Slashdot Mirror


RSA Conference Bans "Booth Babes"

netbuzz writes In what may be a first for the technology industry, RSA Conference 2015 next month apparently will be bereft of a long-controversial trade-show attraction: "booth babes." New language in its exhibitor contract, while not using the term 'booth babe," leaves no doubt as to what type of salesmanship RSA wants left out of its event. Says a conference spokeswoman: "We thought this was an important step towards making all security professionals feel comfortable and equally respected during the show." Easier at a venue like RSA; the annual Consumer Electronics Show, not so much.

326 comments

  1. Bummer by Holi · · Score: 4, Funny

    Whats the use in going now?

    --
    Sorry, teleporters just kill you and then make a copy. A perfect, soul-less copy.
    1. Re:Bummer by gstoddart · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Well, playing spot the fed can still be fun, as would setting up fake hotspots and phishing people.

      It's a security conference, which means tons of targets with no clue about security. ;-)

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    2. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I dunno, I usually like going to conventions so people can try to sell me things. Its like having a flashing "solicitors welcome" sign in front of my house.

    3. Re:Bummer by amiga3D · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually they can still have booth babes they just need to look professional. Personally a beautiful woman tastefully dressed is more of a turn on than the slutty look anyway.

    4. Re:Bummer by prefec2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For the conference? If you only go for the women, then you should visit other venues which are better suited for staring at women.

    5. Re:Bummer by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "Slutty"? How dare you prescribe how other people should dress and feel about themselves...

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    6. Re:Bummer by grimmjeeper · · Score: 0

      So you're trying to suggest they don't hire booth babes to be stared at?

    7. Re:Bummer by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I didn't prescribe, I described.

    8. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      How dare you put a negative connotation on "slutty".

    9. Re:Bummer by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1, Troll

      Personally a beautiful woman tastefully dressed is more of a turn on than the slutty look anyway.

      Then that will have to be banned as well. All you get is overweight, butch lesbians in flannel shirts, sweatpants and Birkenstocks! And if that turns you on, they'll switch over to information kiosks narrated by an asexual monotone computer. And if that turns you on, well, I don't know what they'll do.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    10. Re:Bummer by MisterSquid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually they can still have booth babes they just need to look professional. Personally a beautiful woman tastefully dressed is more of a turn on than the slutty look anyway.

      I know you mean well, but you're completely missing the point.

      --
      blog
    11. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And how dare you for not letting a person have their own opinion, and the freedom to express it.

    12. Re:Bummer by Talderas · · Score: 0

      All you get is overweight, butch lesbians in flannel shirts, sweatpants and Birkenstocks!

      What man wouldn't want to behold the power of his dick turning a lesbian straight, or at least bisexual?

      And if that turns you on, they'll switch over to information kiosks narrated by an asexual monotone computer.

      I'm sure someone is turned on by that.

      And if that turns you on, well, I don't know what they'll do.

      Gelatinous cubes. Because that's basically acid... on your dick. Who wants that?

      --
      "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
    13. Re:Bummer by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 4, Funny

      How dare you oppress me and my right as a man to be slutty.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    14. Re:Bummer by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually they can still have booth babes they just need to look professional. Personally a beautiful woman tastefully dressed is more of a turn on than the slutty look anyway.

      I know you mean well, but you're completely missing the point.

      He missed the point, but he did not mean well. That's why we can't have nice things.

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    15. Re:Bummer by eepok · · Score: 3, Interesting

      He's missing the point and still explaining an issue.

      RSA doesn't want to promote the objectification of women any more.
      Vendors are still willing to objectify women to have a chance at winning business.

      So, let's say that hire and train those who would otherwise be hired as booth babes so that they're useful temporary representatives of products and companies. Let's say they show up dressed in business or business casual attire. And let's say a man goes to one of these conferences, see a beautiful woman, finds out she's a knowledgeable associate in the industry, and continues to ogle her for her secondary sexual characteristics while she convinces him to try some products.

      Is any wrong done? If so, are you saying that attractive women are not allowed to represent a company or product?

    16. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Actually, if you were a gay man, the liberal left would run to defend your sexuality.
      Same goes if you're a woman, gay or straight.
      Only heterosexual white males have to defend themselves against misandrists.

    17. Re:Bummer by jcr · · Score: 4, Funny

      All you get is overweight, butch lesbians in flannel shirts, sweatpants and Birkenstocks!

      But that triggers me.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    18. Re:Bummer by amiga3D · · Score: 2

      I got the point but....men are men and most men are turned on by women. I've worked with beautiful or even just not ugly women and I was never once unaware that they were women. I treated them with respect and acted professional but often it took some real self control. People selling or promoting things are aware of this fact and will take advantage of it. Some men have less self control and their brain will almost totally shut down which does make this practice worthwhile.

    19. Re:Bummer by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      So, let's say that hire and train those who would otherwise be hired as booth babes so that they're useful temporary representatives of products and companies. Let's say they show up dressed in business or business casual attire.

      Blasphemy!

      Seriously, when you first went to one of these conferences, wasn't your first assumption to walk up to them and ask about the vendor's product; and then when they didn't know anything about it, say to yourself, "Why would they just come here and hang around at a vendor's booth when they can't talk to people about the product? Couldn't they get paid just as well doing something less stultifying?"

    20. Re:Bummer by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Maybe he thinks he can change human nature. Women don't really even have to be all that attractive to have an effect on men. Just the right personality and a sweet smile can do wonders to a man. Yes, I know she is not going to blow me but really I'm happy just to be in the same room with someone who's very presence works on the pleasure centers of my brain. I doubt it would cause me to buy a product but it will cause me to listen to what she has to say.

    21. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why not have a 50/50 ratio of booth hunks to booth babes? Covers most sexual orientations!

    22. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You missed the point.

      Hot chicks rule and white knights and sandy vag man-haters suck

    23. Re:Bummer by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

      All you get is overweight, butch lesbians in flannel shirts, sweatpants and Birkenstocks!

      But that triggers me.

      Sorry, should have put up a warning first. But that leads to another question: is it the actual overweight, butch lesbians in flannel shirts, sweatpants and Birkenstocks that trigger you, or seeing the phrase "overweight, butch lesbians in flannel shirts, sweatpants and Birkenstocks" in writing that triggers you. And if so, how would you give a trigger warning for that?

      --
      Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
    24. Re:Bummer by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Obviously what they'd need to do is take a poll of attendees ahead of time, and then revise the rules to something that doesn't turn anyone on.

      To prevent lying on the poll, a polygraph would have to be involved.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    25. Re:Bummer by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      You do understand it's because they're jealous?

    26. Re:Bummer by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Actually they can still have booth babes they just need to look professional. Personally a beautiful woman tastefully dressed is more of a turn on than the slutty look anyway.

      I know you mean well, but you're completely missing the point.

      You beat me to it. I was going to ask "What part of 'turn on' did you not understand?"

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    27. Re:Bummer by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      > Vendors are still willing to objectify women to have a chance at winning business.

      ...and certain women are willing to be objectified (at least a little bit) for money.

      > If so, are you saying that attractive women are not allowed to represent a company or product?

      That appears to be the case, yes. No fun allowed here.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    28. Re:Bummer by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

      No, I don't.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    29. Re:Bummer by Krishnoid · · Score: 4, Funny

      they'll switch over to information kiosks narrated by an asexual monotone computer. And if that turns you on, well, I don't know what they'll do.

      If that happens, you'll have passed Turing's other test.

    30. Re:Bummer by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Personally a beautiful woman tastefully dressed is more of a turn on than the slutty look anyway.

      I guess it's different because I pay for conferences out of my own pocket, but I'm not going to go to all the hassle and expense of attending an Expo to waste my time at a vendor booth which spends its marketing dollars on objectifying women. The women may be there of their own free will and the whole arrangement may be perfectly morally straight (for the sake of argument), but the vendor is clearly disrespecting its customers' intelligence, and that itself makes me feel uncomfortable and want to avoid their booth.

      Each time I've experienced the 'booth babe' phenomenon, never once did any of them know what an ARP reply was or how many key exchanges TLS modes use. This isn't a matter of nerd-quiz, it's that talking to them serves no purpose for why I go to an expo.

      While several I've encountered have been both nice and pretty, I never once imagined that I was going to scurry off to a corner to make out with one or that they might suddenly provide useful product information, so a polite smile, the briefest of small-talk to let them know that I value them as a human being, and a thank-you and I was on to the next booth to talk to a sales engineer. Did the booth-babe vendor have something useful to sell me? Maybe, but I only have so much time, and this wasn't why I was there. I don't care if the sales engineer has a spare tire and a scraggly mustache, because I'm not there to make out with him (or her) either.

      That booth babes is a thing tells me a few things: 1) target customers don't get to talk to pretty women much unless they're being paid (Jesus people, try being kind and friendly for a change) 2) target customers are mostly there blowing their employers' budgets on a half-assed vacation and don't really care about the cost or value, and 3) they probably play the Lottery and go to strip clubs too, for all their investment is worth (but I guess they have nothing better to do).

      There would be no booth babes if they didn't provide value, and that they do is an indictment of the crowd attending. RSA might be putting up a roadblock, but the industry only needs to look itself in the mirror if it wants to find someone to blame. Stop being creepy and get a girlfriend, people.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    31. Re:Bummer by aevan · · Score: 1

      Because a highly attractive suave man working a both scares off male customers, making them feel inferior, intimidated and oppressed, afraid to ask questions or draw a..

    32. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The problem is that if the hiring criteria includes "must be hot" then a lot of otherwise talented applicants are excluded. It's even worse if it's "must be female".

    33. Re:Bummer by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      The point is not to get rid of anything that might be too exciting or alluring. The point is that sales and marketing people should be professional at a professional conference. There are plenty of auxillary magazines available if you are missing the cleavage.

    34. Re:Bummer by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Described what? Like this? "Esp. of a woman: sexually promiscuous or provocative, esp. in a manner regarded as vulgar or distasteful.". So you're injecting your subjective views into what looks mean and attaching a value judgement into that. How is saying that someone looks distasteful not prescribing is beyond me.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    35. Re:Bummer by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I didn't, my dictionary did.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    36. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3

      Congrats, you are officially overly PC. It's people like you that prolong gender in equality. There are societally accepted standards of dress and you damn well know that. You just choose to pick on words which YOU prescribe a stigma and try to brow beat everyone into thinking like you. A man can dress slutty. So can a women. It doesn't make them sluts. It doesn't make they ANYTHING but dressed slutty, in so far as the locally accepted definition of that word. In America it means something different than say in Egypt. None the less, it's just a word. We have standards of dress for business casual and business professional too because people need a simple way to describe a complex topic. Get over yourself. You're only making things worse.

    37. Re:Bummer by sexconker · · Score: 0

      Described what? Like this? "Esp. of a woman: sexually promiscuous or provocative, esp. in a manner regarded as vulgar or distasteful.". So you're injecting your subjective views into what looks mean and attaching a value judgement into that. How is saying that someone looks distasteful not prescribing is beyond me.

      Are you really going to the dictionary to dig up "describe" but not doing the same for "prescribe"?
      Why? Because you're fucking wrong, perhaps?

    38. Re:Bummer by Gliscameria · · Score: 1, Troll

      Seriously. Sluts are awesome.

      --
      X
    39. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm Female and I want to see Hot Men. (And boobies.)

    40. Re:Bummer by Livius · · Score: 1

      I didn't prescribe, I described.

      Well, you inferred, but odds are your inference was pretty reliable.

    41. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) target customers don't get to talk to pretty women much unless they're being paid (Jesus people, try being kind and friendly for a change)

      In rebuttal:
      1) When I try being kind and friendly to pretty women, I get ignored (or worse, get called a "creep").
      2) I don't shop at Target

    42. Re: Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Throw in some barn animals and that should cover the rest.

    43. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Gelatinous cubes. Because that's basically acid... on your dick. Who wants that?

      I can think of some pretty popular Japanese monmusume porn.

    44. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      well they haven't banned the hookers and blackjack yet!

    45. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Neither. It triggers an erection. Because we always want what we can't have...

    46. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Prefec2 is suggesting a more efficient venue.

    47. Re: Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jesus, most of males are such idiots: imagine if someone wanted to turn you gay using the power of his dick ?

    48. Re: Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But it's the same with women !!!

    49. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Booth dudes?

    50. Re:Bummer by Trogre · · Score: 1

      I can't tell if you're joking or not.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    51. Re:Bummer by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      It's a descriptive dictionary. It reflects how people use the word, based on copious surveys of usage. Thus, it reflects the highest probability estimate of how he used the word in question. BTW, I wasn't looking up either "describe" or "prescribe". I looked up the word in question. If the quotations are to be believed, it's overwhelmingly loaded in the direction I hinted at.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    52. Re:Bummer by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 2

      I've done that. CeBit in Hanover. I didn't get to wear chaps though.

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    53. Re:Bummer by freeze128 · · Score: 0

      If you wanted a greater percentage of targets who have no clue about security, you should go ANYWHERE ELSE but a security conference, for example: a shopping mall.

    54. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In rebuttal to your rebuttal:

      1) If women perceive your "kind and friendly" behavior as "creepy," then you are not behaving "kind and friendly." You are, in fact, behaving like a "creep."

      The LIKELY problem is "kind and friendly" for you probably still involves a lot of white-knight-friendly phrases like:
      "you're so beautiful!"
      "i can't imagine any guy not wanting to spend time with you!"
      "i can't believe how beautiful you are!"

      Which is both off-putting to the woman, and serves to make you look creepy. Want to come across as "kind and friendly"? Treat them like you would any other friend who is not female. When you meet them, say "Hey, it's nice to meet you, how are you today?" And don't say anything about their appearance, their luminous blue eyes, their gorgeous smile, their presumed model boyfriend, or their presumed life of ease and luxury... "nice and friendly" involves observing and staying within acceptable social boundaries - and presuming to know too much about the woman, or focusing like a laser on her good looks, or just getting too pushy in terms of trying to learn her life story will all put you into the creep zone.

      Oh, and for god's sake: don't tip your fucking fedora and say "m'lady."

    55. Re:Bummer by eepok · · Score: 1

      Certain positions are allowed to require certain levels of attractiveness. Models, for example. In fact, the "models" reasoning is what allows many casinos to discriminate against thicker women in that they categorize their waitresses as models.

    56. Re:Bummer by eepok · · Score: 1

      Your post is modded "Insightful", but if I could, I would mod it "Dangerously Insightful". If women en masse knew that they could manipulate most men with a sweet smile and some relevant conversation, many of us would be doomed.

    57. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you go to a tech conference, I guarantee you'll see hot men and boobies. Of course, the men will be hot because they're overweight and haven't shaved in 20 years... and the boobies will be attached to those hot men.

    58. Re:Bummer by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      Actually they can still have booth babes they just need to look professional. Personally a beautiful woman tastefully dressed is more of a turn on than the slutty look anyway.

      maybe it's a personal problem that you assume a woman that dresses provocatively is a "slut". well, i guess if she dresses like that it must mean she wants it all the time right?

      wait, i guess you did only say "slutty look", so she looks like a slut but may not be one? i encourage you to try that distinction on the next "slutty looking" woman you come across and see if it makes a difference.

    59. Re:Bummer by Trogre · · Score: 3

      Your position is idiotic for any functioning society.

      This argument reduces to the assertion that any dress code is immoral, and that people should be able to wear anything they like, including nothing. You then use the absurd leap to liken such a society that has a dress code to an oppressive muslim regime.

      I hope the next person who sits beside you on a bus thinks like you do.

      --
      "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
    60. Re:Bummer by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      There would be no booth babes if they didn't provide value, and that they do is an indictment of the crowd attending

      oh get off your high horse. what are you indicting them for? finding women attractive?

    61. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1) If women perceive your "kind and friendly" behavior as "creepy," then you are not behaving "kind and friendly." You are, in fact, behaving like a "creep."

      Pardon me for calling bullshit, but I know how to be polite and respectful just as my mother taught me.

      The thing is, I'm not tall, dark and handsome-- I'm a mid-height pale computer geek with a bald head. I don't dress shabbily, but I also don't dress nattily. I'm not broke, but I don't have a lot of money to throw around. I'm not tje "bad boy" type that these "rare birds" find sexy, ergo they dismiss me.

      Remember, we're talking about "pretty girls," the ones who have been pampered and babied and put on pedestals all their lives. The plain-jane types are much more willing to talk to me and always assure me that I'm not behaving creepy in any way.

      If you're a nice guy but not physically gorgeous and/or rich, your attention is not wanted by these women, ergo you are a "creep" for even talking to them.

    62. Re:Bummer by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      1) If women perceive your "kind and friendly" behavior as "creepy," then you are not behaving "kind and friendly." You are, in fact, behaving like a "creep."

      that's just not true. a lot of it depends on if there's mutual attraction. take two guys, one with brad pitt looks, and another with steve buscemi looks. put the same words in their mouth. see what happens.

      what makes someone creepy is when they don't take a hint. you can't fault someone for trying.

      Want to come across as "kind and friendly"? ...

      yes, thanks for the "how to talk to girls 101" lesson. you are clearly the expert.

    63. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Believe it or not that is what normal humans do: they make value judgements based on your appearance. Welcome to Earth!

    64. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey bitch. Just keep flapping your lips. I'm surprised they're not wrapped around a man's dick. You don't have the nutsack to admit how much you're fucking wrong.

    65. Re:Bummer by MisterSquid · · Score: 1

      Your post is modded "Insightful", but if I could, I would mod it "Dangerously Insightful". If women en masse knew that they could manipulate most men with a sweet smile and some relevant conversation, many of us would be doomed.

      It cuts both (multiple) ways.

      If $person1 is aware of sexual attraction on the part of $person2, it would not be too difficult for $person1 to manipulate $person2.

      This is why it's important to behave respectfully, thoughtfully, and openly when dealing with other people. Men, women, what-have-you.

      --
      blog
    66. Re: Bummer by DigiShaman · · Score: 1

      Rule of thumb: The higher the stilettos and more cleavage is exposed, the higher they rank on the slutty scale. Oh, and hoop earrings will guarantee you can take her home for a nominal fee!

      --
      Life is not for the lazy.
    67. Re:Bummer by schnell · · Score: 5, Insightful

      He missed the point, but he did not mean well. That's why we can't have nice things.

      I think the response unintentionally betrays sexism but at its root merits a direct response. At least to me, the whole "booth babes" thing is pretty simple.

      Human beings like the "OOOOH SHINY." It distracts and engages us, even if it is not necessarily going to lead us to buy something as a result, but it does cause us to want to stop and engage our attention. The same is true whether it's a person, a free popcorn machine, a magic show or a huge display TV.

      If you are a heterosexual male, an attractive woman is OOOOH SHINY. This is regardless of the state of her (un)dress, technical acumen, or anything else. It could be a stripper draped around a pole or Marissa Mayer in a smart business suit. You will have an involuntary response and may be "turned on." But the real question of how people react to this is one of intent.

      Nobody seriously objects to the presence of attractive humans in almost any context. The objection comes from those who are made uncomfortable with the presence of people who are there (and dressed so as to make this obvious) solely for the purpose of eliciting that OOOOH SHINY MUST STARE AT BREASTS reaction.

      Some men will ask, so "what is wrong with that?" which, unlike what many progressive/feminist-minded men think, is not an inherently offensive question to ask. To me, the first answer of course is that it is unprofessional unless you are at a swimwear or porn conference. But the issue most people will react to - knee-jerk, positively or negatively - is one of sexism.

      Is this something to be offended about or not? For me, the simple test for me is for you - assuming you are a heterosexual male - to imagine walking around a tradeshow where most of the exhibits had buff, oiled-up dudes in speedos standing in front of the booths in Speedos. Would this make you in any way uncomfortable, want to avert your eyes or not want to stand next to them in that booth? If yes, then you need to put yourself in women's shoes and understand the objection to booth babes. If no, then, okay, you can make a straight-faced argument that there's nothing to be offended about. But that still will not prevent others from having a different reaction.

      --
      "95% of all Slashdot .sig quotes are incorrect or completely fabricated." -Benjamin Franklin
    68. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RSA doesn't want to promote the objectification of women any more.

      So what does it actually mean to "objectify" someone?

      Computers have complex behaviors but they don't have feelings or desires. You push different buttons to get the computer to do what you want. There's no need to think, or care, about what the computer wants or feels - because it doesn't want or feel.

      But it's very difficult to have a successful interaction with another person without at least implicitly having some understanding about what the other person wants and feels. Reciprocity requires caring about another person's feelings even if one is entirely selfish (people aren't going to care about you unless you care about them). But some people also imagine that the purpose of life is, at least partially, to have a positive impact on the world - to more good than harm - to give more than one takes.

      To "objectify" someone is to not care about their feelings. But does it really matter how much clothes they're wearing? Does it only matter whether a person is happy or sad if they're wearing a business suit?

      I tend to go to scientific conferences more than trade shows. In a certain sense, science does need to relax and get real. But that relaxation needs to come from eliminating stifling bureaucracy rather than from walking around in bikinis. Science should be fun because of the freedom to explore the unknown.

      Girls in bikinis aren't the devil but they're not the best way to achieve workplace productivity either.

    69. Re:Bummer by braindrainbahrain · · Score: 4, Insightful

      ... If women en masse knew that they could manipulate most men with a sweet smile and some relevant conversation, many of us would be doomed.

      Don't worry, they already know and we are doomed.

    70. Re:Bummer by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      It's not possible to sexually objectify someone. Even objects intended for sex must be made to look like sexually attractive people/body parts in order to successfully achieve their goal. You can have a very impersonal relationship with someone else but objectification is nonsense.

    71. Re:Bummer by Intrepid+imaginaut · · Score: 1

      In rebuttal to your rebuttal:

      1) If women perceive your "kind and friendly" behavior as "creepy," then you are not behaving "kind and friendly." You are, in fact, behaving like a "creep."

      Or she's a neurotic hypersensitive feminist. How's that for equality of outcome.

    72. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ok.. better solution. instead of just booth babes, you throw in a few guys, too (booth bros?) for the girls... so now you have equal opportunity for the job of booth-whatever, but also for those oogling the booth-whatevers. win-win..

        and as an extra bonus, female attendance at the conferences skyrockets even more once you have chippendales open for the keynote speaker.. the girls are happy, duh!, and the guys are too because there's girls there that they would never see otherwise the other 364 days of the year from the view offered by mom's basement.

    73. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're a nice guy but not physically gorgeous and/or rich, your attention is not wanted by these women, ergo you are a "creep" for even talking to them.

      In that case, I think you should just move along and thank your lucky stars that you (barely) managed to dodge a bullet. Just sayin'.

    74. Re:Bummer by dbIII · · Score: 2

      The entire "booth babe" thing is rather pathetic - a step below being desperate enough to pay to see strippers that reveal less than you would see at the beach.
      It's a cynical sales trick that shows a vendor is not taking the visitors seriously.
      Yes, they may be cute, but if you are going there to see cute girls instead of elsewhere then something is screwed up.

    75. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > In that case, I think you should just move along and thank your lucky stars that you (barely) managed to dodge a bullet. Just sayin'.

      It's true, but it's difficult to be attracted to women I'm not attracted to!

      The reverse is true, too, of course. All you average-looking "nice girls" out there, you probably dodged a bullet when you failed to hook up with that tall, leather-wearing Bad Boy you were drooling over at the club, who blew you off or asked about your slim, pretty friend while she was using the ladies' room.

    76. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing is, I'm not tall, dark and handsome-- I'm a mid-height pale computer geek with a bald head.

      Pardon ME for calling bullshit right back, but if this is your attitude going into a conversation with a "pretty girl," then it's obvious that you're projecting a lot more of your insecurity on them than you're willing to admit. You've already decided that the only thing that matters is appearance in your interaction with them, and then you wonder why you come across as a creep? Gee, it couldn't be that you've automatically pigeon-holed them based on their appearance, could it?

      I'm a 300 pound computer geek with a ruddy complexion, no discernible sense of style beyond "is my body covered? yes? good enough," and a penchant for bad jokes, science fiction, and computer games. I'm not exactly romance novel cover material. And I have literally NEVER been treated like this by a woman - perhaps because I don't approach them assuming that the only thing that matters in the conversation is whether or not I'm pretty enough, or they're too pretty. Of course, it also helps that I don't assume they're all into "bad boys" who dress like fashion models, too - if I did that, I wouldn't have a girlfriend and half a dozen good female friends, because I'd immediately have disqualified every girl I met because she was "too pretty to talk to the likes of me" -- like you have.

      ergo you are a "creep" for even talking to them.

      No, you're a "creep" for being a creep. Time for some intense self-examination, friend -- your problem lies in your own head, not in the heads of the "rare birds" you seem to hate so much based only on their appearance.

    77. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess it's different because I pay for conferences out of my own pocket, but I'm not going to go to all the hassle and expense of attending an Expo to waste my time at a vendor booth which spends its marketing dollars on objectifying women. The women may be there of their own free will and the whole arrangement may be perfectly morally straight (for the sake of argument), but the vendor is clearly disrespecting its customers' intelligence, and that itself makes me feel uncomfortable and want to avoid their booth.

      You consider it "disrespecting its customers' intelligence". I consider it "self-identification on who to avoid". As you say, their wasting their marketing dollars on objectifying women. No doubt that money could be better spent on...security. :)

    78. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I ride the bus with a lot of sophomores who've never earned a living. Yes, I've sat next to people like this. They're almost as fun as the "discussing why stories involve hunting telepaths is discriminatory! After all, I am a telepath!"

      That one took me 20 minutes to stop laughing.

    79. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Thanks, I shall definitely heed your advice.

      You're clearly a very humble, polite, charming, sympathetic and respectful person.

    80. Re:Bummer by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Social conventions.

      If you aren't aware that certain modes of dress are considered slutty, then you're ignorant. If you really want a concept, then google "slutwalk". Even women who are against this generalisation are clearly aware of what the social convention is on this.

      If you dress that way anyway then why complain when people make judgements? If you care about how other people perceive you then dress in a way that will make them perceive you positively.

    81. Re:Bummer by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Arte you white, male, and straight? If so then you're out of luck unless you can find a niche where you can claim greater persecution.

    82. Re:Bummer by davester666 · · Score: 1

      reverse booth babes. hire hookers to talk to booth workers, take them back to a hotel room, then blackmail them with photo's of the event.

      like shooting fish in a barrel

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    83. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting comment, however I don't think a a guy oiled up in speedos equates to a woman in a skimpy outfit. I also don't think an attractive man in a stimulating outfit is perceived in the same way a woman is in the same circumstances. Men have the role to seek out women and are praised if they are successful, for women it seems to be the opposite. I think a substantial number of women use their assets , be it looks or personality to get things done. That is something men want as well, but women don't really fall for that.

    84. Re:Bummer by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      The people are attending because it's a security conference, not because of the presence of booth babes[*]. So people aren't paying to see the booth babes, they're there for the security stuff, and the vendors using the booth babes are taking advantage of people's presence there already. Personally I don't feel this is a bad thing, because it will substantially reduce the mental effort not to behave like a slack jawed idiot.

      [*] Though I do have a mental image of a fat, balding, guy in a dusty, tatty brown suit who has managed to persuade his company to pay for him to attend for the last 20 years and spends the entire time ogling the booth babes.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    85. Re:Bummer by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      2) target customers are mostly there blowing their employers' budgets on a half-assed vacation and don't really care about the cost or value, and

      I'm coming to the conclusion that that is the primary goal of about 78% of the world's company reps. It also explains why their so keen on taking out potential customers to fancy restaurants. I mean suuuuure it might make a sale, but the rep gets a bang up meal and top notch wine as a perk.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    86. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fuck you are an idiot.

      what do you think "provocatively" means? you chose that word - what are you implying that a woman who dresses provocatively is trying to provoke?

    87. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Indeed!

      As it states, this will be enforced regardless of gender. This means the man coming to terms with his/her gender identity will not be allowed to wear a mini-skirt while working a booth at RSA conference. He/she will feel so repressed.

      Now, if they could ban all attendees from wearing shorts, that would be a truly positive step. "My eyes!"

      --------------
              Tops displaying excessive cleavage;
              Tank tops, halter tops, camisole tops or tube tops;
              Miniskirts or minidresses;
              Shorts;
              Lycra (or other Second-Skin) bodysuits;
              Objectionable or offensive costumes.

      These guidelines are applicable to all booth staff, regardless of gender, and will be strictly enforced.

    88. Re:Bummer by Spamalope · · Score: 1

      1) If women perceive your "kind and friendly" behavior as "creepy," then you are not behaving "kind and friendly." You are, in fact, behaving like a "creep."

      Pardon me for calling bullshit, but I know how to be polite and respectful just as my mother taught me.

      The thing is, I'm not tall, dark and handsome-- I'm not tje "bad boy" type that these "rare birds" find sexy, ergo they dismiss me.

      Remember, we're talking about "pretty girls," the ones who have been pampered and babied and put on pedestals all their lives. The plain-jane types are much more willing to talk to me and always assure me that I'm not behaving creepy in any way.

      If you're a nice guy but not physically gorgeous and/or rich, your attention is not wanted by these women, ergo you are a "creep" for even talking to them.

      This is exactly correct. I grew up an ugly duckling, then filled out in my mid twenties. The transition from 'can do no right' to 'can do no wrong' was striking.
      One slight adjustment though. If she's a drama queen, talking isn't required. Being in the same place and ignoring her is enough because you're 'gross'.

      While wiring under the desk in a cubicle, three women in the next row over were talking and didn't realize I was there. They were coordinating the three false sexual harassment claims they were going to (and did) make to get a male co-worker fired because they considered him unattractive and wanted him replaced with someone hotter. (HR told me to STFU when I reported that, then acted on what the women said - they were concerned with liability/lawsuit expense not truth or justice) Later one of those three women propositioned me, making a threat of a false harassment claim against me if I didn't sleep with her - and I already knew HR would back *her* up without question.

    89. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So basically you're saying that they aren't banning women. Nice.

    90. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The same argument (that some people on buses are prudish) could be made for enforcing burqas.

      absurd leap

      Calling something absurd only speaks to the limitations of your own mind. It's not a rational argument.

    91. Re:Bummer by pegr · · Score: 1

      You mean like the company that lost the root key material for their authentication tokens? The one that wanted to charge customers to replace the tokens that they themselves compromised by lax and ineffective key handling procedures? What was that companies name again?

    92. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So attractive men shouldn't be allowed to sell appliances to housewives?

    93. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Slutty look and professional look are not mutually exclusive for certain values of profession.

    94. Re: Bummer by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Dude, they know. They've known for thousands of years.

    95. Re: Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Shut up and get back in the kitchen, bitch. I'm hungry.

    96. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're remotely smart, you'll discover some newfound wisdom once the stinging of getting bitch-slapped fades.

      Of course, I doubt that you're smart... so... good luck with your life of frustration and social alienation.

    97. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "you're so beautiful!"
      "i can't imagine any guy not wanting to spend time with you!"
      "i can't believe how beautiful you are!"

      I have personally never complemented a woman on their appearance. Ever. I also try to avoid looking at them in any way that would be considered rude or objectifying. I would have no problem with rules instating that females at conferences must wear Burkas. It wouldn't make a difference to me. I still wouldn't complement, and I would still avoid looking at them. Because I avoid looking at everyone.

      Because I am the True Geek. I am the Pure Autism. Mine is the Code. You Brogrammers and Betas and Fakers and your pathetic attempts to try and emulate my innate nerdism are laughable. The contortions you put yourselves through, physically, mentally, sexually, politically are hilarious. You try to be a geek, but you end up staring at the opposite sex, obsessing over them, desiring a normal life.

      Then you glance over at we True Geeks, as we stare for days at spinning gears, circuits, as we contemplate the inefficiencies of software you will never even understand how to use, let alone program. We who must struggle at life and loves, who can be distracted from a pretty woman by a discussion about two goats behind a door -- for DAYS. You, who would struggle to add two numbers if someone's clevage were visible in the room. How deliciously frustrating it must be for you, to be reminded that you are a sham every time a woman walks into the room.

      So you institute these religious codes, dress codes, arbitrary bans, to cover your imagined sins. Fine. Destroy the conferences. Chase the normals away. Punish the pretty girls. It will not matter. Because in the end your fakery, your failure to be something you are not, will result in nothing. I don't care to contemplate the psychological contortion that drives these social justice inanities, because I do not care. Until you produce something worthy of merit -- which you never will -- your opinions are irrelevant to me.

      I will meet an ordinary intelligent woman, and the two of us will make a agreeable decision to make a life together, perhaps have children, as we pursue our existences. You will "settle" for such a woman, secretly devastated that you went "unrewarded" without one of those trophy booth babes you so righteously spurred. You will end up an emotional, unhappy, wreck, in an unhappy home, resentful of your own life and choice, because they were all hollow. I will end up with a quiet study, knowing how to code, cook, and contemplate, and your absurd puritan campaigning will be a ridiculous footnote in my grandchildren's history textbooks.

    98. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Gotta say, being painfully shy often comes off as creepy. It took me years to realize that people, especially women mistake passion about a topic as overt sexual gestures. I can't say I blame woman for this, there are an absurd number of creepers out there, but sometimes it's a false flag. I finally figured it mostly all out, but most of the time it involves me faking not being interested in people and not complimenting people. Most people,men or women, really can't take positive reinforcement well, which I suspect goes back to the massive inferiority complex humans have. I'm not discounting what you've said as those are pretty good general guidelines as far as staying away from looks and not being pushy, but sometimes just giving someone a compliment on public information they've provided creeps people out and it's just best to move on and leave the person alone. Once a person has decided they don't like you, nothing you can do will bring that back to a normal conversation.

    99. Re:Bummer by ultranova · · Score: 1

      "Esp. of a woman: sexually promiscuous or provocative, esp. in a manner regarded as vulgar or distasteful.". So you're injecting your subjective views into what looks mean and attaching a value judgement into that.

      That description is what whoever picked the booth babe "uniform" probably went for. It's catering to a specific fantasy: "You're a pimp and these are your bitches, if only you buy our product." You know, the exact one a cynical - though not necessarily very smart - marketer would use to sell to a stereotypical nerd.

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    100. Re:Bummer by clong83 · · Score: 1

      I went to a Society of Petroleum Engineering conference once where there was a booth from a major oil services firm staffed exclusively by blond women in bikinis. In Denver, on a 60 degree day. So yeah, I think your dictionary definition actually fits. Let's see:

      Especially in regards to a woman? Check.

      sexually promiscuous OR provocative? Don't know about promiscuous, but double check on the provocative. DOn't care how things are in your country. This is the US, and whether you think we are puritanical or not, context matter, and it is out of the ordinary and provocative to wear revealing swimsuits indoors in a land-locked state at a trade show that is not for hot tubs.

      especially in a manner regarded as vulgar or distasteful? Interestingly, the definition appeals to a cultural sense of vulgarity. So, again, context matters and your opinion/norms of your culture is moot. Whether YOU regard their attire as appropriate does not matter. Would it be okay to say they were dressed 'slutty' if it was a random person near the beach in Miami or San Diego? Culturally that attire in those places is perfectly acceptable, so no, you couldn't say that. But inside a trade conference in Denver? They are blatantly appealing to the women's sexuality to sell product. It is not *ME* who looks at the woman and sees only sex and shame on me for being a dirty pervert man who can't see past attire choices I disagree with. It is THEM who are blatantly bringing sex into the equation and forcing me to think about it. So vulgar or distasteful? Check on both.

      So what is your problem again? You think it is disrepectful to women to say a woman is dressed "slutty" at a major trade expo when the textbook definition fits? But you think major corporations using young women's bodies and paying them probably only a few hundred dollars to attract a dominantly male customer base which has huge purchasing power is OK in a supposedly professional setting? Are you sure you are complaining about the right thing? Why is it assumed that the men will primarily be making product purchasing decisions? Even if it is a good assumption, WHY is that the case? Isn't that a bigger problem? And isn't it possible that this type of behavior reinforces that problem?

      Just FYI, I am a man, and I find this stuff very insulting to all of the professional men and women that attend these things. I can get my kicks on my own time.

    101. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tons of guys go to fit-expo in LA all the time. It's mostly oiled up dudes that are jacked.

      So I can't see how thats a valid arguement

    102. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep, you are a nice guy all right. Just the kind I want to emulate.

    103. Re:Bummer by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      Everyone knows, there are no female customers at RSA conferences. (/irony)

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    104. Re:Bummer by farble1670 · · Score: 1

      what are you implying that a woman who dresses provocatively is trying to provoke

      um yeah? that's the definition of the word right? but yeah, i guess someone (anyone, any gender) who runs around in tight fitting clothes exposing skin is doing so because that's so comfortable, and to stay cool? maybe it's too increase blood circulation? hm.

      christ man, get over it. dress is often focused on attracting the opposite (or the same) sex. bodies are alluring. that's why dudes with big guns where tight fitting shirts. and so on. it doesn't bother me. does it bother you?

      and the OP used the word "slutty". i guess i should have stuck with that over provacative. much less controversial right?

    105. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You joke, but in pharmaceutical sales, you get the real thing. It's creepy as hell.

    106. Re:Bummer by linnsey · · Score: 1

      Booth babes have never produced good leads. They're there because as perks for the organizers, not for any actual business purpose. It's very limiting marketing. You're only going to get contacts that 1) don't actually want to learn anything about the product, and 2) are junior enough they're okay with being seen in an compromising manner. Every company employs women. If not as developers, then as QA, design, sales, marketing, etc, and every manager needs to be able to maintain their respect to be successful.

    107. Re:Bummer by linnsey · · Score: 1

      Yep. I don't understand it either.

    108. Re:Bummer by linnsey · · Score: 1

      ...but that's the problem. She has nothing to say. BBs know nothing about the product, the industry, sales, or any skills of use other than smiling. Why hire models if you can hire good looking people who can actually connect with and provide information to the potential buyer? Sales, customer service, tech writers, marketing, anything...

    109. Re:Bummer by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 1

      Some of us are doomed even if most women don't know this secret.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    110. Re: Bummer by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      I'm not making an argument that dress codes in themselves are immoral, I'm making an argument that rationalizing dress codes based on equating dress choices with sexual immorality is nonsensical.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    111. Re:Bummer by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      What? No beautiful women in marketing? They don't have to be engineers to talk about a product. Hell, engineers suck at talking about products to anyone other than engineers. I bet if I had a product to market to a bunch of male CTO and CEOs I could find some attractive, professional female marketers to sell my product. I'd throw in a couple of guys just to keep it from being way too blatant and for the ones that are frightened by intelligent women.

    112. Re:Bummer by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      You're new to this, aren't you? I remember when I was a noob. Didn't matter where, government, local, fed, private industry, etc.. Term is "short skirt sale." Yes, that piece of crap that the only reason why we have it is because a hot chick sold it.

      In fact I'm dealing with that crap right now. Of course, they don't want to admit it was a short skirt sale.

    113. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      America is a nation of prudes. That's why they have such words as "slutty" in the first place.

      America is hypocritical and schizophrenic when it comes to sex. We love it, but we don't want anyone to know we love it. We surround ourselves with sexual imagery in the media while going, "tsk tsk" and view the tawdry "low lifes" on TV to make ourselves feel superior.

      Freud wasn't very scientific, but he was on to something in pointing out how we suppress our inner urges and paper over our true nature with socially respectable veneers.

    114. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Geez people! You all treat "slutty" as though it was *bad*! Are you all sexually repressed? LOL

    115. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Moral indignation: jealousy with a halo." – H.G. Wells

    116. Re:Bummer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The EVEN MORE LIKELY problem is that "creepy" is defined by the woman depending on whether or not she likes you, which is a piece of information you don't have yet. If she's dressed nice, she welcomes looks from a good-looking dude and will consider anyone else looking at her more than half a second "creepy". It's just how it is.

  2. Ugly women ruin everything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    It's sad when ugly women are allowed to take jobs away from pretty women simply because they are pretty.

    1. Re:Ugly women ruin everything. by hawguy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It's sad when ugly women are allowed to take jobs away from pretty women simply because they are pretty.

      There's no ban against attractive women, just guidelines on appropriate dress. Pretty women are still pretty even in business attire.

    2. Re:Ugly women ruin everything. by hawguy · · Score: 1

      So.... you're OK with slut shaming. Sad. really.

      I don't understand how that relates to what I just wrote?

    3. Re:Ugly women ruin everything. by BradMajors · · Score: 2, Insightful

      But, the intent is to get rid of women, in particular the most attraction ones.

    4. Re:Ugly women ruin everything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      it totally applies to what you wrote dude.

    5. Re:Ugly women ruin everything. by hawguy · · Score: 1

      But, the intent is to get rid of women, in particular the most attraction ones.

      It's a dress code, it says nothing about attractiveness or even gender (except where it says that it applies regardless of gender, so men can't wear mini skirts either).

    6. Re:Ugly women ruin everything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      men can't wear mini skirts either

      Well now I'm not going.

    7. Re: Ugly women ruin everything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are just dumb, the clothes you wear impacts first impressions, you are an idiot if you think it is different for men.

    8. Re:Ugly women ruin everything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Daft AC is daft. He's OK with a dress code at a trade show. We already have an implicit one anyway - no nudity. RSA is just going beyond the nudity laws and barring excessive cleavage, skin tight suits, and short skirts.

      "Slut shaming" as you refer to it sounds more akin to insulting and belittling women that dress provocatively. No one's doing that here. RSA is just telling them to dress like a business function, considering a trade show is more or less a business function what's the problem?

    9. Re:Ugly women ruin everything. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      here's a random question... because, well, why not...?

      is a visible panty line considered professional?

    10. Re:Ugly women ruin everything. by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      is body painting ok? I once went to a trade show with bodypainted full frontal nude model walking around the area(by 3rd day they had nipple covers, yes, 3gsm).

      are ANY booth attractions ok?

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  3. And these folks will be... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...scratching their heads, wondering why attendance is down!!

    1. Re:And these folks will be... by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Attendance isn't the only thing that's going to be down.

  4. Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Booth Babes" are sexist (against both men and women, might I add), and is completely inappropriate.

    1. Re:Good! by Rei · · Score: 1

      Agreed!

      --
      "99 dead duelists of Dios on the wall. 99 dead duelists of Dios! Take one's ring, pass it around..."
    2. Re:Good! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      What's the alternative term? "Non-virtual human-body-based visual attention-capturing mechanism"? Too long, for one.

    3. Re:Good! by ckatko · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While I think they're unprofessional, but to call them "sexist" is diluting the word to mean "anything you don't like."

    4. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What part of male sexuality is it that you hate, exactly?

    5. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The part that makes some men into hormonal douchebags.

      Go back to /r/redpill.

    6. Re:Good! by itzly · · Score: 1

      Unprofessional ? You mean they don't get paid to stand there ?

    7. Re:Good! by Minupla · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Hopefully RSA carries this over to their booths at other conferences. They were often among the worst offenders at Blackhat.

      Min

      --
      On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
    8. Re:Good! by SumDog · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I feel like this is going in the opposite direction. Instead of getting rid of booth babes, why not just convince a few vendors to also have cut men in muscle t-shirts and tight spandex pants. Then you provide candy to both men and women; straight and gay.

    9. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you assume that I am female. I am actually male, but I still find it offensive and I am sure there are other men that also think it is inappropriate to use sex to sell a product.
      It portrays the image that women should be admired only for their looks and not their intelligence. Why not get women engineers in there and actually respect women for their work instead of image ?
      It is also sexist in that it assumes that men will be swayed to buy a product based on a womans looks. I think it also comes off making men look bad.

    10. Re:Good! by Xiaran · · Score: 1

      The implication is that the only people worth attracting the attention of is male(or perhaps gay female).

    11. Re: Good! by wasteoid · · Score: 1

      What's wrong with being sexy?

    12. Re:Good! by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      The part I don't care for is the hormone lacking ones that are douches.

    13. Re: Good! by hondo77 · · Score: 1

      My co-workers don't seem to mind me being sexy as nobody has complained yet.

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    14. Re: Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      The mere sight of sexy women is deeply offending to the ugly feminist crowd

    15. Re:Good! by theArtificial · · Score: 1

      A key to marketing, just like rhetoric is understanding your audience.

      --
      Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
    16. Re:Good! by rhazz · · Score: 1

      They (probably correctly) assume most of their audience are straight men, and get the most bang for their buck with ladies. ;)

    17. Re:Good! by aevan · · Score: 1

      You're right. It's sexist. It implies men can only be drawn in by sexual attraction. It implies men cannot be hired at the booths because the jobs are preferentially given to women. It implies women hold a power over men just by existing that reduces men to simmering hormonal idiots that then cannot make a rational decision because their libido trumps their common sense.

      Oh wait, you were going for the women being the victim here. My mistake. Misuse of 'literal' should have been the flag.

    18. Re:Good! by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      RSA probably feels that it's a technology conference, so using sex to sell products is inappropriate. It's not really the sexism, it's the fact that it harms the reputation of the conference as a serious technology driven event and not just another consumer tech party.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    19. Re: Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Has anyone agreed with this opinion of yourself, either?

    20. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's both

    21. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So convention hookers and blow are still acceptable - ok may not be such a wash out after all!

    22. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure why you think that. Just because they have a nice booth doesn't mean that's the only thing that can draw me in to talk with them. Just because they have some big hardware sitting out all exposed doesn't make that a requirement for me to want to go up and look. You take umbridge at his assigning the victim status to the woman but there really is no victim here. Someone is getting payed to attract people and someone is there to hopefully look at this type of product. Sorry but I don't feel victimized when a walk in a store and there are bright colors on the packages. I am guessing this is just a self control issue for some people...

    23. Re:Good! by Ziggitz · · Score: 1

      = It portrays the image that women should be admired only for their looks and not their intelligence.

      Only if you're dense enough to imply that you can only be smart or attractive.

      --
      There is no memory shortage. yes I have heard of XFCE. Go away.
    24. Re:Good! by aevan · · Score: 1

      Well if there is no victim, then there isn't a problem is there? If everyone is a happy consenting adult...

    25. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, stick a tampon in it betty!

    26. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or dykes. We're talking about women in security computing, after all.

      Mind you, I enjoy the dykes. They're a lot more manly than most of my colleagues.

    27. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Isn't that basically the definition of sexism. That the women representatives are hired based on looks and are scantly clad to help get attention to something unrelated to thier beauty/sluttyness?

    28. Re:Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no it is not the definition of sexism.

      and when you voted, you voted for the fat buy with bad presentation skills, right?

    29. Re: Good! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like someone who has never manned a booth. They work. That isn't the company being bad, it's the company using every sales tool available.

    30. Re:Good! by aoism · · Score: 1

      If a woman or man wants to perform that role for money, how dare you try to stop them? Do you take equal pleasure in denigrating the men and women who perform in pornographic films? How about for restaurants where people with no job skills dress up in a furry costume to attract visitors? If you don't like booth babes, don't be a booth babe. Otherwise, let adults decide for themselves if the job they are doing is sexist and inappropriate, otherwise you are coddling them and acting like they are unable to make their own decisions because they are just a (girl/boy), which is at the very least patronizing and at the worse is sexist in itself.

    31. Re:Good! by Minupla · · Score: 1

      I disagree - I am a professional in the security space. I go to conferences for professional reasons.

      I'd like the conference vendors to behave in a professional manner too and not insult my intelligence by implying that I'm more likely to sign off on a 6 figure deal because they have women dressed in biker leathers.

      If I want to find scantily clad people of either gender, I can figure out where to look, trust me. I'm at a conference on my company's dollar, doing research on products we might want to invest in, I want to talk to someone who knows the bleedn product, not the woman they hired for the week because of her looks.

      Min

      --
      On the whole, I find that I prefer Slashdot posts to twitter ones because I don't get limited to 140 chars before
    32. Re:Good! by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      So, you discriminate against attractive women? How dare you! Best way to stop discrimination is to stop it.

  5. The real booth babes ain't on the floor at RSA... by xxxJonBoyxxx · · Score: 4, Informative

    The real booth babes aren't on the floor at RSA. Go to the vendors' afterparties, or check out around in one of the creepy "party busses" prowling the city during RSA and you'll see where vendors have diverted their "women for hire" budgets.

  6. RSA has booth babes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    What, were they wearing nothing but a key-pair? I'd factor that modulus, if you know what I mean.

    I mean, I'd steal her keys.

    1. Re:RSA has booth babes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You probably pad your bits.

    2. Re:RSA has booth babes? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      He does. He only has a value of two but uses eight bits to store it anyway.

  7. Wasn't there a study that proved this was good? by gurps_npc · · Score: 5, Informative
    I can't remember where I saw it, but someone did a study comparing booth babes to trained senior citizens and the senior citizens did MUCH better job, resulting in greater sales and great callbacks.

    The conclusion was that Booth Babes brings traffic - who don't end up buying, while blocking the people that are actually interested in your product.

    --
    excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    1. Re:Wasn't there a study that proved this was good? by gurps_npc · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Found it. Spencer Chen, last year: http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/...

      --
      excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
    2. Re:Wasn't there a study that proved this was good? by BevanFindlay · · Score: 1

      Just posted this to a comment below yours (whoops, excuse the double-posting), but it's this.

    3. Re:Wasn't there a study that proved this was good? by Tablizer · · Score: 2

      I thought the main purpose was to help you remember the company, not to produce sales then and there. Nobody really expects to do much "real" business at conventions.

      Conventions are a "notion" system and bragging tool: bigger booth = bigger company, to help separate you from little guys. And for a little guy, demonstrate that your company exists and has enough money to at least afford a (small) booth.

    4. Re:Wasn't there a study that proved this was good? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Only idiots buy products based on how much a company can waste money instead of how good the products are.

      You can fool people once with good marketing but you can only keep customers with good products.

    5. Re:Wasn't there a study that proved this was good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      LOL. All the pictures in that article except one (people in PowerPuff Girls costumes) featured Booth Babes. Where's the pictures of the author's booth staffed with Grandma's that generated so many of his company's leads for that event? Pics or it didn't happen!

    6. Re:Wasn't there a study that proved this was good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You do know that there are more idiots than non-idiots don't you?

    7. Re:Wasn't there a study that proved this was good? by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      An idiot may not know that :-)

    8. Re:Wasn't there a study that proved this was good? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only decisions were made by competent specialists, rather than drooling managers looking for a weekend of "fun".

    9. Re:Wasn't there a study that proved this was good? by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      I can't remember where I saw it, but someone did a study comparing booth babes to trained senior citizens and the senior citizens did MUCH better job, resulting in greater sales and great callbacks.

      That's no surprising. While I enjoy looking at the booth babes, I tend to avoid them whenever possible since I know that they'll just subject me to obviously artificial flirtation while attempting to repeat marketing gibberish which they don't actually understand. I'd much rather speak to a sweaty bearded guy in a tracksuit who can actually explain the product and tell me how it can help my business.

    10. Re:Wasn't there a study that proved this was good? by Spamalope · · Score: 1

      Found it. Spencer Chen, last year: http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/...

      They believe it soooo much they've make a clickbait article with more column inches of booth babe pictures than text - and no pics of booth grandma. Suuuuure they think that, this certainly isn't do as I say not as I do...

  8. Are booth babes worth it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Yes, the cliche says, "Sex sells", but do they actually generate significant sales? I mainly see them being made fun of and criticized.

    1. Re:Are booth babes worth it? by BevanFindlay · · Score: 3, Interesting
    2. Re:Are booth babes worth it? by hawguy · · Score: 1

      Yes, the cliche says, "Sex sells", but do they actually generate significant sales? I mainly see them being made fun of and criticized.

      The people who are attracted by the booth babes are likely not the same set of people that are making fun of them.

    3. Re:Are booth babes worth it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yes, the cliche says, "Sex sells", but do they actually generate significant sales? I mainly see them being made fun of and criticized.

      Sex sells if you sell Axe, if you want your security solutions to be taken seriously by professionals, not so much. I've gone to an ungodly amount of trade fairs for several decades. My impression is that booth babes do indeed catch the eye of many men, absolutely, but in a way that is not helping the company messaging, at all. If I see a gang of very sexy booth babes I will indeed notice it, and avoid visiting the booth for any serious considerations, and leave wondering why their real message is so bad that they need this dog and pony show instead.

    4. Re:Are booth babes worth it? by Iamthecheese · · Score: 1

      You say this, but most people wouldn't. I'm not going to address the arguments about sexism but the "they don't convert" argument misses one point: They may be there not to make immediate sales but to make the brand stand out in buyers' minds.

      Cynical, unprofessional, or sexist as it may be associating "hardware manufacturer x" with "a pleasant funny feeling in my pants" isn't the least desirable outcome for X.

      --
      If video games influenced behavior the Pac Man generation would be eating pills and running away from their problems.
    5. Re:Are booth babes worth it? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Yes, the cliche says, "Sex sells", but do they actually generate significant sales?

      It does for Playboy and other magazines, even if people only read those for the articles.

    6. Re:Are booth babes worth it? by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      Oh, I'd love to see a booth with ponies!

    7. Re:Are booth babes worth it? by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      Except that when you've got similar booth babes at most of the booths, except the ones whose products can stand on their own (and the ones too poor to hire booth babes), "hardware manufacturer x" is associated with "run of the mill, nothing to differentiate."

      Plus, as has been discussed in prior slashdot articles on this, many guys in the tech industry are actually put off by sexual forwardness and don't know how to deal with it -- which associates "hardware manufacturer x" with "this company is not one I'm comfortable working with." Not really the feelings they're trying to foster.

    8. Re:Are booth babes worth it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If you're selling pretty girls in skimpy clothes, then mission accomplished.

      I don't think that pretty girls in skimpy outfits need all that much extra marketing, though. They sort of sell themselves.

      As for the feelings you're associating with your brand, do you really want to associate making me feel uncomfortable at a professional function with your brand because of your inappropriate choice of marketing device?

  9. Or the people can just act like adults. by jellomizer · · Score: 0

    The problems with such rules, means the are plenty of work arounds,

    In general booth babes are hired, because they know there are plenty of ongoers who still sexually are teenagers. And use them to attract people to their booth.

    However what will happen they will have people dressed to fit the rules. However still be sexy, and they will flirt with the potentional customer anyways.

    --
    If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    1. Re:Or the people can just act like adults. by ckatko · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So in otherwords, nothing is going to change and this is just a feel good measure to make bitter women happy.

  10. Dont trust links by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you know any link about this story is going to be NSFW.
    RSA may have class. But tech news sites don't.

  11. make way for... by slashmydots · · Score: 2

    Booth Bros! Time for shirtless male body builders in front of every booth.

    1. Re:make way for... by hubang · · Score: 2
    2. Re:make way for... by Krishnoid · · Score: 1

      Maybe they'd get more callbacks with this approach.

  12. Re:The real booth babes ain't on the floor at RSA. by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    vendors' afterparties...around in one of the creepy "party busses" prowling the...

    Do you have to put it in such negative terms? That really drains the fun from my visits there ... I mean my friend's visit.

  13. Awesome! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Congrats, I am sure the 10 women that attend will be very happy.

    1. Re:Awesome! by x0ra · · Score: 1

      They probably have a bigger voice in the matter than all the other men, welcome to this gynocentric society...

  14. Actually, it's not an industry first by BevanFindlay · · Score: 1

    New Zealand has had a tech expo with similar rules - a company ignoring the rules made news last year, so it's not a first (kind of old news here, really).

    1. Re:Actually, it's not an industry first by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      The article is called "Apology follows bikini backlash" but there's not a single photo of a girl in a bikini.

    2. Re:Actually, it's not an industry first by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope they're sorry!

    3. Re:Actually, it's not an industry first by dbIII · · Score: 1

      "Apology follows bikini backlash"

      Nor a girl in a bikini getting her back lashed either!
      We've been cruelly misled.

  15. This is an outrage. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As if the RSA conference needed another reason to be boycotted.

    This is a serious blow to Men's rights! How further will the females of this world emasculate us???

  16. Lots of places have banned both babes already by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    How is this a first? The most recent PAX banned booth babes. Also MacWorld did a while ago... I'm pretty sure there are other examples, including lots of smaller technical conferences.

    The surprise to me is that an RSA conference even HAD booth babes.

    I have mixed feeling about this, it seems discriminatory against the good looking... however it always was kind of pointless, and annoying to have people at a booth that didn't know much about whatever the booth was promoting.

    The funny(?) thing is that as this movement ratchets down into conferences everywhere, it will probably mean a rise in the number of women turning to literal, instead of figurative, prostitution to make a living.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Lots of places have banned both babes already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      PAX A) isn't a tech convention, B) banned them a while ago, and C) has large enough loopholes that the ban might as well not exist.

      This RSA ban is fairly explicit in what it bans, while the PAX ban merely required the booth babes be able to answer simple questions about the product they were selling. Needless to say, it wasn't that hard to get around. Every PAX I've been to had booth babes no matter what PAX wants to pretend, including vendors who were selling the chance to have your picture taken with said booth babes.

    2. Re:Lots of places have banned both babes already by lactose99 · · Score: 1

      I have mixed feeling about this, it seems discriminatory against the good looking...

      How so? Good looking people can still sell from a booth, they just need to be appropriately dressed.

      --
      Fully licensed blockchain psychiatrist
    3. Re:Lots of places have banned both babes already by LWATCDR · · Score: 2

      A dress code? Okay.
      Frankly Booth Babes never worked for me.
      Whenever I see one I just think, "We both know I am not going to sleep with you so why are you flirting with me... Oh to scam me...."

      --
      See my blog http://ilovecookes.blogspot.com/ for light hearted technical information.
    4. Re:Lots of places have banned both babes already by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      Not everyone at a booth needs to know about the product. I was at a conference years ago where some network-security firm was hawking some box, and they had a huge booth with a tent where they had people come in and watch some little video-enhanced skit involving a dragon. They had a couple of booth babes somewhat scantily-clad, in keeping with the castles-and-dragons theme, but they were only really there to be ushers while people waited in line to go in and watch the next show. Ushers don't need to know anything about the product, they just tell people when they can go inside, where to stand in line, who to talk to if you have questions, etc.

    5. Re:Lots of places have banned both babes already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      appropriately dressed, aka what you think its appropriate, and what you think should be the rule for everyone.

    6. Re:Lots of places have banned both babes already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have mixed feeling about this, it seems discriminatory against the good looking...

      How so? Good looking people can still sell from a booth, they just need to be appropriately dressed.

      Even better would be if they knew something about the product. Hint: it's not whether she is good looking, it's whether her presence actually adds anything (besides her looks) to the discussion about the product.

    7. Re:Lots of places have banned both babes already by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I like the idea that a company can present without worrying to assign a budget to hiring women to "lure in male buyers". I like that their sales folks can dismiss it without worrying that "but the other guys are doing it". The whole thing smelled of a weird sales-arms-race slightly out-of-control learned behaviour that always seemed creepy to my mind. In fact, my figuring is that a stand that resorts to this stuff must be making up for something lacking somewhere else - good product don't need it.

  17. Re:The real booth babes ain't on the floor at RSA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The real booth babes aren't on the floor at RSA. Go to the vendors' afterparties, or check out around in one of the creepy "party busses" prowling the city during RSA and you'll see where vendors have diverted their "women for hire" budgets.

    I've been to a good number of vendor after parties at RSA, and have not experienced what you imply here.

  18. Re:The real booth babes ain't on the floor at RSA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Creepy". Isn't that one of those sexist words that misandrists use to describe male sexuality?

    The shaming here is particularly amazing because it seems to be coming from men. Good boy. You're going to make your mistress a good little houseboy. Now get back to work and earn her some money. And leave the masculinity to the "creepy" guys.

  19. Re:The real booth babes ain't on the floor at RSA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real booth babes aren't on the floor at RSA. Go to the vendors' afterparties, or check out around in one of the creepy "party busses" prowling the city during RSA and you'll see where vendors have diverted their "women for hire" budgets.

    I've been to a good number of vendor after parties at RSA, and have not experienced what you imply here.

    Just apparently not any of the good ones.

  20. Science Says this Change is Overdue by sampson7 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Like many of you out there, I never personally experienced these issues (being a white male). And I actually like looking at pretty girls. But at what cost? Folks should recognize that there's a vast literature out there about the impacts of both conscious and unconscious bias in testing, hiring and performance of minorities and women in STEM fields. Things like Booth Babes drive people away. For those of you interested, it is illuminating to read about the weird ways in which the human brain internalizes various societal cues about how women and minorities fit into STEM. Anyone who wants to comment on this topic seriously should at least read through this research:

    * Book - "Whistling Vivaldi," written by Claude Steele . Professor Steele isn't the best writer in the world, but the experiments he describes are just fascinating. I challenge anyone to look at his results and not refine their views on these issue. Nice mix of pop-psychology and scientific research. http://www.amazon.com/Whistlin...

    * Planet Money Podcast - "When Women Stopped Coding", very much pop-psychology, but thoroughly entertaining and I certainly found some basic truth in their theory. http://www.npr.org/blogs/money...

    * Article in the journal "Nature" on what the GRE test actually measures, http://www.nature.com/naturejo... Also see a partial refutation of the initial (which I found less convincing, but I put it out there anyway): http://www.nature.com/nature/j...

    * Recent pop-science article citing a meta-analysis about "Genius" in male and female professors (interesting, if somewhat anecdotal): http://www.vox.com/2015/2/12/8...

    Reading this research (even at the cursory level pop-science perspective) certainly got me thinking about women (and minorities) in STEM. Personally, it turned me from a skeptic of the type of program Intel is purposing into .... well, I'm not entirely sure. Read the research and I think you'll see what I mean.

    Apologies for bringing actual science to what I'm sure will turn into a flame war..... (Complete disclosure: I posed something similar a few weeks ago, but it's such interesting stuff, I posted it again!)

    1. Re:Science Says this Change is Overdue by Oligonicella · · Score: 0

      * mix of pop-psychology * very much pop-psychology * Also see a partial refutation * pop-science "bringing actual science" There seems to be a disconnect.

    2. Re:Science Says this Change is Overdue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Put the "booth babes" out of a job so that women could possibly maybe become more interested in STEM fields.

    3. Re:Science Says this Change is Overdue by misexistentialist · · Score: 0

      To summarize "science proves: women ruin everything".

  21. Hot neckbeard UNIX sysAdmins are new Booth Babes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hot neckbeard UNIX sysAdmins are new Booth Babes
    Hottest shit ever

  22. Re:The real booth babes ain't on the floor at RSA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The real booth babes aren't on the floor at RSA. Go to the vendors' afterparties, or check out around in one of the creepy "party busses" prowling the city during RSA and you'll see where vendors have diverted their "women for hire" budgets.

    I've been to a good number of vendor after parties at RSA, and have not experienced what you imply here.

    Just apparently not any of the good ones.

    Well, I guess it is a result of selecting differently based on personal preferences, parties and companies that need bought women, vs those who don't.

  23. Market Disagrees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The free market says that the majority disagrees with you.

    But, yet again, the small vocal and hysterical minority throws up road blocks for the masses.

  24. Easy workaround by Steffan · · Score: 2

    The purpose of 'Booth Babes' is to attract customers, presumably men to the booth. Whether this is an effective strategy is a separate discussion.
    It's human nature, and attempts to circumvent it are trivially overcome.

    Exhibitors that are currently using this approach can hire the same models and dress them in 'Business-appropriate' attire. The end result is you will still have beautiful women (who may know nothing about the product) staffing a booth and bringing in men.

    If anything, this will provide more plausible deniability for more image-conscious men who don't wish to be seen chatting up some lyra- and latex- clad contractor at a booth.

    I suppose if that become too troublesome, they can always ban makeup or attractive staffers (of both sexes). Or require that contractors be able to talk knowledgeably about the product.

    I'm not criticizing their approach, per se, but I suspect even after these changes there will be continued outrage about the disproportionally attractive women staffing some booths and being paid to be chatty or even flirty.

    1. Re:Easy workaround by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I suppose if that become too troublesome, they can ... require that contractors be able to talk knowledgeably about the product.

      This would be a great idea! Just make the requirement be that anyone staffing a booth be able to describe the contents of the material they're presenting. This wouldn't prevent really smart contracted booth babes, but it would prevent what I've encountered a few times... when I go up to a booth and ask a technical detail and get a panicked look followed by a "let me go find Ted...." or a blank smile and a "I think you'll find the information you need in one of these brochures...."

  25. all booth staff, regardless of gender by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 1

    TFA quotes the RSA test which states: "These guidelines are applicable to all booth staff, regardless of gender"

    I wonder why they didn't include Cowboy chaps and codpieces, but maybe that's not a big issue on the floor.

    --
    I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
  26. RSA is a job killer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where are the hot chicks who normally work the convention going to do now? Those women are people you know. With lives, kids, etc. Boo for RSA.

  27. No Shorts?! by Luthair · · Score: 1

    Boycott RSA, my ankles need to breath! ;)

  28. I know it's wrong: by Hartree · · Score: 2

    But I can't resist a flashback to a 1980s Wendy's commercial:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    Very nice...

  29. future headline by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    in a few years..

    RSA Conference attendance falls for third straight year - Organizers puzzled as to why

  30. In Other News... by fyngyrz · · Score: 5, Funny

    Convention News

    RSA Conference Fades Away

    Lede: RSA conference shutters undertakings after attendance at most recent gathering only attracted gay males with business suit fetishes.

    An RSA conference official is quoted as saying "We don't have anything at all against gays, and we know they need security products too, but they only make up a relatively small proportion of the population. We just couldn't pay our bills." Executives at the company were insulated by their golden parachutes, but the rank and file workers were let go with only 4 days official notice and no termination pay. "I knew something was going on when I saw my boss carrying out his golf clubs", one unnamed source told this reporter. Another ex-employee told me she had early warning when by a week before the conference, they only had 21 advance signups, and all of them were from San Francisco. "I'm going to go to work as a stripper" she said. "I can make more and make people happy that way, too. Customer service was a nightmare of unhappiness and depression. I'm glad to be out of there, though I didn't plan it this way."

    Vegas Adult Conferences see Record Attendance

    Lede: In Las Vegas, the libido rules as adult conferences draw larger and larger crowds.

    Sex sells, as any experiencing marketing exec will tell you; and looks matter, as Hollywood demonstrates every day of the year. Beautiful, scantily clad women populate the kiosks at all the adult conferences, and men flock en masse to the show floors in order to get a closer look and take snapshots with them; all the while being well exposed to the products and services being marketed their way. Women, too, crowd the convention room floor as they take careful note of the latest trends in sexuality and sex toys, making sure they maintain their "leg up" over the Birkenstock-wearing, makeup-free adherents of the now critically derailed feminist movement. A great time is clearly had by all. I asked a paired couple of showgoers if they had kids; "Yes, we do" was the answer. I asked where the kids were right them, and got this response: "Since the government deported all the immigrants, we've been hiring ex-programmers and ex-engineers as babysitters. Off-shoring and the H1B visa programs have made picking up a desperate tech person very easy. And they're so much better at caring for the kids. You should see the LEGO creation we came home to yesterday!"

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  31. Booth babes are useless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Booth babes are useless anyway. They never know anything about the products.

    Give me an ugly person who can tell me about the product any day.

    If i wanted a person completely ignorant on the subject to tell me about the product, I'd use the internet.

    1. Re:Booth babes are useless by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      If I wanted a person completely ignorant on the subject to tell me about the product, I'd use the internet.

      Dude, you should like totally check out the links in my signature, you'll become rich*!

      * maybe not

  32. Well, fine then! by zarmanto · · Score: 1

    Oh yeah? Fine! I'll just have to boycott this year's RSA conference, for taking away my eye candy! Boooooycott! Boooooycott! Boooooycott!

    What's that? Have I ever attended one before? Well... no, but what's that got to do with anything?
    </snark>

  33. Why not CES? by punkr0x · · Score: 2

    Why is this "easier" at RSA? Sounds like the submitter prefers to have a boner when attending a trade show.

  34. Re:The real booth babes ain't on the floor at RSA. by MBGMorden · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Well, I guess it is a result of selecting differently based on personal preferences, parties and companies that need bought women, vs those who don't.

    This weird taboo attitude towards sex confuses me.

    Compare it to say, food. How much sense would it make if someone was proudly proclaiming their social and masculine prowess because they flew into a foreign town and then managed to track down a random stranger and after several hours of conversation and work, they convinced this stranger to cook them dinner. Might not even be a good dinner, but by golly they cooked it.

    You'd consider them half crazy for not just going to a restaurant and ordering something - that would have probably been more enjoyable. As crazy as it sounds though, we attach that same thought process to sex. A guy who spends 4 hours worth of time and $200 in drinks and dinner to bed some random girl is seen as awesome while a guy who cuts to the chase with a $300 prostitute is shunned.

    And the best (or I guess worst) excuse I've heard - from women - as to why prostitution shouldn't be legalized? Because if men had access to sex that easily they'd lose too much power in the relationship. That's the honest to goodness answer I've heard from quite a few of them.

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  35. Good news/Bad news by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

    tomorrow's email from management:

    "The good news is removing attractive models from the event is positive progress for our society. The bad new is that we already bought the skimpy outfits for the models, so now you have to wear them."

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    1. Re:Good news/Bad news by roc97007 · · Score: 1

      tomorrow's email from management:

      "The good news is removing attractive models from the event is positive progress for our society. The bad new is that we already bought the skimpy outfits for the models, so now you have to wear them."

      If there is one truth in the world, it's this: Nobody wants to see me in hot pants.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  36. Cosplay is a valid reason to have them though by SuperKendall · · Score: 2

    The exceptions at PAX are from people cosplaying representations of game characters. I don't see anything wrong with that. I also don't think it's reasonable to ban people who want to show up in cosplay outfits that may be sexy.

    Some people like expressing sexuality, to deny them the ability to do so is just as repressive as any other kind of censorship.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Cosplay is a valid reason to have them though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ironically cosplayers HAVE been kicked out of PAX for being "dressed too sexily."

      Booth babes have not.

      PAX is a pretty shitty convention these days, it's trying to go down the SJW path (see the "diversity" push), and the SJWs are not surprisingly still up in arms about it, because you can literally never please an SJW. (See LW3's freak-out over East this year and how SJWs demand AT THE SAME TIME that PAX ban booth babes while complaining about "slut shaming" when the same standards are applied to cosplayers.)

      There's a reason PAX stopped giving out attendance numbers several years ago. Just like when an MMO mysteriously stops announcing their active subscriber count...

    2. Re:Cosplay is a valid reason to have them though by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

      That's too bad, I've never been in person but had been wanting to go for a while... sounds like I missed the best run.

      --
      "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    3. Re:Cosplay is a valid reason to have them though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sadly, yes, its glory days are clearly behind it. If you want some examples of what you're "missing" here are some actual panels from PAX East this year (I'm going with East because it looks like the links aren't permanent and these will likely stick around the longest, but you can find similar bullshit in all of them):

      Enabling Co-Op Mode: Improving Identity-Based Conversations
      Press XY Presents: Trans Against Insanity: Celebrity Edition
      Isometric Podcast Live! (That's LW3's podcast. You know, the woman who was "forced out of PAX due to death threats." Yet here she is, with a panel...)
      All the Feels: Empathy in Indie Game Narrative
      Talking FINAL FANTASY XIV: Heavensward with Naoki Yoshida (OK, this one isn't an SJW panel. I just find it amusing that, despite being one of the worst MMOs of all time, five years later, it's still kicking. Weeaboos are amazing.)
      Industry Inclusivity: Games are the People Who Make Them
      Press XY Presents: Transgender Characters in the Spotlight: Then, Now, Tomorrow
      Censored! Do Gamedevs Have Creative Freedom? (Don't let the title fool you, this is the other panel LW3 did.)
      Foreplay: Romance in Games

      I could go on, but - you get the idea.

      The thing that's really depressing is to think of the panels that got rejected in favor of this SJW bullshit. And that's ignoring crap like the "diversity lounge" and other bullshit that's been thrown into the show to try and please the SJWs.

      Which doesn't work! Mention PAX to an SJW and they'll just start talking about dickwolves to you. I don't know why they even bother.

    4. Re:Cosplay is a valid reason to have them though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So your complaint when people view you as a marginalized freak who plays computer games is that people aren't open-minded and tolerant of your special snowflake-ness, because games are totally cool, and artistic and stuff.

      And then, when people say "games are cool, and artistic and stuff, and we want to play them, and be involved in the communities surrounding them!" your complaint is that there's too many people trying to change your purist little enclave with their estrogen?

      Roughly half the population is female. Why should it come as a surprise that, when they start taking an interest in something, they don't want to be made to feel as if their only role in the community is (choose 1): being eye candy; giving blowjobs; playing the role of helpless victims to be rescued by the strapping young men?

      Your cries for acceptance of gaming as a legitimate activity were, at their core, cries to be embraced by a diverse mainstream audience. And now when you've achieved that goal, you bitch about how everybody cares so much about diversity and inclusiveness?

      Fuck you. Can't have it both ways, son - if you want to be accepted by the mainstream, you have to build a community that's not hostile to people in the mainstream. If you want to continue to be marginalized, then you can go back to being your own special brand of SJW, crusading for acceptance of gamers as their own special minority group, with their own complete set of trigger words (#gamergate).

    5. Re:Cosplay is a valid reason to have them though by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So your complaint when people view you as a marginalized freak who plays computer games is that people aren't open-minded and tolerant of your special snowflake-ness, because games are totally cool, and artistic and stuff.

      Where the hell did you get that? I don't give a shit what non-gamers think about gamers. Just like I don't think jocks give a shit about what I think about their stupid sports.

      Roughly half the population is female. Why should it come as a surprise that, when they start taking an interest in something,

      I'm just going to stop you there, because I don't care what women think about the games I play. If they want to play them, great! There's nothing stopping women from playing video games. Nothing at all.

      But you'd better not TAKE AWAY something I enjoy to try and please a group that for the most part DOESN'T EVEN PLAY these games. Let the girls have their Candy Crush, I'm not going to demand it be taken away from them, but in return, they sure as hell better not take away MY games from ME.

      PAX was originally just for actual gamers - fans of the Penny Arcade cartoon who wanted to get together and have fun.

      It's now this weird corporate thing where an annoying and harmful SJW agenda is being shoved down the attendees throats whether they want it or not. And it's hurting attendance. If it weren't, they'd be trumpeting how each PAX was the "biggest ever" and the fact that they aren't says all you need to know.

  37. Now the REAL STEM shortage begins by plopez · · Score: 1

    As everyone dumps CS education in favor of marketing and MBAs. And selling used cars.

    --
    putting the 'B' in LGBTQ+
  38. Re:The real booth babes ain't on the floor at RSA. by XxtraLarGe · · Score: 1

    "Creepy". Isn't that one of those sexist words that misandrists use to describe male sexuality?

    they aren't misandrists, they're misanthropes. They hate everyone, including themselves.

    --
    Taking guns away from the 99% gives the 1% 100% of the power.
  39. Not the same people by SuperKendall · · Score: 1

    How so? Good looking people can still sell from a booth

    Good looking people can of course be in any role.

    However at least some former booth babes are models that really can't do things other than look good. Since they would not be good in an informational role, they would not be hired.

    Like I said, better for attendees in some ways as at least you can talk to someone more about the product. But not as good for the women (and men) now out of work.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:Not the same people by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      However at least some former booth babes are models that really can't do things other than look good. Since they would not be good in an informational role, they would not be hired

      You specifically stated it was "discriminatory against the good looking"? How is it. Looks are uncorrelated with intelligence. Being a model doesn't make one an idiot. There is no discrimination against the good looking, only rules about suitable clothing.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    2. Re:Not the same people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, you're really saying that it's discriminatory against people who don't have relevant skills, not that it's discriminatory against the good looking as you initially claimed.

  40. RSA is shit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Given the integrity of RSA encryption, why would they need professional integrity?

  41. Re:The real booth babes ain't on the floor at RSA. by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

    A guy who spends 4 hours worth of time and $200 in drinks and dinner to bed some random girl is seen as awesome while a guy who cuts to the chase with a $300 prostitute is shunned.

    Well of course the second guy is going to be shunned! That idiot paid $300 for sex alone while the first guy only paid 200$ and had four hours of good time with the girl and also had sex with her!

  42. Welp... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ....no reason to go then.

  43. Ugly only by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Cute but intelligent and knowledgeable about the product need not apply. Lawsuit?

  44. Yeah that conference you want to send me to? by roc97007 · · Score: 1

    Never mind, I'll just read the literature and save myself a plane ride.

    --
    Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
  45. Re:The real booth babes ain't on the floor at RSA. by MBGMorden · · Score: 1

    You make the assumption that everyone finds the social process of "wooing" someone to be enjoyable. To some its fun - to others its absolute tedious and unenjoyable work. Time is money, and personally 4 hours of time is worth far more than $100.

    --
    "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
  46. Re: there's a vast literature out there by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    " there's a vast literature out there"

    You read the articles?

  47. Re:The real booth babes ain't on the floor at RSA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Well, I guess it is a result of selecting differently based on personal preferences, parties and companies that need bought women, vs those who don't.

    This weird taboo attitude towards sex confuses me.

    Compare it to say, food. How much sense would it make if someone was proudly proclaiming their social and masculine prowess because they flew into a foreign town and then managed to track down a random stranger and after several hours of conversation and work, they convinced this stranger to cook them dinner. Might not even be a good dinner, but by golly they cooked it.

    You'd consider them half crazy for not just going to a restaurant and ordering something - that would have probably been more enjoyable. As crazy as it sounds though, we attach that same thought process to sex. A guy who spends 4 hours worth of time and $200 in drinks and dinner to bed some random girl is seen as awesome while a guy who cuts to the chase with a $300 prostitute is shunned.

    And the best (or I guess worst) excuse I've heard - from women - as to why prostitution shouldn't be legalized? Because if men had access to sex that easily they'd lose too much power in the relationship. That's the honest to goodness answer I've heard from quite a few of them.

    As the AC you replied to, I don't think paid sex should be a taboo, I think it should be legal and accepted. And if the only reason you go to a (work related) party is to "bribe" someone into going to bed with you, I agree, you should just pay for it outright and be done with it. I have discussed this with many and never heard anything close to your power argument, that is a very unhealthy relationship to begin with.

  48. Re:The real booth babes ain't on the floor at RSA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To describe YOUR sexuality, creepy AC. It takes a misandrist like yourself to assume all men are the same, just as a misogynist treats all women as somehow the same.

  49. Ever heard of "booth boys"? by denzacar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Me neither.

    The new solution is still sexist.
    It's just that this is the kind of sexism that is culturally acceptable at the moment.

    A situation where one person can get a job based on a genetic flip of a coin, followed by a genetic role of the dice that lands one with a fashionable appearance - while others are disregarded based on the genetic flip of the coin alone.

    You know... When sex of the person is a disqualifying trait on a job application - and it is not a job opening in a strip-bar.
    It's the same exact thing that makes "housewife" an acceptable "career choice" for a woman, while the same "career" choice for a man doesn't even have a noun of its own.
    It is instead described with pejorative terms ranging from "henpecked" and "timid" to "pussywhipped".

    It's culturally acceptable sexism.
    No different than a burka - for women who consider that a part of their culture.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:Ever heard of "booth boys"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "genetic role of the dice that lands one with a fashionable appearance" - And what's the problem here? You want person representing you to be likeable. And his appearance is first thing people see.

    2. Re:Ever heard of "booth boys"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no-one needs arseholes like you "shaming" people for life choices that are nothing to do with you.

      there is no nobility in being a wage slave, in a household where two adults are forced to work just to keep a roof over their head.

      on the other hand, two adults in a relationship can decide to organise their household in whatever way they see fit. if they decide that one doesn't need to work and instead can ensure that children are accommodated, the household runs smoothly and so forth, so be it.

  50. Its hard to be a booth babe.... by abelenky17 · · Score: 2

    There are fewer and fewer places they can seek out employment now!

    Now that they're banned from game companies, security companies, electronics companies, where can a dedicated, professional booth babe find employment?

    Won't someone please think of the babes?
    Babes are people too!

    1. Re:Its hard to be a booth babe.... by Mal-2 · · Score: 1

      If they're willing to invest a day or two memorizing enough about the vendor's product to pass for sales reps, they're still perfectly employable. The problem isn't with attractive people staffing the booths, it's with attractive but functionally useless people staffing the booths.

      --
      How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  51. 2016's Headlines.... by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
    NEW HEADLINE 2016

    And, much like Comdex of old, another convention that has been a part of CS for years, has to fold due to low attendance.

    The RSA convention downfall seems to be 100% attributable to last years rules forbidding Booth Babes. That combined with 2016's proposed "no more free trinkets and TShirts" rules sealed the deal on the once mighty security convention.

    --
    Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
  52. sexism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They banned popular womens attire. They want everyone to look like a man.

    Freedom of expression violation.

    That's why it's bad.

  53. Company will just hire attractive salespeople by Karmashock · · Score: 2

    This won't change. Sex sells.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  54. Re:The real booth babes ain't on the floor at RSA. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Not going to support the original position.

    But in my experience most 'slut shaming' is done by other women who are unhappy at being undercut in the 'social market for pussy'.

    There are a lot of women who get _all_ their power from their boxen. Sitting on gold mines and they know it.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  55. Not even close to a "first" by engineerErrant · · Score: 1

    E3 did this more than ten years ago. Revenues at the conference obviously went through the floor, and they went straight back to the fanboy mosh pit everyone knew and loved from before.

    That said, I didn't think the RSA conference would have the same demographic of attendees as E3. Perhaps it makes more sense for them; who knows. At the end of the day, business is business, and this is ultimately about money, not any social statement. They are simply betting that changing their appeal will raise their stature among security experts, attract attendees and media favor, and drive the all-important bottom line.

  56. Re:The real booth babes ain't on the floor at RSA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I agree that "slut shaming" is reprehensible, though I find it a somewhat different discussion than the argument that legal prostitution make women in relationship feel they lose power.

    But, a lot of the slut shaming I see is done by guys. Who does that fit into this picture?

  57. Re:The real booth babes ain't on the floor at RSA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *how*

  58. Devil's advocate: by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I dunno, I usually like going to conventions so people can try to sell me things.

    Thing is, these 'booth babes' acting as total sex objects *do* sell things...

    I'll explain in detail for those who disagree: the ladies grab the typical convention-goer's attention long enough for the sales-critters to suck the guy in and start making the pitch. Our victim is now too damned busy trying to steal glances so that he can lick every inch of her body with his eyeballs. This in turn means that his attention and concentration are now shitty enough to keep cynicism at bay, but still present enough to suck in any buzzword and pretty chart that gets shoved in front of him.

    It's a salesman's dream: a horny distracted dimwit with access to purchase order numbers.

    Now let's remove the barely-dressed ladies, and what do you get? People that *pay attention* to your sales pitch. People that will start asking hard questions. People who will have their cynic shields on full-power. People that take way more time to work on. Fewer prospects that even bother paying attention to your booth in the first place.

    I suspect that after a year or two of "empowerment" (or whatever they want to call it), it won't be attendance that drops, but vendor participation. When vendors see lower sales numbers off the convention, they can no longer credibly justify the expense and time of going.

    Me, I couldn't care either way - I usually bring my wife along (at personal expense), so that we can spend off-hours playing tourist and eating at nice places (and she goes off to museums and such during the day). On the other hand, I know exactly what a younger version of me would want... and the evil salesman I keep locked up in my brain knows just how effective sex is to get what he wants by using it.

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  59. I might care by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if I knew what RSA stood for. Really Stupid Assholes? Fuck knows.

  60. The era of the "Boot Hunks" has started... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    .....too bad I can not get a job on that.

  61. How long? by AndyKron · · Score: 1

    How long until burkas are mandatory?

  62. Re:The real booth babes ain't on the floor at RSA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "Creepy". Isn't that one of those sexist words that misandrists use to describe male sexuality?

    The shaming here is particularly amazing because it seems to be coming from men. Good boy. You're going to make your mistress a good little houseboy. Now get back to work and earn her some money. And leave the masculinity to the "creepy" guys.

    Being sexually aroused by a scantily-clad attractive 23-year old model is perfectly normal for a heterosexual man. Believing that it is acceptable for vendors at a conference to pay models to attend events in the hopes that it will benefit the sales of their totally unrelated product is creepy, because it betrays a total ignorance of acceptable social standards in 2015 relating to interactions between men and women at work.

    If nothing else, it is an insult to my professionalism to suggest that I would make important purchasing decisions for my employer with my penis. There was a time when "masculinity" meant putting the concepts of honor and duty above seeking gratification of personal desires. Now it seems to involve moaning about how your employer's vendors are no longer allowed to buy strippers for you.

  63. I can see the ads now by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

    Wanted: Software engineers with big tits.

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    1. Re:I can see the ads now by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wanted: Software engineers with big tits.

      Cost of sex-change operation and XL implants includes in benefits.


      On, topic... I dislike the concept, but special dress code for women isn't going to solve the problem. Next week women will be objecting those dress codes, I know I would...

    2. Re:I can see the ads now by laejoh · · Score: 1

      Most of my male collegues fit that description!

  64. Ill bet that spokeswoman... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Is FUGLY

  65. Online booth babes collection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's actually a German site called Messebabes that lets you rate IT booth babes.

  66. I see a market opportunity. by jcr · · Score: 1

    For every one of these conferences that's knuckling under to the neopuritains, there's an opening for a new show that will tell the SJWs to get bent.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:I see a market opportunity. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are neopuritains an ice cream or a kind of banana?

  67. Out of a job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hope all those boothbabes enjoy being out of a job for what I suspect was a decent paying venue.

  68. No problem by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Use (aheemmmm) interesting picts of booth folks in background.

    And properly dressed, live, same folks in foreground.
    Audience should enjoy comparing ang imagining the possibilities.
    Which will be more that the old, less permissive, in the flesh, rules permitted.
    Should be a wild ride.

    As an old guy, this seems like it should work, but I can't remember why.
    The younger folks here will eventually get to the same state.
    Another wild ride.

    Check phrase sadist. yes, maybe a bit when it seems right.

  69. Re:The real booth babes ain't on the floor at RSA. by unimacs · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Have you never had the experience of hooking up with someone who was just as into it as you were? Have you never felt someone tremble under your touch? That is powerful stuff. If the best analogy you can come up with is having someone cook for you vs going out to eat, you've clearly missed out on the pleasure that can be had through giving someone else pleasure.

    A prostitute may put on a good act, but in reality they just want to get it over with so they can turn the next trick or go home for the night. It is NOT at all the same. The BIGGEST turn on as far as I'm concerned is knowing that the person you are with is as filled with lust as you are.

  70. Tsk, Tsk...No Pix? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here's one:
    http://desudesudesu.org/images/uploads/61280370104.jpg

    There was a time when Booth Babes could be downright Diabolical.
    (Extra points if you know who this is.)

  71. How sad. by Checkered+Daemon · · Score: 4, Funny

    I have this friend. She's blond, six foot, blue eyes, loves wearing five inch heels, and is a bit of an exhibitionist. Gorgeous. Loves dressing up. She also has a BS in computer science and a master's degree in mathematcs. She works conventions as a 'booth babe' for fun. Her stories about tearing into some dork who thinks she's just some dumb blonde are priceless. Shame to spoil her fun.

    1. Re:How sad. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your post reminded me of this joke:

      A young man walked into the local welfare office, marched straight up to the counter and said, "Hi, I hate drawing welfare. I would really rather find a job."

      The man behind the counter replied, "Your timing is amazing. We've just got a listing from a very wealthy man who wants a chauffeur/bodyguard for his nympho daughter. You'll have to drive around in a big black Mercedes, but the suits, shirts, and ties are provided. Because of the long hours of this job, meals will also be provided. You will also be required to escort the young lady on her overseas holidays. The salary package is $200,000 a year."

      The young man said, "You're bullshitting me, man!"
      The man behind the counter said, "Well, you started it!"

    2. Re:How sad. by dbIII · · Score: 1

      If she has a clue about the topic represented by the booth then by definition she is not a "booth babe".

    3. Re:How sad. by Spamalope · · Score: 1

      I have this friend. She's blond, six foot, blue eyes, loves wearing five inch heels, and is a bit of an exhibitionist. Gorgeous. Loves dressing up. She also has a BS in computer science and a master's degree in mathematcs. She works conventions as a 'booth babe' for fun. Her stories about tearing into some dork who thinks she's just some dumb blonde are priceless. Shame to spoil her fun.

      O M G! I'd love to be a fly on the wall, that sounds hilarious. A bored brilliant woman in a target rich environment - priceless! She could troll for victims all day... I'm still laughing about the concept!

    4. Re:How sad. by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      Not that this would stop a stupid guy who is there to "enforce" this ban. Understand that guy could be the president of RSA. Look at what the idiot running Starbucks did recently. Yea, I could have told him his quest for race relations was a really, really, really stupid one. PC crap. I think we engraved that one on his head.

      Now, where is this lovely 6' blond blue eyed chick with a masters!

  72. It is called Social Engineering by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And it hasn't been fixed yet.

  73. Re:The real booth babes ain't on the floor at RSA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    OK, I'll bite. It's not a weird taboo at all. When a guy wines and dines a woman, then takes her to bed it says something about both of them:

    First, there has to be something about the guy that would make him appealing enough. Secondly, the woman has some standards even if they aren't very high. One or the other might even be deluding themselves into thinking it could lead to something more. Maybe it actually will lead to something more. As long as it's not adultery, it's respectable in many circles.

    The sex-for-sale transaction says the opposite. The guy can't meet the standard for the more selective women. He has to go find a woman who has commoditized herself, and purchase a commodity from her. She's put herself out there as a public resource. Yuck. Do you know where that's been? Fucking everywhere. Literally.

    If this rebuttal doesn't satisfy you then... well... sex isn't dinner. All analogies break down somewhere, and this one breaks down quite easily.

  74. Reminds me of NAMM. by Mal-2 · · Score: 2

    When I went to Winter NAMM back in 2010 or 2011 (can't remember any more), very few booths had "booth babes". There were plenty of women there who knew what they were selling, and some of them dressed up for the occasion while others did not. (Some of the guys wore suits while others wore cutoffs and sandals, too.) Nobody had a problem with this.

    That would be my simple defining line. If they know enough to answer questions helpfully, they're legitimate employees no matter how they're dressed or which gender they are. If they don't, then they're hangers-on in some capacity. This is not necessarily a problem, but hangers-on should not be used as eyecandy. If the vendor's kids are milling around, and dressed up in an eye-catching way, this is not a problem. It makes some level of sense that they'd be there, even if they don't really know the business aspect. What should be deemed a problem is hiring random people specifically for the event solely because they're good looking. If they're both good looking and adequately trainable as to be decent sales reps, more power to them.

    --
    How is the Riemann zeta function like Trump rallies? Both have an endless number of trivial zeros.
  75. Re:The real booth babes ain't on the floor at RSA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You make the assumption that everyone finds the social process of "wooing" someone to be enjoyable.

    I guess you only view women as things to be fucked, or ignored, then?

    Why do you feel like you can't just sit there with a woman, have some drinks, and chat for 4 hours without needing to fuck her? If you can't derive pleasure from the "social process of wooing" then I'd submit that you're in dire need of some heavy-duty counseling for your issues.

    If you treat your interactions with women as if they are transactions, don't be surprised that all of your dealings with women turn into transactions.

    I don't go to conferences to get laid - my lady does that just fine back home, and I'm more than happy to abstain (other than maybe a little hot phone lovin' with the lady) when I'm away from home for 5 days. Now, I've had sex at conferences in the past, but those have been happy accidents of fate - I happened to meet somebody with whom I had some chemistry, and in addition to spending hours together in conversation, we spent a couple hours in bed, too.

    Your comparison to "just go to a restaurant" is inexact, because it reduces sex to a base biological imperative - something that must be done, like eating or sleeping or urinating. If you view sex as nothing more than a physical necessity, an itch to be scratched in the most efficient means possible (rather than in the most enjoyable way possible), then you have problems.

    To expand on your analogy: using a prostitute for sex would be like spending $300 on McDonald's-quality food, but paying somebody a bunch of money to serve it to you on fine china with fancy linens. Sure, you get the trappings of fine dining - but you're still just eating a shitty, cold burger. On the other hand, if you actually went to the trouble of hunting down a local farmer's market to buy a bunch of fresh produce, and finding someone who had a good kitchen you could use to cook dinner, you could make a truly memorable meal with them and not spend a bunch of money in the process. AND have a much more memorable time at that conference.

  76. Some of the Feds are easy to spot by billstewart · · Score: 2

    They're the ones over in the NSA booth, showing off the cool Enigma machine, and handing out other spook agency trinkets. Sometimes other groups of Feds are there (Homeland Security or whoever), and they don't understand that, unlike the NSA who are evil but cool, they're evil but not cool.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  77. Re:The real booth babes ain't on the floor at RSA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those are recruiters for hostile foreign governments, dude.

  78. Booth Babes never made sense at RSA by billstewart · · Score: 3, Informative

    They were a really clear indicator that the occasional companies that hired them seriously didn't understand their audience, and hadn't brought anybody who knew anything technical to their booth, probably not even any marketing people who understood the product, so you could pretty much skip them, because they were pretty much always useless as well as unprofessional.

    On the other hand, you can totally bribe us with chocolate or especially coffee, and we might sit through your silly magician act for a raffle ticket for an iThing as long as there was technical content at your booth, and we'll pick up blinky tchotchkes with your logo on them. The woman I'd rather talk to at your booth is the one who developed the cool product, or can explain it well.

    When my company's been at trade shows in the area, about half their staff are booth-running professionals, rather than product-related, from the people who set the thing up and make sure all the marketing content is there to the people who herd customers in, figure out what they're interested in (even if it's just at the buzzword level), bring them over to the right part of the booth or find the right person if they need to, scan your contact info, get the speakers on and off the stage, etc., and about half are either main-office or local people who know something about whatever we're trying to sell. They seem to do a good job on the mechanics of it (I've occasionally ended up as local booth staff), and they're seriously good at respecting the audience.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  79. RSA at RSA show by billstewart · · Score: 1

    Typically the booth babe at RSA's booth at the RSA show is Rivest (I don't think I've seen Shamir or Adleman there.) Usually he's been working on something interesting and is having fun showing it off, but he's also there for fanboi value.

    --

    Bill Stewart
    New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
  80. Ellen Pao vs. Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just like in the Ellen Pao vs. Kleiner Perkins Caufield & Byers discrimination case, women are being excluded.

  81. Re:The real booth babes ain't on the floor at RSA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If nothing else, it is an insult to my professionalism to suggest that I would make important purchasing decisions for my employer with my penis.

    Unfortunately, there are way too many men who see the booth babes and immediately start doing their thinking with the little head rather than the big head. Vendors are all too aware of this.

    There was a time when "masculinity" meant putting the concepts of honor and duty above seeking gratification of personal desires. Now it seems to involve moaning about how your employer's vendors are no longer allowed to buy strippers for you.

    Sigh! Yeah, that too. Really, the only way this will end is when the bosses of both the vendors and the conference goers tell those that work for them to do their fucking jobs and leave the strippers for after-hours recreation.

  82. Re:The real booth babes ain't on the floor at RSA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This weird taboo attitude towards sex confuses me.

    Yes, I can see that. And I won't be at all surprised if it takes quite a bit more time for enlightenment to come to you.

    And the best (or I guess worst) excuse I've heard - from women - as to why prostitution shouldn't be legalized? Because if men had access to sex that easily they'd lose too much power in the relationship. That's the honest to goodness answer I've heard from quite a few of them.

    If that is what the women in your life are saying, I suggest you find a better class of woman to hang out with. Just sayin'.

  83. Re:The real booth babes ain't on the floor at RSA. by dbIII · · Score: 1

    And I thought Enron was creepy. So the trading floor pricks getting laid has spread out into other industries like a rampant venerial disease?

  84. Re:The real booth babes ain't on the floor at RSA. by dbIII · · Score: 1

    This weird taboo attitude towards sex confuses me.

    Combining it with work is the problem, especially if it's siphoning off funds that could have gone elsewhere.

  85. It's the clothing. by XB-70 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    Back in the '80s, at the Bobbin Show in Atlanta, one exhibitor hired a booth babe of ... extraordinary ... proportions.

    She was clad in: a very tight-fitting (and extremely stretched) t-shirt, disco shorts, socks and roller-skates.

    Competitors complained and show management advised the exhibitor that:

    A) She had to stop roller-skating around the show and

    B) She had to add an item of clothing.

    Next day, she showed up in the identical outfit more clearly outlined by a set of suspenders!

    --
    *** Don't be dull.***
  86. Re:The real booth babes ain't on the floor at RSA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'd consider them half crazy for not just going to a restaurant and ordering something...

    If a waitress was at high risk of getting nasty incurable infectious diseases from every customer that she served - and then, once she had those diseases herself, was at high risk for spreading them to everyone she served - then, yes, going to a restaurant would be pretty crazy.

    A guy who spends 4 hours worth of time and $200 in drinks and dinner to bed some random girl is seen as awesome while a guy who cuts to the chase with a $300 prostitute is shunned.

    But those 4 hours of drinks are 4 hours when she isn't having sex with other people - some of whom have nasty incurable sexually transmitted diseases. More broadly, most prostitutes have sex with multiple people every night - whereas the drinks girl is most likely to be maxing out at a new partner every week or so.

    Plus, those four hours of drinks also allow the guy to get a sense for how likely the girl is to have nasty infectious diseases, dangerous mental illness, etc.

  87. Re:The real booth babes ain't on the floor at RSA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's creepy only when you are ugly.

    Women are just as shallow.

  88. Re:The real booth babes ain't on the floor at RSA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > "Creepy". Isn't that one of those sexist words that misandrists use to describe male sexuality?

    Maybe.

    But there is sure as hell a strict subset of male behaviour that generally qualifies as "Creepy". Just because a term gets appropriated doesn't mean there is no meaning in it anymore.

  89. Booth babes: "The dry hustle" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Prostitutes call booth babes "The dry hustle". Booth babes are prostitutes that don't have sex.

  90. Re:The real booth babes ain't on the floor at RSA. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > I guess you only view women as things to be fucked, or ignored, then?

    What has "women, as a class of things" got to do with anything?

    When I get a cab, I view the driver as a person. If he's male - fine. I still don't particularly give a flying fuck about his personal problems or what kind of day he had. Does that mean I objectify men?

  91. What about the unix programmers? by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

    No shorts? What about the sandals, socks pulled up, shorts a t shirt and a huge beard? Banning shorts will exclude me and my fellow unix programmers.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
  92. Re:The real booth babes ain't on the floor at RSA. by Spamalope · · Score: 1

    But, a lot of the slut shaming I see is done by guys. What does that fit into this picture?

    White Knighting mostly.

  93. One more reason to boycott it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If this is about fighting sexism, why not open it up to male and trans* babes instead?

    1. Re:One more reason to boycott it by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      They're fine as long as they aren't female, apparently. Women need to be protected it seems.

  94. Burka by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Speaking of burkas, why don't we make the booth representative -- male and female -- wear that kind of concealing attire. Wouldn't that solve all these issues?

  95. Sexist devs? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Should sexist opensource developers have their projects censored or removed?

    Recently an opensource game release story was removed due to the game developer's open sexism(0) and harrasment(1) of women in tech.

    A story posted by the editor of the popular Phoronix linux news site about a release of an Open Source videogame was later manually removed(2). The reason cited was the game developer's unacceptable views on social issues such as gender equality (3).

    The release story was titled "Xonotic-Forked ChaosEsqueAnthology Sees New Release - Phoronix" and can be accessed via the google cache(4).

    With the recent inclusion of a code of conduct(5) for those wishing to contribute to the Linux Kernel some questions now need to be asked and answered about the inclusion of code from people who are known to engage in or promote socially unacceptable attitudes or harrasments of those whom the free-software movement would prefer to attract in their place:

    * Are the social or political views of an author of free software relevant to that software's inherent quality?
    * Should the beliefs of an opensource developer weigh when when evaluating whether a piece of opensource software is worthy of any publicity or public notice?
    * Should men with unpopular or "forbidden" views be excised from the opensource movement and "not allowed" to contribute, in a manner similar to that which is done in employment?
    * Has the free/opensource software movement changed in these respects since its founding? If so is this a positive change?
    * Should there be gatekeepers to opensource that decide who may and who may not contribute. Should abusive developers be "blackballed" to maintain proper social order and controls?

    and

    * What are the consequences of not doing this

    Citations:
    (0) Past related incident: http://esr.ibiblio.org/?p=1310
    (1) http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/...
    (2) Removed story URL: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.p...
    (3) http://www.phoronix.com/forums...
    "Fortunately, the article has been removed now."
    "Thanks everybody for speaking up."
    (4) https://webcache.googleusercon...
    (5) Linux "Code of Conflict"

    1. Re:Sexist devs? by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      In a word - no. The story should have remained. To delete it over his views on gender equality was totally inappropriate, and downright wrong. We can have opinions and we should have opinions. We shouldn't bash someone like that. Didn't like it when people bashed gay people, don't like it when the gays bash straight people.

      We're getting into the thought police. Dangerous place to be. Next thing you know, we won't be any better than the crazy fascist islamists/socialists. Then the killing starts. Of course it goes into irony when those who are killing others get caught and killed also.

      Just stop. Stop it now. End censorship.

  96. regarding booth people by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd think it was odd, the same way I think of booth babes as an odd concept. Then again, I've come to terms with the fact that I am odd. If I'm at a tech conference I'm there to drool over the tech, or more realistically I want to talk to the people who actually developed the stuff. Most of them are worlds smarter than myself and I'm hoping to glean some small amount of their gigantic knowledge base that I can impart on myself. I really enjoyed your post btw, really well done.

  97. Re:The real booth babes ain't on the floor at RSA. by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Even non prostitutes participate in the 'social market for pussy'.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  98. Unfortunate... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Forbid the RSA conference try to be a friendly place for women involved in the technical side of security.

    And yes, they do exist. This one right here created SCHANNEL (Microsoft's SSL/TLS provider) back in the 90's. And don't tell me about MS14-066. That crept in well after I left. Or SGC...that was to get around government stuff.

    - A dev chick.

  99. Re:The real booth babes ain't on the floor at RSA. by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    Lose the pocket protector, glasses and start swinging. Otherwise, you're not invited.