grab her ass?". Is it really that difficult to be a guy? Is the line of sexual harassment (especially in the context of the articles examples) really that hard to figure out?
I'm willing to believe that maybe some of these men simply do not understand the difference between confidence and assertiveness and straight-up sexual harassment. If the guys are truly ignorant to the rudeness of their actions, the red/yellow/green card should have a very positive effect.
That said, not all women will automatically assume you are creepy just because they are not attracted to you.
It is not hard to be a man if you just act polite but still purposive <sarcasm>just don't try to fondle her before you said "hi".</sarcasm>
I know it is neither easy nor fun, especially if there are social phobias involved, but it is definitely not hard to be a guy trying to flirt with a women. Maybe uncomfortable, but rumors are, that women who try to flirt with a man have the exact same problems.
http://captainawkward.com/2012/08/11/the-c-word/
Hopefully this read will clear some stuff up. You need to lose the victim complex.
That's because it's a personal, relationship kind of thing. Your behavior depends partly on the other person. There is no single set of rules that will cover all people, all circumstances, all the time. (For "polite company" or formal gatherings there are of course protocols. But at a party, it's much more individual and personal.)
Women (and men) are attracted to assertive behavior, not aggressive behavior. Huge difference.
(that said I will never understand nor defend the scenarios depicted in the article)
Broad, broad strokes.
I won't say that you're wrong, because I have absolutely no evidence to back it up, but I know that it isn't true 100% of the time. So, if you behave that way, you run the very real risk of offending x% of women that are not attracted to aggressive men. It is most definitely not a universal rule, and I've had success with women by talking to them like a normal person, and attempting (probably failing, perhaps endearingly so) to be charming and funny. It just seems like a better option.
There's also the other issue of hitting on people at professional conferences, which seems like it's a terrible idea.
DON'T TRY TO HIT ON WOMEN AT CONFERENCES OR OTHER BUSINESS/PROFESSIONAL ENVIRONMENTS AT ALL. PERIOD.
There is no shortage of more appropriate times and places we can test our theories about alpha male behavior, aggressiveness or what have you. Hell, some venues are specifically intended for such endeavors! Use them!
But that is in itself IS a generalization. I have family members and best friends who met their SO's at conferences or in professional environments. Or you can look at famous people who met their SO's working on the same project.
The vast, vast majority of the time people react differently to the same actions depending on the source of the actions. You do it, I do it, everyone you know does it. Why is it only a "double standard" when women do it?
There's nothing wrong with flirting with women, if they aren't interested then they can be quite clear about it - the problem is that some peoples idea of flirting is creepy and borders on harassment.
Try not making sweeping statements about what women do and don't like, and work from there. PS, it's not all about sex.
The creepy label is not about "some guy who isn't attractive to me is flirting with me". It is about "some guy keeps flirting/making advances even though I am not interested". And before the standard replies start cropping up:
* I am not a particularly attractive male
* I am not a mind reader
* I am not some sort of atypical nerd with "great natural social skills too"
* I am not just ignorant of what is said behind my back.
Basically, if you want to flirt without risking creepy, keep a few things in mind:
* Learn to understand non-verbal communication, it is 90% of flirting.
* Never (at first anyway) be overly direct. This is a 2 person mutual decision/consent game. At no point should you make the other person feel they have no input into the direction of interaction. Always start flirting subtle, because it respects the other person's right to reciprocate or disengage without confrontation or needing to defend them-self.
* It is ok if they aren't interested. It doesn't make you a creep in their mind, you being a creep makes that happen. Just back off as soon as you are aware of disinterest (see first bullet), continued flirtation after disinterest is communicated is what gets people the creep label.
* There are appropriate times and places for flirtation. Outside of that, creep label is a high probability. Learn these :)
I guess all of this is to say: being creepy isn't about flirting when a woman isn't attracted, it's about not following the socially OK norms of flirting and not respecting the rejection)
Final note: some women do just label guys who flirt creeps, just as some men label all women outside of church as "whores". They are not the norm, and don't worry about it, some people are just different, or hurt, or whatever, but it doesn't make their reality your reality.
I've heard this line many times, and it makes sense on the surface, but "flirting" isn't a singular act. Even if a girl isn't into a guy, a guy can introduce himself and start a conversation without coming off as creepy. If she's into him, then maybe things will progress to flirting, but if she's not, that's when the guy should get the signal to not be creepy and push something that is unwelcome.
Anyway, the whole alpha male debate is besides the point. Also, I think you're confusing aggressiveness with not being a complete wimp. I often see women being attracted to dominant, strong, self-confident guys. Aggressive ones? Not so much.
"It's almost as if when the girl is attracted to the guy, it's flirting, but when she isn't, it's creepy/sexual harassment."
Almost? Oh really?
> the fact is that men who behave aggressively are the ones who succeed in sexual pursuits most often.
I have myself seen the so called "bad boy" attitude succeed in a number of situations in real life. This just gives wrong signal to other men. The so called double standard has no easy solution. Or an easy way to recognize it either. It's one of those things that exist and no one either knows about it or doesn't talk about it.
I hate sexual harassment as much as the next guy/girl. But the line between sexual harassment and being aggressive is vary blurry. It's not black and white, it's rather subjective. What may be harassment for one person may not necessarily be so for others. I believe it is not intentional all of the time. What people need to know is to know the boundaries. Understand what is not apparent/obvious.
Those "bad boys" are interesting in ways that you are not.
Still, who cares if you get the girl? You're not entitled to date any/every woman. You do not get to because you want to.
If it worked, why did any of the women complain? Why didn't they swoon and drop their pants and beg to be taken on the spot? Because it doesn't work.
Not being an awkward schlump is attractive. Being an asshole is not so much.
http://www.heartless-bitches.com/rants/niceguys/niceguys.sht...
Interesting thought. I'm wondering if there has every been a study or even one of those TV shows to prove out that point.
It would seem to be fairly easy to setup with some "honeypots" and a group of males to see what happens with each behavior. Or simply a group of women with male actors playing the role of aggressive males.
Of course it all depends on the parties involved. But I know they've done similar non-scientific things even with hair color and found blond woman asking questions in central park in NYC get more attention than brunettes.
Showing someone you like them and then gauging their reaction takes balls -- but showing someone you like them, and then ignoring their rejection, is rather weak. Needy even. That those brutes delude themselves into thinking that's top notch alpha male behaviour is one thing -- but if you're shy yourself, don't buy into it. Some women like assholes; most don't. Being bold and maybe even cheeky is one thing, but only the weak seek outright dominance. (Which goes for females who like to play games, too; same cause, different course of action).
How common is this behavior at bars in general, independent from a hacker con?
Also: some of the girls that I know who are hackers are offended at the idea of red/yellow cards. The implication there seems to be that they're helpless, and need somebody to swoop in and save them.
That, at least to some of my girl friends, is utter bullshit, and is blatantly sexist against women.
--
And to be completely honest, the red/yellow card thing has already become a flirtatious joke among people.
I think it'd be helpful to identify why this problem exists in the tech field. Is there a chicken and egg situation where more women in tech would solve these problems, but something about tech prevents more women getting involved?
People who already have power do not need props and schemes, because, well, they have power. I know that if I grab my boss’s crotch during a meeting and he says ”you have thirty seconds to convince me not to fire your sorry ass right now”, every witness to the event and everybody above him in the corporate hierarchy will back him up.
A man tempted to do the same thing to a woman less powerful than himself does not have the same assurance that he will suffer consequences for his bad behavior, and you can’t just create that sense of assurance by fiat. (As the Readercon debacle indicated, even written policies are no guarantee.) So people of good will are still trying to figure out how to hack the social environment to achieve a better culture, and until the rules of that culture become second nature to us all, then those social hacks will seem like, well, hacks.
Like Hollaback, this is a very imperfect, but apparently effective solution. I appreciate your appeals to straw Feminism, but "women should react the same as men to every situation to 'prove' they are strong" is not it, it's a mess of privileged assumptions.
I agree that the props idea is stupid, but men do have things differently. Men don't have to resort to using crazy schemes largely because women overwhelmingly don't approach men. And men who are sexually or physically assaulted by women have a significant fear of being ridiculed by society for not fighting back (or in the case of sexual assault, enjoying it).
I've worked mostly in corporate environments. If I had to characterize a type that was in need of sensitivity training, it usually wasn't the tech guys, it was the "business" type (marketing, finance). Of course that's just my experience.
Do you think some of those women would be willing to post here? There's nothing that says that women can't hand out these cards. Or that they can't be handed out to dudes harassing dudes.
EDIT: The cards don't seem to be gender specific, though it is implied that they will be mainly used by females.
This. Very much this. The formula is simple: Get a bunch of people drunk, and the lecherous ones will come out of the woodwork. This is not a problem unique to any particular field. In fact, I would go as far as to say this is a non-problem. If you can't deal with it, then stop choosing to hang out in bars.
Often, it is the women who cry the loudest, that crave and seek out the kind of negative attention described here, so that they can boast about their own attractiveness to other females, while pretending to be disgusted.
There are many more severe forms of oppression, that deserve our attention more than this.
Finally, women in our society are socialized to be nice, to not make waves, to get along. Maybe you don't like that, but you can't just make decades of socialization that millions of people have undergone disappear because you don't like it.
Because you just want to get out of there as fast as possible and escalating into violence is likely just going to draw it out?
Because you're afraid bystanders will take his side and you'll be seen as the aggressor?
Because there's a lot of cultural pressure for women to ignore sexual harassment and you don't want to "rock the boat" that badly?
Or how about because these are grown men and women in an at least semi-professional environment and the idea that they should have to resort to violence to solve their problems is completely fucking absurd?
No. If you assault me, guess what's happening? I'm going to hit you in the fucking face, and most of the people here, since we're, you know, a community are going to physically remove you from the area.
Edit: if this wasn't clear, the "I" in this story is would be my female friends.
Still I'm sure some people will abuse this system like any system and lets face it the audience will not exactly be angels in not abusing any form of system. Lets face it, in Football it's not exactly perfect. Unless all events are video'd to death and can be verified then it is abusable. That said how long until somebody does a erect nipple/penis video recognition system, scary thoughts on many levels.
Today red cards, tomorrow video survalence and full location tracking with all your comminications monitored so you can be at a event were people complain about privacy.
There again I thought sexual harrasment was a against the law and that carries more weight than any token scoring system that trivialises the offence.Yes, they are. Its just that any one isolated indecent of disapproval doesn't get much attention compared to incidents of scum. I'm not saying the levels of scum are acceptable, just that there is a disparity in which encounters get shared.
The disapproval needs more mindshare, and thats why I think it was a smart move that defcon staff embraced the red/yellow cards. Nobody is really going to walk around telling everyone about the time they saw a guy tell another guy to knock it off. The cards on the other hand, they had plenty of people talking.
On the whole though, we tend to look out for our own. Stories like this: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3043545&cid=4096... and this: http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3043545&cid=4096... tend to be much of my 1st hand experience, the worst I know of first hand are people that don't known any better than to stare at someones tits.
One of the problems isn't lack of disapproval. It's being instantly prepared to confront the situation in a way that's helpful and effective. When I'm just going about my business, seeing something egregiously wrong often leaves me speechless for a bit. It'd be great to have these in my wallet to whip out and say, "Dude, yellow card!"
Personally I find the "just say something to them" approach to be far _less_ confrontational, you can do it discretely and one on one or perhaps just the small local group hears it. Handing someone a bright red/yellow card in what is likely a crowded area creates a spectacle. Many others know what is occurring, lots of pointing and whispering occurs, etc. This puts the receiver in a much more confrontational mindset especially if the receiver feels they did nothing wrong, now they don't have to defend themselves to you alone but to anyone within vision of the hand off, how would the receiver do that without really causing a scene?
Of course. An agreed structure around confrontation reduces the barriers and makes the whole thing easier. That's true of most interactions, not just confrontation.
I'm sure some trolls would be excited by the challenge. But I think these will often serve the purpose of letting somebody know that they have very clearly crossed a line and causing to think about their behavior.
Its a party with technical talks to listen to while you pre-game.
Once the talks are over there are defcon sponsored concerts, a handful of events at the conference venue, and events aimed at defcon attendees all over town.
Sure there are talks, but kids don't run away from home to attend Black Hat Briefings.
So that changes the situation where some people don't want to be grabbed/touched/propositioned?
I'm just asking if the problem is the conference, or the parties, or if they're indistinguishable. The OP says that this boorish and unacceptable behavior is stopping women from attending the conference. And that it doesn't happen at other hacker conferences.
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2012/08/sexual_harassm...
DefCon is a party.
The computer security industry has its own special problems. There is a very significant segment of the population that has "do whatever you can get away with" as their mantra and have built up significant antibodies against any criticism thanks to a large crowd of enablers.
Who was the last person who was shunned from the community for his behavior and/or actions?
"GSF1 is one of the most common fallacies, and one of the most deeply held. Many geeks have had horrible, humiliating, and formative experiences with ostracism, and the notion of being on the other side of the transaction is repugnant to them."
If you think being bullied and abused removes the possibility of them feeling comfortable being bullies and abusers, you have issues with reality.
Adrian Lamo's reputation has certainly taken a hit.
You could have replaced those two terms and ended up with the same article. Perhaps the problem isn't just a nerd demographic issue.
A culture which supposedly prides itself on merit and intelligence at first glance ought to be most receptive to actually picking up a book and studying social issues, but the reality is instead that we get a social group full of men's right's advocates and evopsych true-believers and other terrible terrible people.
Please cite your statistics. edit: Statistics that the geek culture provides a "more welcoming home" than society at large. I'm not disagreeing with the fact there are society-wide issues, I'd just like you to back up that particular assertion about geek culture.
>A culture which supposedly prides itself on merit and intelligence at first
This is a hacker convention. Not a thing-PG-recontextualized-hacker-as convention.
>the reality is instead that we get a social group full of men's right's advocates and evopsych true-believers and other terrible terrible people.
The broad brushes with which you paint are not helping. Laying inaccurate generalizations like this on the very people in positions to help solve the problem disenchants and disinterests them.
Seriously?
I know lots of really interesting people, male and female, who would stay home rather than put up with that treatment. Let's keep the interesting people, and revoke the badges of the weirdo predators who can't keep their tongues to themselves.
This is one of the stupidest and wrong-headed comments I've ever seen in my life. I'd like to understand more about how someone arrives at such a polluted worldview.
Can you tell me a bit about your upbringing, friendships and romantic relationships? I'd like to understand why a few women being mean to you means that 50% of humanity should go fuck itself and tolerate intolerable behavior.
Thanks in advance for any insight you can provide.
And by the way, if that was woman groping some man and putting her mouth on on him without permission - noone would care. Simply speaking - sexism works both ways.
Ugh! Words fail me.
This on the other hand... wow, just wow. It's sexual harassment, no question about it, and should be dealt with and punished as such.
Step in when it's one of your friends doing the harassing. Let them know they're being immature and inappropriate. People respond a lot more when it's someone in their peer group.
I'm sure a lot of people have let a lot of stuff like the above slide because "Oh that's just FooBar. He's always like that".
When someones health, life or well being is on the line. I have seen too many women starting / acting scenes just to make some white knight to intervene. There was research where in public woman was being assaulted/abused by man and everyone intervened. Then they switched it around - NOONE CARED.
Besides, feminism was claiming how strong and able to defend themselves women are. So by interjecting you are being SEXIST.
Quand il s'agit de tromperie,
de duperie,
de volerie,
il est toujours bon, sur ma foi,
d'avoir les femmes avec soi.
Et sans elles,
mes toutes belles,
on ne fait jamais rien de bien!
EDIT: That is overcompensation for a lonely sausage-fest life. This is why gay engineer's lives are better than yours:
He's a total skiddie, though, so what you're saying makes sense.
We often claim to be one of the purest of meritocracies, since our primary interactions only allow us to interact with each other's work and emails/posts, but clearly we aren't quite as capable of this meritocracy as is commonly stated. I wonder how much differently these women are treated online as opposed to in person when interacting with the same people.
If the yellow-red card system does catch on, I would prefer to see the green card avoided. I don't know if it really adds anything to the system, and I worry that it would detract from people understanding what they did wrong. "I got a green card, but also a yellow card. I'm still good to women though, that second chick was just a crazy bitch." It seems like it gives people a way to justify their bad deeds with other good deeds.
However people attempt to do it, it would be lovely to see this kind of behavior weeded out, as it provides both a point of hypocrisy and isolation that benefits no one.
http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/08/09/an-incomplete-guide-to...
You just have to remember with advances that when in doubt, take a step back. You wouldn't grab someone you weren't attracted to from behind right? If your planned chat up didn't work, so what? You came for the tech not the women right?
And blokes, lets please keep out of "its so hard for men too". Sure, men get sexually assaulted, it's a real problem. In my city its nearly as likely for men as women, but here's the key. Do you feel safe at conferences? I do, but it seems lots of women don't.
Let's make everyone feel safe and valued at all our events.
Next, imagine your sister/mother/fiance was the girl at the bar who got licked or had her crotch grabbed. How would that make you feel?
I'll never understand how anyone can defend this sort of behavior... I used to volunteer at the women's center on my college campus... if you heard half the experiences most of these women go through on a regular basis maybe you'd learn some empathy.
How would you feel if some guy started cat calling you as you walked home at night? How about while you walk to the store? Now imagine this happening on a regular basis.
I think the correct way to deal with harrasment is those who partake are either simply banned from the con or dealt with more severely depending on the conduct, and those who behave simply continue enjoying the benefits of conferencing with like-minded individuals of all genders and backgrounds.
I've flirted at one of the evening events after the talks - after hanging around the person for several hours and spending some time one-on-one. And I had no intention of doing so when I first met them. No way would I do that under any other circumstances.
If you're interested in someone you meet at a conference, you need to be extremely cautious and not expect that the other person shares your interest. Probably it is best to offer personal contact information in addition to professional and see what comes of it rather than pursuing the matter at the conference itself. Let them decide how to contact you.
Hitting on someone at a party or bar during the conference might be in bad taste but as long as the pursuer takes no for an answer it's not what I would call sexual harassment. However if it happened repeatedly from multiple people I would get fed up and leave.
Hitting on someone at the conference proper when the focus should be technical is insulting and completely inappropriate. +1 on calling the pursuer a pervert.
And the conference organizers and presenters need to be held to a higher standard. They should not encourage or engage in sexual behavior even if it's a social event.
Intentional, uninvited physical contact is right out and should not be tolerated under any circumstances. The instigator should be kicked out no matter what.
I have been attending DefCon since DCIV and I've had my share of confrontations with drunk idiots who think their flirting methods are acceptable. A well worded put-down almost always keeps these guys at bay. A well placed arm-bar or knee typically takes care of the rest. I played Vanna Vinyl at Hacker Jeopardy for three years (and Beer Betty once). I had hordes of guys asking me for photo-ops when I was all dolled-up for HJ. 99% of them didn't recognise me during the day when I was in shorts and a tshirt w/no make-up.
I love DefCon and have no intention on not attending until DT calls it quits. It's the one week out of the year that I get to spend with my friends and adopted from all over the world. DefCon has never been a "professional" conference. It's a hacker convention/weekend long, cut-loose party with talks. (There are talks at DefCon? ;) If you want professionalism, attend the BH conference the week prior.
However they deal with it at bars is how they should deal with it here.
1. Be Handsome 2. Be Attractive 3. Don't Be Unattractive