
Women of Sex Tech, Unite - pmcpinto
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/18/nyregion/women-of-sex-tech-unite.html
======
Lon7
I really like the approach they are taking to make sex toys and the
advertising surrounding them less pornographic. Buying sex toys can feel kind
of dirty and sleazy a lot of the time, and not very women friendly. You have
toys made for women anatomy, yet the packaging and advertising is obviously
made for men. It's definitely gotten better recently and I'm glad to see the
trend continue.

> was told by a potential investor that she'd be a good C.E.O because "you're
> not Kim Kardashian-attractive, but you're girl-next-girl attractive," she
> recalled. Another asked if she was going to demonstrate her products for
> him.

Sigh... There has been more talk recently of publicly outing investors/anyone
that makes these kinds of comments. I support it fully.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
_Another asked if she was going to demonstrate her products for him._

Sigh... Anyone, of any gender, is probably going make this joke regardless of
the gender of the other party.

If you can't laugh _with_ the joke you probably shouldn't be in the sex
industry. At all.

Nothing to see here. Move along.

~~~
Lon7
No. Absolutely not.

I'm sure you have a female in your life who is important to you. A wife,
daughter, mother? Would you be ok with an investor talking to your daughter
like that? Joking that she demonstrate a sex toy for him? I would be
absolutely furious.

This is not something to just ignore.

~~~
TheSpiceIsLife
Why should it matter if it weren't wife / daughter or my son / husband?

Buy anyway: passing joke? That's fine. Absolutely normal.

If the person demanded a demonstration that would be completely different.

------
kelvin0
How is a the slogan on a T-Shirt "The future is female" supposed to be better
then the "patriarchal" system which is misogynistic? Excluding a group (half?)
the population for your vision of the future does not seem constructive at
all.

~~~
kennywinker
I choose to read it as "the future is more female than the past, which was
predominantly male".

If you choose to read it as "the future is only female" you can do that, but
I'm fairly certain that's not how it's meant to be read.

To me inserting the "only" into the phrase is a lot like reading "black lives
matter" as "only black lives matter". Sure the original slogan's phrasing is
ambiguous, but it's a slogan and slogans are by necessity simplified.

~~~
Archio
>If you choose to read it as "the future is only female" you can do that, but
I'm fairly certain that's not how it's meant to be read.

But there are many well-intentioned people that WILL read it as that. And with
this I fault the the writer and not the reader.

I think this is one of the biggest problems modern liberal movements have with
messaging. And I say this as someone who 100% is in support of "the future is
more female than the past, which was predominantly male" and "black lives
matter".

I don't think the issue is in the nature of brevity in communication. When
these movements create their slogans, their number one goal seems to be
motivating and incensing the base of people that already agree with them. It
seems that the question is never asked: "how will this messaging come across
to people who don't already agree with us?" \- let alone, "how can we convince
those people to acclimate to our viewpoint?" A shirt that says "the future is
only female" seems likely to increase vitriol by pushing away and shutting
down well-meaning disaffecteds that might otherwise be convinced of the
liberal cause.

~~~
kennywinker
Are you saying that the slogan makes you anxious, or that it hypothetically
harms the cause by being read badly by people who want to read it badly?

Because I'm not sure that it's possible to come up with a slogan that isn't
read badly by opponents. If you have examples, I'd love to see 'em.

~~~
Archio
I'm not sure how you interpreted anxiety on my part here?

The slogan does not make me anxious. I know what it "really" means, and as I
stated previously I am 100% in support of that message. I am frustrated
because I believe there are better ways to communicate it to people in a way
that is generally more persuasive.

I don't think it "hypothetically" harms the cause, I believe that it does. I
only need speak to my more traditional extended family members, who will read
slogans like this and react in a negative way, even though I know they could
be convinced otherwise. Does it suck that they can't "read behind the lines"
with slogans like this? Yeah. But public messaging is hard, and just
amplifying existing messages won't solve that problem.

Lastly, "I'm not sure that it's possible to come up with a slogan that isn't
read badly by opponents" seems like kind of a cop-out. Of course it's
impossible to say something _someone_ will take issue with. Communicating
messages isn't an all-or-nothing game, what I am saying is I think people need
to do a better job changing minds than they are now.

~~~
kennywinker
> who will read slogans like this and react in a negative way, even though I
> know they could be convinced otherwise

I guess what I'm saying is "out of the closets into the streets" probably
didn't convince anyone that gay people were not pedophiles coming out into the
streets to molest their children when it was being chanted by "rioters" in
1969. But the people who were inspired by that slogan and came out to their
families and friends... that convinced a lot of people.

Slogans aren't always about converting other people to join your cause, they
can be about convincing the already converted to act on their beliefs.

