
We won a CES robotics innovation award, then they took it back - DanBC
https://loradicarlo.com/pages/cesgenderbias
======
jeroenhd
As impressive as this toy sounds, I don't see how it is related to robotics.
The comparison between a vibrator and a full sex robot does not make sense to
me; a sex bot needs to articulate joints and show human expressions, a
vibrator needs to make some ver slight movements in very specific places.

I don't blame the author for being upset about this because I can't see a
reason to retract the submission to the contest. I do, however, feel like
these kinds of sex toys are only minimally related to robotics, so I think
they shouldn't have been able to submit their device in the first place.
That's another fault on the end of CES. As sibling comments note, there's been
vibrators on the robotics section before, but it might be that they slipped
through the submission process as well and, to prevent controversy, let
through unscathed. Now that more of these submissions come through the board
seems to have decided that enough is enough and actually speak out against
these just-if-not-nearly robotic devices.

Their defence that the product has been designed with the help of roboticists
is very strange. If me and a few aerospace engineers build a fence that fence
does not qualify as a space craft, no matter how many heat shield we stick to
the side of it.

Spending half the page blabbering about empowerment of women and LBQTI+ only
detracts from their argument. Their baseless claim of mysoginy and homophobia
distracts from their reasons for why they should be included in the first
place and should not have been included in this response. It makes the author
of the piece look very unprofessional and desperate for help from some of
those action groups that take to the streets the moment they see the word
"discrimination".

~~~
forkLding
It does match the definition of a robot as based on this dictionary's second
definition: [https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/robot](https://www.merriam-
webster.com/dictionary/robot)

There was also likely a long process for awards, its a pretty scumbag move to
suddenly just not give the award/honor after announcing it, I can imagine my
anger too if someone was going to give me an award and then not. CES is in the
wrong here, they've been quite unprofessional.

The lady does sound a bit too dramatic but I imagine she is pissed, that's
all.

~~~
ericb
When the reason for rejection is "obscenity" and they are letting exhibits
play porn in the exhibit hall, I'd be pissed too.

~~~
lawnchair_larry
That wasn’t the reason though.

------
fermienrico
I’m trying to link the accusation of gender bias and LGBT rights with the act
of conceding the Innovation Award. Looks like their reason is that “it does
not fall under Robotics category” which the article debates well. But, what
actions and indications lead to gender bias?

If I am a woman and I get rejected from a job, I don’t immediately start
accusing the interviewer of gender bias. It hurts the cause for real issues
when the noise in the social media is due to all kinds of baseless
accusations.

~~~
undecisive
I guess the argument is that if the only difference between two "robots" is
the gender of their intended audience, and one gets banned, then that's
prejudice.

Along the same lines as, if the only difference between two people doing the
same job is their gender, and one gets paid more, then that's prejudice.

They're not wrong.

Of course, CES could argue that it's bad timing - that the new product came
out just as CES started cleaning up. Maybe these male-oriented developments
will be similarly disallowed. We'll have to wait and see. Still, terrible
optics for CES and a bad decision all round.

~~~
rndgermandude
Their vibrator got banned from competing for an award. It did NOT get banned
from being at CES.

The male-focused sex products did not even compete for the awards as far as I
can tell, or at least did not get any of the awards.

~~~
allnew
>and subsequently that we would not be allowed to showcase Osé, or even
exhibit at CES 2019.

It did, which means that there is a bias, given that other sex-themed tech was
not similarly banned.

------
bjourne
For those who didn't read the article... The author is claiming that their is
a partial lewdness order among products so that normal products <= robotic
vibrator <= vr porn. Therefore, if the lewdness threshold doesn't ban vr porn
it cannot ban robotic vibrators either. But since robotic vibrators are banned
and not vr porn, discrimination must be at play.

~~~
lawnchair_larry
”Robotic” vibrators are not banned. OhMiBod (woman founder, too) has had them
on display for years, and have a booth this year. Apparently it adjusts
intensity based on your heartbeat from your apple watch now!

Also, a smart vibrator from last year, also by a woman founder:

[https://sextechguide.com/news/mysteryvibe-crescendo-app-
upda...](https://sextechguide.com/news/mysteryvibe-crescendo-app-update/)

The lewdness thing is inconsistent but clearly has nothing whatsoever to do
with gender bias or sexism.

~~~
noptd
OhMiBod's categorization as a personal massager is probably the determining
factor- it provides the organizers enough plausible deniability to have it
displayed on the main floor.

------
vkaku
If they wanted to avoid obscenity, they should have taken down all the toys
and any sexist entertainment out there.

It just doesn't seem fair to this curly looking innovative toy.

~~~
ryanmercer
> any sexist entertainment out there

Indeed. Booth babes, 'fitness' models, etc are blatant _wink wink nudge nudge_
"this isn't eye candy specifically to lure in male reporters and buyers,
they're here to welcome you to our product booth and nothing else, honest".

------
lawnchair_larry
Why are they playing the gender bias card here? It’s odd to take it back, but
this clearly has nothing to do with gender. What a silly ploy for even more
attention.

~~~
jakobegger
According to the article, they aren't allowed to exhibit their sex toy for
women at CES, while a sex doll for men and VR porn targeted at men are on
display.

There may be other explanations, but it does look like a bit of a double
standard.

~~~
lawnchair_larry
The previous sex toy that won an award was for women, from OhMiBod, founded by
a woman. This is just a weak attempt to create controversy. It has nothing to
do with them being women and that’s a silly first assumption.

If you go to the OhMiBod website, they have a big ad up boasting of their CES
2019 presence, including their all-female lineup of vibrators.

 _“The company’s experience contrasts starkly with the way CTA has treated sex
toy company OhMiBod. Based in New Hampshire, the company has a variety of
vibrators on display. They launched more than a decade ago and first appeared
at CES in 2011 with a vibrator that synced to music on an iPod.

They’ve been at the show ever since, and have received nothing but support
from CTA, said co-founder Suki Dunham.”_

Also, there is nothing gender-specific about VR porn.

The fact that they were notified by CES 2 months ago and only launched a cheap
smear campaign now is also telling.

And another year, a product by B.sensory, another smart vibrator, also won an
award. Also a female founder.

But yeah, clearly they hate companies run by women and products for women.

Face it, you are getting played by a PR op here. Startups will do anything for
coverage, and this is a pretty low brow tactic. Sadly, it worked very well.

It’s unfortunate because it really waters down actual incidents of sexism, and
people are getting desensitized to claims that any adversity someone faces is
because everyone else is a racist or sexist. That’s counterproductive to the
cause.

~~~
foldr
>The previous sex toy that won an award was for women, from OhMiBod, founded
by a woman

So...this completely undermines CES's revised story (that they can't give the
Lora DiCarlo toy an award because there's no category for sex toys).

The fact that CES has given two separate reasons for this decision, neither of
which makes sense, isn't exactly making them look good.

~~~
lawnchair_larry
Who cares. They should write an article about their confusing rules then (it
would not be the first, this comes up every year).

But don’t cry sexism when there are female “sexual health” devices by female
founders on display and winning awards.

Maybe they are trying to change their image, and this device couldn’t satisfy
another category. Maybe they decided it wasn’t novel enough in the areas that
matter, and it’s just a better vibrator.

VR Porn is in the VR category, not an adult category, for example. And VR porn
for women (whatever that means) is allowed too. Even if the studio has a
mostly woman engineering team!

There is already a conference for adult toys at the same time. CES doesn’t
want to be that.

~~~
foldr
That's like saying "don't complain about sexism in tech when there are female
programmers". The fact that CES doesn't operate a 100% efficient program of
sexist discrimination doesn't show that Lora DiCarlo didn't experience sexist
discrimination.

~~~
lawnchair_larry
No, it’s not. A simple examination of the circumstances demonstrates that
sexism is the least likely explanation here. There is nothing to suggest that
may have been the case, and the weak reasoning they do provide is demonstrably
false.

~~~
foldr
Sexism isn't "the explanation", it's the background structure that makes it
easier for stuff like this to happen. Trying to isolate sexism as a discrete
causal component would be like trying to isolate the causal role of
capitalism, or American culture. If your landlord evicts you for not paying
the rent, they're probably not thinking "I must follow the principles of
capitalism" while they're doing it. But it's still something that happens in
the context of a particular economic structure.

~~~
lawnchair_larry
This logic just doesn't make any sense. The relationship between charging for
a rental and capitalism is obvious. Nothing that transpired even hints that
sexism could have played a role, conscious or otherwise, and the data that we
do have suggests the opposite. Why are you digging your heels in and insisting
that there must be a bias component involved in this decision?

------
catwell
A French sex toy for women (Little Bird by B. Sensory) already won a CES
innovation award in 2016. I can't remember if it was in the robotics category
or not.

We are already reading the arguments of one side here, I wonder what the
actual justification for the rejection was.

~~~
noptd
The Fortune article has more context- [http://fortune.com/2019/01/09/the-ose-
toy-ces2019/](http://fortune.com/2019/01/09/the-ose-toy-ces2019/)

Considering CES responded two months ago, why publish this response now? Seems
more of a strategic PR play in the news cycle IMO. I'm 100% for the
equality/equity movement but this seems to be an attempt at co-oping it for PR
in order to boost a bottom line, at the expense of providing ammo to those who
wish to discredit the movement entirely.

------
mbrumlow
Maybe they should have submitted their product to the appropriate catagoey --
the one with all the other sex toys.

------
akuji1993
Might wanna put an NSFW tag on this...

------
t4sk1n
"We also believe that society needs to drop the taboo around sex and sexuality
- it’s a part of life and health that absolutely should be part of mainstream
discourse."

It's 2019 and an overwhelming number of social discourse is solely about sex
and sexuality. A lot of people literally care about sex health more than any
other health and it is, by many, believed to have negative effect on many
people's mental health as well.

~~~
icebraining
That doesn't justify a double standard.

~~~
t4sk1n
But making such opening statements questions their integrity

~~~
icebraining
Their integrity is irrelevant when you have the facts and can judge the
behavior of CES for yourself.

~~~
t4sk1n
But while examining this article, it should make people question everything
that's implied

~~~
icebraining
I don't see anything implied; it's all quite explicitly stated.

