Coworking: Fixed Desks or Hot-Desking? [en]

[fr] A l'occasion de la conférence Coworking Europe, j'ai pris part à un panel discutant des avantages/inconvénients des postes fixes ou mobiles.

I was on a panel at Coworking Europe about fixed desks versus hot-desking. When I opened eclau, I had a vision for it based on how Citizen Space had been set up. Mid-2008, Citizen Space was my ur-coworking-space. I was in contact with Chris and Tara and had spent a little time at the space over the summer 2007 during my stay in San Francisco.

It quickly became apparent to me that eclau’s architecture (and possibly Lausanne’s business culture) was not working out well with my desire to have a heart of fixed-desk resident coworkers.

Eclau has very few walls that are not interrupted by pipes, radiators, or windows, making it difficult to install desk+bookcase combos that most people needing a fixed desk required.

Also, people who came to visit for a fixed desk often turned out to be either people who wanted to store a lot of stuff in the space, or who wanted a “real office” and were just trying to save on the costs.

After a year or two, eclau counted only a couple of fixed desks, and way more “hot-desking” members. Roughly two years after opening, eclau 2.0 re-focused the offer on free seating, making fixed desks an extra option available to existing members. So far, nobody has actually got around to taking the fixed desk option.

That’s for my story.

One interesting idea that emerged from the panel was that coworking space managers are trying to maximize the returns for the space they have. This is kind of an alien idea to me, as I don’t earn a living with eclau — I just want it to “not cost me anything”. The debate over fixed vs. flexible desks brought us to speak of our price plans and business models, which tend to reflect how important revenue is to the space manager. Clearly, if you’re trying to make a living out of your coworking space, or if you’re making a living doing something else, the way you approach these issues will be quite different.

At eclau, I don’t really worry that summer months are “empty”. Or Fridays. Of course it’s nicer when you’re not alone when you come to work at the coworking space. But from a financial perspective it doesn’t change anything for me, because I don’t sell desk space, or time in the space, or services. People sign up to be members, for six months or a year minimum, and the yearly membership fee is spread over 12 months. So people still pay for the space in July/August, even if they’re on holiday. They’re paying to be part of the community. Not because they occupy a seat.

This fits with my vision of coworking as “community/people first”. For me the desk renting business is the business that business centers are in.

Some argue that the type of price plan I propose is not flexible. On the contrary, I see it as very flexible. The membership fee is low, because all I’m looking to do is cover my costs. Once you’re a member, you have a key, and come whenever you want. Complete flexibility.

And the rather serious commitment required of full members is balanced with an “occasional member” offer which is virtually free (tip jar) for those who want to come less than three times a month.

I also believe in keeping things dead simple. Want to be a member? Here’s how it works. You don’t need to agonize over which price plan to choose, or wonder if you want to drop in at the coworking space today and use up some of your credit. Once you’re a member, the only thing that determines whether you come or not is your need of a place to work for the day.

Now of course, if I were trying to make a living (or at least money) out of eclau, I would be doing things very differently. Because on a given day, there are a lot of empty desks at eclau. So clearly, I’m not maximizing my revenue from the space. But that’s not my objective. (Which brings us to the other session I co-held at Coworking Europe, about the criteria of success for coworking.)

My Trick for Paris Metro Tickets [en]

If you’re traveling to Paris, you probably have to deal with those pesky metro tickets. Here’s what I do to stay sane.

  • I buy 10 tickets at a time. They’ll still work next time I come if I don’t use them all.
  • I hold them together with a paper-clip.

I store my current metro ticket on top of the stack with the same paper-clip. No drama if I bump into a ticket check, because I know where to find it.

Tickets de métro

This means that each time I go through the ticket doors, I:

  1. take the stack of tickets out of my bag (!)
  2. remove the ticket from the last trip and throw it in a bin (or in my pocket so I’m ready for the next bin
  3. take a new ticket from the stack and use it to go through the door
  4. immediately place that new-used-ticket on the stack with the others, and back in my bag

You can identify a used ticket because it has something printed on it (often illegible, but still). With this technique finding my “last used one” is easy, as it’s either the top or the bottom one. And I avoid the drama of stray tickets in my bag or pockets, used or not.

Coworking Musings — Why is More Better? [en]

[fr] A Paris pour Coworking Europe. Trois jours pour penser au coworking et à l'eclau! Là, je médite sur le fait que la mesure du succès pour un espace coworking semble être "plus de coworkers" ou "plus de revenu". Je ne suis pas d'accord, comme vous imaginez, si vous connaissez un peu l'eclau...

Here I am in Paris for Coworking Europe. Three days to think about coworking and talk with other people who are also running spaces or participating in the coworking movement one way or another.

Rather than live-blog, I’ve decided to take a few notes and write more synthetic posts with my thoughts and take-aways.

One of the first things that strikes me is how success seems to be measured by numbers here. More members, better space. I’m not sure I agree. That is in any case definitely not how I manage eclau.

More members means more connections. But at what point do more connections start being “noise”? Do we always need more connections? Is this the single only indicator of success? Take the Hub Melbourne. 700 members. Mind-boggling, but is it still a community? Also, how do you count members? Are they people who have signed up to be on a list, or people who actively and regularly come and work at the coworking space?

I know I’m very careful about how I count numbers. It’s simple at eclau: a member is somebody who shells out the monthly fee. And for that, they have to have signed up for six months minimum. Yes, six months! When I give numbers, I don’t count occasional members, who can come up to 3 times a month and are on the e-mail discussion list. Many of those who sign up for occasional membership never come. Or come once. Counting them feels like cheating.

On the other hand, I see other coworking spaces boasting large numbers of coworkers but which are not “fuller” than eclau on a normal working day. Maybe we should count people actually present in the space instead. Coworker-days or something.

Something else to take into account is the size of the city the coworking space is in. You don’t have the same scale in Lausanne, which counts barely over 100K inhabitants, or London or Paris or New York. The pool of possible coworkers just cannot compare. A space with 700 members in Lausanne? That is the size of a major company for our part of the world. 12 full-time members in London is probably laughable.

Peace. I like small numbers, small groups, small communities — at least offline. I’ve been holding monthly blogger dinners for many years now, and our record attendance is less than 20 people. Despite that, these dinners have allowed countless people to meet and get to know each others, and there are many friendships and business relationships who can boast some kind of Bloggy Friday connection.

The question of numbers, and therefore connections, is probably also different whether you’re catering primarily to entrepreneurs or freelancers. Most established freelancers have their own networks. What interests them (as far as I can see at eclau, at least) is more the network of peers than a network of possible clients and business opportunities. Of course those exist and are there, but I think it’s the peer support that is at the core of eclau’s success.

These observations might be biased as there is certainly some self-selection going on. People who need more connections might go somewhere else.

For the moment, I’m quite happy for eclau to stay “small” — a coworking space where there are sometimes more cats present than humans. 😉

#back2blog challenge (10/10)

Personal, Social, and the Shortcuts [en]

[fr] Je me demande si toutes ces fonctionnalités pour nous "simplifier la vie" dans notre utilisation "sociale" des outils ne vide pas partiellement ceux-ci de leur "socialité".

Yesterday, as I was gathering the links to the posts of the other #back2blog challengers (bloody hard work if you ask me), I remembered that I had left a comment on one of Delphine‘s posts.

I’ve been leaving quite a few comments on blog posts since the challenge started. Often, with “modern” blogging tools, you can check a little box to receive an e-mail alert when somebody responds to your comment. (Not on this blog. I run WordPress, but my server doesn’t send e-mail.)

It’s nice, because it relieves us of having to remember that we left a comment, and if conversation erupts (reward!) we will be informed.

Having to remember I had left a comment at Delphine’s reminded me of the time before RSS readers were popular, before coComment, before Facebook Connect, before WordPress even. Everything was much more “manual”. And with that, I believe, more personal. Part of what goes in to create a relationship is time, and effort. Time to find that blog post. Effort to remember.

Now, JP is arguing (and I’m with him here) that when you try and scale personal, you get social.

I am wondering, though, what it is that you do lose on the way, if you scale far enough.

Mass-everything did not come up from nowhere. As I learned the hard way while promoting Going Solo, shortcuts have a price. Send an e-mail copied to 100 people, or send 100 personal e-mails, and you won’t have the same efficiency. That’s why Americans take the trouble to make house calls or phone up people to convince them to vote.

And while I immensely appreciate all the features of modern social media which make it so much more easy for us to be social, I’m starting to think that some of what I find distasteful with some uses of social media is not just those who are stuck on the other side of what I think of as the “Cluetrain paradigm shift”, but maybe also what happens when we wind up taking too many shortcuts to make it “easier to be social”.

Are we headed for a form of “mass social media”? Are we already there, sadly, for some part?

Even if this is true, that does not mean that we have to give up on the “true” social, or even “personal”.

I remember a few years ago one of my friends (Suw if I’m not mistaken) saying that she didn’t get why so many people were complaining that “Twitter wasn’t what it was”.

On Twitter, one has complete control over who one follows. You don’t have to go and follow all the new-styled social media gurus. Or the annoying self-promoting people. You can stick to those who rock your world, and have a Twitter experience that doesn’t change so much over time. (Of course the people you follow change, but that’s another thing.)

You can use Twitter like mass media, or you can use Twitter like social media, or like personal media. The choice is yours.

#back2blog challenge (9/10)

Pseudonyms on Facebook [en]

[fr] Vrais noms, faux noms, Facebook. Oui, je suis un peu crispée là-dessus.

I have to admit to a bit of a hang-up: I don’t like pseudonyms in real-names-only spaces.The first time I realized I disliked them in that context (and in that context only — I have no problem in general with anonymity/pseudonymity, except that it’s fragile and potentially dangerous to the one who tries to hide, and is bound to be discovered someday) a very long time ago, in another life, when I was very active on an e-mail discussion list called webdesign-L.

At the time, I was still suffering from the paranoia of the newcomer on the Internets: nobody shall know who I am, nobody shall know where I live, nobody shall know what I look like, nobody shall identify me. (Yes, my real online life started in the murky chatrooms of Chatplanet, in 98. I was completely freaked out about these “anonymous strangers”. I’ve come a long way.)

Until I registered climbtothestars.org, I used a pseudonym as my “real name” in all my online dealings: Tara Star. My coming-out as Stephanie Booth was not difficult, because by that time I had become increasingly uncomfortable about the fact that

  1. I was misleading a whole bunch of really nice people about my identity, when they were being honest about theirs
  2. I was starting to build a reputation for myself which was disconnected from my civilian identity.

So, on Facebook it’s different. The few contacts I have who use “fake names” use “obviously fake” names. I knew them offline before connecting to them on Facebook (you won’t find me connecting to people on Facebook that I don’t already know previously somehow or other, by the way).

But it bothers me that Facebook explicitly says “Real Names Please” and that not everyone plays by the rules. Now, I understand the rationale behind the need for anonymity/pseudonymity in some cases. That’s why I say I have a hang-up, because my position is not 100% coherent. It bothers me when people willfully “go against social norms”.

From a more practical point of view, it really annoys me to have to remember that this or that person is using this or that pseudonym on Facebook, when I know them under their real name in meatspace. It makes looking them up and inviting them to stuff complicated. And when they have two accounts, it’s even worse. Which of them do I invite? Thank goodness it’s only a small handful of my contacts that makes me think overtime 😉

This is an old topic for me — we discussed it at length on Spirolattic.

So, Facebook? Well, my hang-up makes it really difficult for me to say “yes” to friend requests from people who don’t use their real identity (or some minor variation thereof) on Facebook. But well, there are exceptions. So, dear friends-with-two-accounts-or-fake-names, consider what you mean to me if you’re in my contacts!

Thanks to Jon Husband for his question on Facebook, which prompted me to produce this dormant post.

#back2blog challenge (8/10):

Social, Plural of Personal (or When Personal Scales) [en]

[fr] Grâce à JP et sa série d'articles, je viens de me reconnecter avec ce qui fait la fondation de ma passion pour le web et les médias sociaux: qu'ils mettent les gens en contact direct, et dans le contexte de l'entreprise, humanisent celle-ci. A lire.

Today I am going to send you to read JP Rangaswami, after my latest spree of ranty pots. JP is writing a series of articles around the idea that social is the plural of personal. And he is so spot on.

I was so happy when I read JP’s first article, because it made me remember what attracted me to social media in the first place (at the time, “blogs” or “social software”) and helped me understand the growing dissatisfaction I have developed about the field over the past years.

What I find interesting about social media in a business setting is how it helps humanize the organisation/company. How it puts human beings back in touch with human beings. And how in the context of an authentic relationship, you need to care for things to work out.

I am so frustrated that French does not have a good word to translate “care”.

I had a revelation when I went to the very first Lift Conference, in 2006. Here are the posts I wrote during the conference (see how blogging has evolved since then — this was before Twitter and Facebook). My memory tells me that I owe this revelation mainly to the talks of Robert Scoble and Hugh MacLeod, and the conversations we had during the conversation. I remember that it was this pivotal moment which made me understand what use blogs (at the time) were in a business context, and therefore that there might be a way to earn money with what was fascinating me.

Update: link to lift06 videos.

Six+ years later, well, you know the story.

I’m trying to remember if I also met Euan Semple that year at Lift, or if it was somewhere else, or later. Do you remember, Euan? Anyway, a few weeks before reading JP’s post, I had ordered Euan’s book, “Organizations don’t tweet, people do”. I haven’t yet started reading it but I’m really looking forward to diving in. Same thing: it’s all about putting people, and personal, and relationships, and trust, and authenticity back in front of the scene.

Somewhere along my business life, with all my freelancer insecurities, the pressure to actually earn a living through my activities and interests, I seem to have lost touch with the core of my passion for the living web. Not to the point where I’ve sold out to some ad agency and started spewing out viral videos or whatnot. Not so much in my actions — more just that I forgot.

But I remember now.

Thanks, JP. Thanks, Euan. And thanks to all of you along the way who have not let go and are not letting go, and are working to make our organizations more human-friendly.

#back2blog challenge (7/10):

De la "blogosphère suisse romande" [fr]

[en] Rant about the "French-Swiss blogosphere". There is a group on Facebook with that name and it is filled with 20-something fashion bloggers for whom "participating" means link-dropping their every post in the group. Needless to say I'm already at odds with the group founder.

Il y a quelques semaines, quelle ne fut pas ma surprise de découvrir sur Facebook un groupe intitulé un peu pompeusement “Blogosphère Suisse Romande“. Je demande à le rejoindre, j’y connais une poignée de personnes sur la centaine qui le composent. Activité principale dans le groupe: balancer des liens auto-promotionnels vers ses propres articles, généralement mode/lifestyle/fashion avec un peu de cuisine, et quelques extraterrestres qui parlent d’autre chose.

Raph et moi jetons quelques petits pavés dans cette mare composée majoritairement de jeunes blogueuses mode, et nous entendons dire qu’on ne fait que râler et qu’on ferait mieux d’échanger (entendre: balancer des liens vers nos articles, si j’ai bien compris).

Michelle demande à juste titre: La blogosphère suisse romande existe-t-elle? A mon sens, elle existe en tant que “ensemble des gens en suisse romande qui bloguent”, mais vu la diversité d’expression que recouvre le terme “bloguer”, il va sans dire qu’elle est extrêmement fragmentée et qu’elle n’a aucune existence en tant que communauté.

Ce groupe Facebook est un excellent exemple de la myopie “egocentrée” qui consiste à nous faire croire que notre réseau = le réseau, notre communauté = la communauté, l’ensemble des blogueurs qu’on peut atteindre/connaître = les blogueurs. La personne à l’origine du groupe étant une jeune blogueuse lifestyle/fashion (enfin d’après mes catégories), il est évident qu’elle allait attirer d’autres blogueurs au profil similaire. J’en ai d’ailleurs découvert la richesse de cette scène que je ne connaissais pas du tout (et qui malheureusement m’intéresse assez peu). Tout comme, d’ailleurs, quand j’organise pour ma part des rencontres de blogueurs, on y retrouve une relativement forte proportion de geeks et de professionnels du web. Mais j’ai bien conscience qu’il y a des tonnes de blogueurs de la région qui n’ont jamais entendu parler du Bloggy Friday, malgré ses xy années d’existence (je ne compte plus, quelqu’un se souvient?).

Donc bref. Moi qui caressais ce printemps l’idée de remettre en branle quelque chose pour les blogueurs romands (un annuaire, successeur de Swissblogs, ou un groupe Facebook), j’ai espéré un moment avoir trouvé le wow-génial-quelqu’un-a-fait-avant-moi. Vraiment. Mais bon, j’ai vite déchanté.

Peu de volonté d’ouverture, pas de recherche de la diversité, admission des nouveaux membres qui prend des plombes (moi c’est allé vite mais j’en connais qui ont attendu des semaines), et finalement une magnifique plate-forme d’auto-promo où on balance ces posts en espérant que ça va nous rapporter quelques lecteurs. Le groupe pourrait tout autant s’appeler “fashionistas-blogueuses et amis”. Je vous laisse prendre connaissance du “compte-rendu” (il paraît que plus va suivre et que je dois être patiente) de la rencontre d’il y a deux semaines qui devait être entre autres l’occasion de discuter de la vision et de la direction du groupe (moi j’étais en vacances, sinon vous pensez bien que je serais allée mettre mon grain de sel). Je sais pas vous, mais moi, lire “la Blogosphère Suisse Romande se rencontrait” pour ce genre de contexte ça me donne des boutons. Est-ce que je prétends que les Bloggy Fridays sont des rencontres de “la Blogosphère Suisse Romande”, moi?

Bon, j’imagine bien qu’il y a des gens très sympas dans ce groupe, et que le tableau n’est pas aussi noir que je le peins, mais je ne m’y reconnais pas du tout et qui plus est, la jeune fondatrice semble m’avoir d’ores et déjà pris en grippe. A sa décharge, c’est vrai que quand on me prend de haut je ne suis pas toujours agréable. Mais bon faut pas pousser non plus — je bloguais déjà qu’elle ignorait encore tout des subtilités de l’accord du participe passé avec avoir.

Alors à côté de ça, il y a blogueurs.ch, qui mériterait qu’on lui insuffle un peu de vie. Je suis en train d’échanger (pour de vrai!) avec Dave pour voir quelle est sa vision pour ce groupe (et j’ai déjà bien plus de réponses que quand j’ai posé la question dans l’autre groupe). A ce stade, ce qui me retient un peu de m’impliquer dans ce groupe, j’avoue que c’est:

  • l’accent mis sur “les pros du net” (moi je suis pour faire un truc autour des blogs de vrais gens)
  • l’appellation “Suisse” (ça m’énerve prodigieusement quand les Suisses Allemands font des machins “suisses” sans nous inclure, et idem dans l’autre sens — assumons qu’on fait un machin “suisse romand”)
  • et, c’est con, mais “blogueurs” élicite en moi la réaction “et les blogueuses”?

Mais on parle, et je suis sûre qu’il y a quelque chose à faire. Mais si on cherche à créer un groupe ou une communauté qui soit vraiment représentative de la blogosphère romande (= l’ensemble des gens qui ont un blog par ici) et où des blogueurs et blogueuses de tous bords peuvent se reconnaître, il y a un véritable travail à faire pour encourager la diversité.

#back2blog challenge (6/10, ah ouais j’ai tartiné aujourd’hui, mais c’est dimanche; et oui, visiblement je suis dans une phase articles-coups-de-gueule — désolée :-/):

Bloggy Friday, #back2blog, et l'eclau [fr]

[en] Motivating these days: Bloggy Friday, still going strong after all these years; #back2blog challenge, picked up by 20 or so bloggers; and eclau, the coworking space I manage in Lausanne, which turns 4 today.

Je fais partie de ces personnes qui vit sa vie en ayant le sentiment de ne jamais avoir assez de temps. Oh, je suis lucide. J’ai autant de temps que tout le monde, je sais que c’est plutôt que j’ai du mal à prioriser, hiérarchiser, décider, me frustrer.

Like a crazy hoarder I mistake the root cause of my growing mountain of incomplete work. The hoarder thinks he has a storage problem (when he really has a ‘throwing things away problem’). I say I am ‘time poor’ as if the problem is that poor me is given only 24 hours in a day. It’s more accurate to say… what exactly? It seems crazy for a crazy person to use his own crazy reasoning to diagnose his own crazy condition. Maybe I too easily add new projects to my list, or I am too reluctant to exit from unsuccessful projects. Perhaps I am too reluctant to let a task go, to ship what I’ve done. They’re never perfect, never good enough.

On Task Hoarding and ToDo Bankruptcy (Leon Bambrik)

Donc, je fais plein de trucs, et pas juste des trucs qui rapportent de l’argent, et ces temps, j’avoue être particulièrement motivée par ces “activités non lucratives”.

Le Bloggy Friday continue son bonhomme de chemin après toutes ces années — on était une douzaine hier soir. J’ai pris conscience il y a quelques mois que malgré l’échelle assez modeste de cette rencontre (entre 5 et 10 personnes par souper, une fois par mois), elle avait permis à de belles amitiés et des relations d’affaires de naître, au fil des années. C’est ce genre de chose qui me motive à continuer.

Sur un coup de tête, j’ai lancé le “Back to Blogging Challenge” (#back2blog) qu’une vingtaine de personnes (dépassant toutes mes espérances!) est en train de relever. Il y a une super énergie, on lit les articles des autres, on commente… cette excitation palpable me rappelle mes premières années de blogueuse. Ça me fait particulièrement plaisir de voir qu’il y tant des blogueurs chevronnés que débutants qui y prennent part (y compris une poignée d’étudiants de la formation SAWI sur les médias sociaux!) et qu’on y blogue en au moins cinq langues!

Finalement l’eclau (Espace Coworking LAUsanne), qui fête ses 4 ans aujourd’hui et se porte extrêmement bien: grande variété de professions représentées, personnes lumineuses et passionnées, excellente entente et riches échanges entre les coworkers, bon équilibre entre “possibilité de travailler” et “possibilité de socialiser”, et un lunch mensuel qui commence à prendre son rythme de croisière et trouver sa place dans nos vies.

Merci à vous tous sans qui ces petites activités communautaires n’existeraient pas!

#back2blog challenge (5/10):

La fausse sécurité du digicode [fr]

[en] Codes on building doors? Less safe than keys, imho.

Il y a quelques années, la gérance a fait installer un digicode à la porte d’entrée de mon immeuble. Auparavant, l’immeuble était ouvert la journée, fermé la nuit, et il fallait pour rentrer une clé protégée (non copiable sans autorisation).

Argument: meilleure sécurité, demandes des locataires.

Je précise: digicode sans interphone ni sonnette. Si vous ne l’avez pas, vous appelez votre hôte au téléphone, et celui-ci soit vient vous ouvrir (mais oui bien sûr) soit vous dicte le code, que vous rentrez quelque part dans votre carnet d’adresse histoire de ne pas être embêté la prochaine fois que vous venez en visite.

Fermé la journée? Super, sauf pour le local commercial qui tient lieu d’espace coworking où des professionnels reçoivent durant les heures de travail clients et collègues. Juste invivable. J’ai d’ailleurs fait installer à mes frais une sonnette FM (discrète) pour l’eclau.

Résultat? Alors oui, la porte est fermée la journée. Super.

Qui peut accéder à l’immeuble avec le code? A vue de nez, à peu près la moitié de Lausanne (je suis sûre qu’il n’y avait pas autant de clés en circulation). Entre les locataires, leurs familles, leurs amis, les livreurs et autres professionnels qui doivent pouvoir rentrer, les gens qui sont venus une fois à une soirée (je ne mentionne même pas tout l’écosystème qui tourne autour de l’eclau), les ex-locataires (“rendez-nous le code!” haha!), les ex tout court… On a toujours confiance dans les gens qu’on connaît. N’est-ce pas?

Ah oui, et il y a aussi tous les autres locataires des numéros avoisinants qui partagent le même bâtiment. La gérance a en effet envoyé un courrier unique aux trois numéros avec les digicodes des trois entrées.

Et encore? Un code, c’est comme une idée, un objet numérique, ou un mot de passe, ça se transmet super facilement à un tiers. Une clé protégée? Un peu plus dur à dupliquer.

Alors qu’on n’aille pas essayer de me dire qu’en plus de tous les emmerdements que nous procure le digicode, il accroît notre sécurité.

#back2blog challenge (4/10) — articles des autres participants suivront, en attendant allez voir #back2blog sur Twitter.

Pédophiles et hébéphiles [fr]

[en] Listen to Dan Savage's podcast episode about pedophilia. Enlightening.

Si vous n’avez jamais écouté le podcast de Dan Savage où lu ses chroniques, je vous encourage à y remédier tout de suite. Attention cependant, si le franc-parler autour de la sexualité vous heurte, ou que vous avez une vision très traditionnelle de ce que devrait être une relation amoureuse, vous risquez de trouver parfois dérangeant. Mais des fois c’est bien d’être dérangé.

Dan prodigue ses conseils sur tout ce qui touche au sexe et aux relations depuis 1999. Il prend des appels de gens venant de tous horizons, il est extrêmement ouvert et je trouve ses conseils très avisés (même si pas toujours très polis ;-)).

Il n’est donc pas surprenant qu’il soit parfois approché de ceux ou celles qui ne savent plus vers qui se tourner. Ce fut le cas dans l’épisode 272, avec l’appel d’une femme dont le compagnon est pédophile et qui — ça se comprend — ne sait pas quoi faire.

Pédophile, c’est un mot qui me dérange. Il me dérange parce qu’il est usé à toutes les sauces dans les médias, et a fini par devenir synonyme de “prédateur sexuel”. Revenons un peu au sens premier: un pédophile, c’est quelqu’un qui est attiré sexuellement par les enfants pré-pubères. C’est tout.

Le lecteur consciencieux aura noté qu’on parle ici d’attirance (ou de désir) et non pas de passage à l’acte.

Je ne crois pas que l’on choisit son orientation sexuelle. Pas plus qu’on ne choisit quel genre d’homme ou de femme nous attire. Et je ne crois pas non plus que l’on choisit d’être sexuellement attiré par de jeunes enfants.

Ecoutez cet épisode (du moins le début) dans lequel Dan fait appel à un spécialiste de la pédophilie pour faire le point. Qu’il y ait une crispation telle (compréhensible lors de passage à l’acte!) qu’il est impossible aux Etats-Unis pour une personne sujette à ce genre de pulsions d’aller consulter pour chercher du soutien afin de les garder sous contrôle, c’est terriblement attristant, je trouve. Aussi intéressant, la distinction entre “pédophile” (attiré par les enfants pré-pubères, moins de 11 ans) et “hébéphile” (attirée par les enfants pubères, 11-14 ans) — a force de brandir le mot “pédophile” quand un ado de 16 fréquente un adulte de 28, on finit par le vider de son sens.

Bref, écoutez ce spécialiste. C’est si facile de se contenter de condamner en bloc.

#back2blog challenge (3/10):