
CES will allow sex tech on a one-year trial basis, and finally bans booth babes - TakakiTohno
https://techcrunch.com/2019/07/16/ces-will-allow-sex-tech-on-a-one-year-trial-bias-and-finally-bans-booth-babes/
======
monocasa
And bans booth babes. Thank god, that had gotten beyond cringey.

~~~
ekianjo
So they allow sex toys now but they dont want people wearing suggestive
clothes because... it's sexually suggestive?

~~~
microcolonel
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.

~~~
undoware
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.

~~~
gamblor956
_I stand with sex workers, and booth babes are just that._

Booth babes are not sex workers. They are generally actresses or models. The
fact that people think they are sex workers is one of the reasons for banning
them.

~~~
dTal
I'd say they are, by any definition of "sex worker" that includes strippers.
Their job is to attract (male, heterosexual) attention using visual sex
appeal. They usually wear revealing clothes and frequently behave
provocatively. It's not especially different from what a stripper does. Of
course, there's a whole continuum here - you could argue that a flouncy woman
whose job is to turn over tiles on a game show (wordlessly, naturally) is also
a sex worker. Rule of thumb - could an ugly woman get the job? If not, it's
sex work.

Of course, people should have every right to work in this way. But just
because I don't judge a woman for _being_ a stripper doesn't mean I wouldn't
judge my employer for _hiring_ one. It's unprofessional.

~~~
gamblor956
Booth babes are not strippers. Yes, they usually wear revealing clothing and
may behave provocatively but _that 's not part of the job description_ and
their goal is to bring attention to their employer's product, not titillate
passers-by.

 _Of course, there 's a whole continuum here - you could argue that a flouncy
woman whose job is to turn over tiles on a game show (wordlessly, naturally)
is also a sex worker. Rule of thumb - could an ugly woman get the job? If not,
it's sex work._

Sex work is not a continuum. Sex work involves (a) sex or (b) deliberate
titillation, which is what strippers do by removing their clothes and miming
sexual acts. Booth babes and Vanna White do neither. To claim that they are
even remotely similar to sex workers is, quite frankly, insulting to women
because you're suggesting quite loudly that the mere act of performing
activities in tight clothing constitutes sex work.

Comments like yours likening booth babes to strippers and sex workers is
precisely why they are now banned from CES. Because too many people assume
they are sex workers and not actresses/models who are just doing a marketing
gig.

~~~
thatguy0900
"Yes, they usually wear revealing clothing and may behave provocatively but
that's not part of the job description" I really can't help but think this is
not true. Maybe it's not part of the literal job posting but its definetely
implied when you hire a hot girl to attract guys to your booth that you want
them to do this.

------
chillage
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.

~~~
flukus
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
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 :/

------
acqq
"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?

------
maerF0x0
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
just replace them with full-size sex bots

~~~
tsjq
that's the long term plan ;)

------
ordinaryperson
"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
> 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.

------
nafizh
"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?

~~~
tyre
Are you questioning whether sexual pleasure is good for human health?

~~~
nafizh
Depends on the means/settings of gaining that sexual pleasure.

~~~
tyre
And sex toys, in any humanist ethics, are 100% within that as long as all
parties are able to consent and do.

------
nextmemorandum
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.

~~~
malms
it's just your opinion

~~~
nextmemorandum
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
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
>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.

~~~
justinclift
> First off, you should capitalize the name of the Bible.

Why? It's just a random work of text. There are several variants of it, and
other people like theirs better. Why should yours get special treatment?

You can assign more importance to your particular flavour if you want, no
stress. But me... I'm not going to.

Personally speaking, I rather like this book:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chasm_City](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chasm_City)

If you felt inclined to capitalise that too, then sure, go for it.

But again, like the book you're taking about... it's just a work of fiction.
Nothing more. Don't read too much into it. ;)

> fiction books are based off the animation

???

> ... then I will disagree and say that you can not do that.

No worries. I'm just going to point out the "then I will disagree" bit. That's
very clearly _your opinion_. As such, it's of equal weight to your preferred
magical fairie text, and everyone else's opinion. No more.

Or if you think your opinion is of more importance than the above magical
fairie text... well hmmm. That seems to be the opposite of what you've been
saying before.

~~~
nextmemorandum
>Why?

I'm sure you learned in an English class that you should capitalized the name
of books.

>It's just a random work of text

It is anything but random. It is a holy text.

>There are several variants of it

Yes, this is because of the difficulty of reproducing books and from creating
translations of it.

>Why should yours get special treatment?

I did not create the Bible. The names of any other book is capitalized, so I
do not see it as special treatment.

>If you felt inclined to capitalized that too

If you even looked at the Wikipedia link, you would see that it is
capitalized.

>it's just a work of fiction

No, it is not. It is a collection of actual events and actual writings
produced.

>animation

This was a mistake. I meant to say imagination. A work of fiction comes from
the imagination, not real life like the Bible.

>[it is] your opinion

Yes, it is my opinion based off mine and many others interpretation of the
Bible. It is wrong to insult the Lord, thinking you know better than Him about
what is and what is not a sin.

>magical fairie text

Again I want to point out that the Bible was composed and written by humans
and not magical fairies.

>Or if you think your opinion is of more importance than the above magical
fairie text...

No, I am sharing my interpretation of the Bible. I would prefer you to address
the text as the Bible and not as a, "magical fairie text." To me, it seems
like your are making these mistakes intentionally.

