However, this is not okay.

*This* is a glimpse inside Ad:Tech San Francisco. Maybe not all of Ad:Tech. Maybe not even most of Ad:Tech. But it’s certainly a representation of how at least a few people decided to capture it. And this is not directed toward the photographers, at least one of whom I am personally acquainted with. And certainly not directed toward the women who are captured in the photographs or women who have embraced their own sexuality and their own representation of it.

It’s not directed toward sex in art, sex in social commentary, sex in music, sex in film, or choice of sexual exhibitionism. This is entirely about the objectifying of women for comercial gain.

Sex sells, right? It’s been used for decades to touch on an instinctual desire, particularly in men, that ties desire to a commercial action, such as buying. This is why the porn industry is so huge. This is why men will pour hundreds, if not thousands of dollars, into the sex industry and the industry thrives.

I am not naive, nor am I a curmudgeon. As a man, I readily admit to, at least occasionally, “Thinking with my penis”…

But this is an industry that is loosely defined as “tech” and tech is largely dominated by men. We have an image problem. On one hand, the industry as a whole has spoken out vocally about the representation of women in presentations, at conferences, on speaker lineups, etc. We have vilified organizations that put on events not proportionally represented by women and yet… somehow it’s okay, with a wink and a nod, to put women on display on show room floors for the purpose of selling a product. That’s, somehow, okay… even if no one will say that. After all, these “booth babes” are getting paid and this is their job. Sure, gimme a free tee-shirt or a brand-labeled rubber band ball. Cool.

I love scantly clad women as much as the next guy. I’d rather she be in my bedroom or sipping a bourbon and ginger at a bar or show, than pushing some new mobile ad network on a showroom floor so the married ad executive from Burbank can get his nards off. To me, this is a practice that really needs to end.

Note: Despite my desire to use a sexy image for this post, I’ve chosen not to for obvious reasons.

Dan Mintz, formerly the CIO for the Department of Transportation reiterates my assertion, in an interview with ExecutiveBiz, that the Government knows that no one is an expert in this area but is willing to work with competent individuals and companies who are willing to partner in learning the space:

This is still an experiment so therefore “˜how this will play out’ will require people who are comfortable with experiments. The government has a tendency to be risk-averse, which is understandable. It will be very important for the leadership within the departments and agencies to provide support for people who are willing to do the experiments. The second important factor to remember is that it [2.0 activity] will be user driven, not IT driven.

In my earlier article on this matter, I stated:

What [self-described Government 2.0 experts] don’t realize is the government they wish to work with understands that Government 2.0 is new and that very few people are experts. The government, I believe, is looking to partner with people who have the chutzpah to become experts. Who have a firm grounding in communications principles and web savvy. They understand that the next year will make experts if the right candidates, firms and contractors are chosen. They are looking for people who have the savvy needed to guide and advise, with the understanding that it’s a completely new playing field. My instinct says that the government knows that they are getting prepared to experiment and want someone to experiment with.

Sounds like we are saying the same thing. It’s just a shame that Mr. Mintz is the former CIO of the Dept. of Transportation.