7 ms·

CES will allow sex tech on a one-year trial basis, and finally bans booth babes

• monocasa 7y ago
  And bans booth babes. Thank god, that had gotten beyond cringey.
  • taneq 7y ago
    Couldn't we have just had equal opportunity booth babes?
    • Groxx 7y ago
      I don't know of anything that would imply it hasn't been an option. It hasn't happened. Or, if there exists a counter-example, it very unambiguously hasn't happened at a scale that would imply equality. So no. Since it's clearly a sexist practice, getting rid of it is more equal than leaving it.
      • 0x8BADF00D 7y ago
        It’s not sexist at all if there are women willing to work that kind of job. Getting rid of it just means less jobs for those women. You literally fucked over 10 people just to virtue signal.
        • chongli 7y ago
          I don't know about you, but as a guy I would find it extremely uncomfortable at a tech conference full of male Abercrombie and Fitch type booth dudes. I would imagine female conference-attendees might have similar feelings about scantily clad booth babes. The point of a tech conference is to enjoy exciting new tech and network with people in the industry. Having your sex appeal cast in stark relief to a bunch of models is not part of that.
          • toomuchtodo 7y ago
            This is a fair point. There are always adult clubs folks can head to after hours. This who want just tech get just tech, those who want to objectify get to do so with willing participants in a welcoming setting.
            • taneq 7y ago
              Maybe split the show into a family friendly part and an “after dark” part, to cater for those of us who like our tech sexy as well as those who don’t?
              • chongli 7y ago
                That's what happened in high finance. It was a big part of Ellen Pao's complaint in her lawsuit against Kliner Perkins. I can see the history as proceeding like this: finance (and similar industries) used to have a Mad Men style sexist office culture. Then PC rules and HR regulations moved in to make the office a neutral ground. Then the power brokers moved the serious networking old boys' club to the 'after dark' part. I can't say the goal of this was to exclude women from power all along, but that's the effect of it.
        • Groxx 7y ago
          Getting rid of it also stops signaling that it's a place where women are objects, but men are not. The rate at which female attendees are treated like booth babes (i.e. "sex sells" people who know nothing of the field) at these events implies this is indeed a problem. By literally fucking over those 10 people, we might help stop fucking over a different field of work that is currently being fucked over. It's not a clear-cut win/loss either way on the whole, sure. But there's no way you can argue that it's not a sexist practice as it exists right now. What you do with that info is always a tradeoff, and I suspect we're on different sides.
          • dTal 7y ago
            > By literally fucking over those 10 people ... that's a fairly unfortunate context to misuse "literally" in. (insightful comment though)
        • mcphage 7y ago
          > You literally fucked over 10 people just to virtue signal. I think you should spend some time learning what "virtue signaling" means before you use it again.
    • mffnbs 7y ago
      Couldn't we have just had a post about sex without making jokes or disparaging remarks about women?
  • ekianjo 7y ago
    So they allow sex toys now but they dont want people wearing suggestive clothes because... it's sexually suggestive?
    • deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    • microcolonel 7y ago
      Remember, in 2019 you can be sex positive, but you must not have fun or enjoy life in any way; especially if it involves women using their agency and natural gifts to make money. No attractive people who are not experts allowed at your booth. You can only profit off of the approved set of genetic lottery traits.
      • okcando 7y ago
        Don't be a spoil-sport. Sex positivity is all about everyone having fun---you, the babe, and everyone else in your sex-heap of consenting adults with varied preferences, fetishes, and body types.
      • undoware 7y ago
        This point could have been phrased better, but I concur. This just eliminated a solid gig for a whole lot of women. Unbanning sex toys was a big step forward, but creating morality bylaws will inevitably result in, eg, women engineers (like me) being potentially harrassed for showing "unacceptable" skin. We have been here many times before. Rules that mandate appearance requirements for women in the name of protecting women in general inevitably hurt some women in particular, and create a schism between women who can make money with their noodles and women who make money with, ahem, various other assets. Banning making money by being attractive amounts to yet another wealth transfer away from vulnerable, often marginalized, women. I stand with sex workers, and booth babes are just that.
        • Fjolsvith 7y ago
          The booth babes should set up a picket line outside to protest their plight.
  • flukus 7y ago
    I bet the average person presenting products is still very attractive with perfectly groomed hair and a fortune spent on teeth whitening, probably with tight and suggestive clothing too. Only the degree has changed.
• nafizh 7y ago
  "Today, CTA announced it will allow sex tech startups to participate and compete for awards as part of the health and wellness category on a one-year trial basis." Ummm, where is the proof that any of these sex techs are good for human health?
  • mffnbs 7y ago
    What's up with the arbitrary scrutiny placed on sex? Where's proof that every other consumer electronic is good for anything?
    • nafizh 7y ago
      Sex with tech != Regular Sex
      • siphon22 7y ago
        "Sex With Tech" Found the name for my new AI-powered sex robots startup. Who's in?
        • justinclift 7y ago
          Source of training data? ;)
          • siphon22 7y ago
            We'll partner with PornHub of course.
  • ekianjo 7y ago
    "health and wellness" is usually a way to say "there is no actual data supporting any health claims".
  • tyre 7y ago
    Are you questioning whether sexual pleasure is good for human health?
• nextmemorandum 7y ago
  It's absolutely disgusting that CES is going to allow such perverted products into their event. Does CES have no morals? I do think it is a good thing that they have banned booth babes as it promoted sexual immorality. As a reminder, sexual immorality is a sin and should be avoided.
  • malmsteen 7y ago
    it's just your opinion
  • malms 7y ago
    it's just your opinion
    • nextmemorandum 7y ago
      No, it is very clear in the Bible that sexual immorality is a sin. It is not my opinion. CES is an event which takes place in America, a country built off Christian beliefs.
      • justinclift 7y ago
        Yes, but the bible is a work of fiction. You might as well be quoting "But the magical fairie text says...". Also, there are many different "Christian" traditions, it's not a single homogenous group. Also, are they not allowed to evolve and improve over time?
        • nextmemorandum 7y ago
          >Yes, but the bible is a work of fiction. First off, you should capitalize the name of the Bible. Secondly, fiction books are based off the animation where the Bible is a compilation of scriptures that include events that actually took place. >magical fairie text The Bible was not written by magical fairies, but by regular people. >it's not a single homogenous group True, but most of the teachings remain the same throughout the different denominations. Sexual immorality is condemned constantly throughout the Bible, both in old and new testaments. >are they not allowed to evolve and improve over time Yes, Christianity has evolved over time. If by improve, you mean turning things that are sins into things that are not, then I will disagree and say that you can not do that. You can not simply go against God's word. If God said that something is a sin, you can't just reply back that it's 2019 and He should get with the times.
• chillage 7y ago
  So simultaneously it is both more for and more against sex. Using sex to sell things is bad but selling things for use during sex is good. If you tried to explain these moral values to visiting aliens their minds would explode.
  • on_and_off 7y ago
    Are there ever been male babes in undergarments at CES ? Or was it just a way to appeal to straight males in the attendance while reminding everybody else that they are not supposed to exist ? Not to mention that in an industry that is already pretty sexist, re-enforcing the idea that women are just a pair a tits is just what is needed.
  • flukus 7y ago
    One is a psychologically manipulative way to get attention (like most advertising) in public that is also offensive to some and one is for use by consenting individuals in private. I don't see the issue explaining those moral values. I bet all the people presenting products are still attractive models and salesmen though, so to an extent they're still using sex to sell things just in a less titillating manner.
    • chillage 7y ago
      Hasn't the consenting adult also been manipulated by a CES advertising booth into buying the sex item..? And why is it bad to use sex to manipulate a customer into buying an item, but it is good to use free samples or pretty pictures to manipulate a customer into buying the same item? Deriving cultural moral values from first principles is hairy :/
  • dragonwriter 7y ago
    > So simultaneously it is both more for and more against sex. It's for selling sex tech, and against using appeal to sex to sell not-sex tech. So, it'd both more for sex and more for honesty.
• maerF0x0 7y ago
  Brings up an interesting quandary about personal choice. Where there is seen no moral issue in personal choice about what tech to use sexually, there is seen morality in the personal choice to accept a (presumably) high paying job that is more than legal in other contexts (eg strip clubs) but also involves sexuality. I'm not taking a position for or against, simple observing the seeming contradiction...
• cookieswumchorr 7y ago
  just replace them with full-size sex bots
  • tsjq 7y ago
    that's the long term plan ;)
    • ulisesrmzroche 7y ago
      I bet the bleeding hearts will be like: “you’re exploiting the sex robot!!!” so we will have sex robots sell masturbation toys It’s gonna be a long singularity
• acqq 7y ago
  "body-conforming clothing that hugs genitalia must not be worn." Can anybody explain what they mean in this sentence? Clothing that "hugs genitalia"? Is it to ban the tight trousers for men or tight trousers in general or what?
• ordinaryperson 7y ago
  "Banning booth babes" is 100% inaccurate -- they banned body-hugging or suggestive clothing. Besides, it's not possible to ban "booth babes" -- how can you tell if it's a paid model or just an attractive company employee? And if they banned paid models the companies would just hire them. Banning suggestive clothing? I mean, OK, congrats, I guess. Not sure how much of a difference that will make. A model is still a model, even in a pantsuit.
  • EForEndeavour 7y ago
    > they banned body-hugging or suggestive clothing. Suggestive by whose standards? I wonder if the CES dress code will end up being more conservative than that of a university campus or even your average tech company. EDIT: the TechCrunch article quotes CES policy: > Booth personnel may not wear clothing that is sexually revealing or that could be interpreted as undergarments. Clothing that reveals an excess of bare skin, or body-conforming clothing that hugs genitalia must not be worn. This is less draconian than "body-hugging or suggestive clothing" led me to believe.