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".
> "Spending half the page blabbering about empowerment of women and LBQTI+ only detracts from their argument. Their baseless claim of mysoginy and homophobia distracts..."
Rather than dismissing all that information as "blabbering", maybe consider the possibility that it forms the base of their not-so-"baseless" claim of bias? Just a suggestion...
And when I read it, it made perfect sense that this is a robot. As they presented it, this is a machine that uses a variety of movements and sensory feedback to achieve a very precise effect on a subject. There's lots of "robots" that do less. And, y'know... it's a tricky effect to achieve (in a lot of cases - there's a huge variety of responses to stimulus).
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.
Awards get retracted from time to time, mostly political reasons. I think it’s silly. Once you award, you shouldn’t take it back, but it’s not unheard of.
That sounds plausible. And I think if the first communication on the matter had been about the difference between robots and devices containing robotics technology, that would be correct. However the first communication (according to the original post) was about indecent / not in keeping with CES image. The "Oh well, it's not even a real robot" seems like an afterthought.
So not really a "baseless claim". A stretch, maybe, but a pretty reasonable one, all things considered.
To me the first response sounds very much like a canned PR response written by someone with little knowledge of what goes on inside CES. CES has allowed vibrators before so I don't see why they wouldn't stroke with policy now. As another comment in this thread states, OhMiBod has been showcased for years.
I think at first someone at the top (or middle management) just said "that's not relevant, someone get that project out of here", which got passed down the chain of the company to some intern writing a standard email with a useless explanation. Then, when that blew up, an actual response was formed by the PR department, then by the top of the company, complicated further by the authors of this piece contacting people unrelated to either statement and getting another explanation from them. Just a corporate communications cluster fuck.
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" and all that.
Again, totally plausible. I agree that the post has jumped to a conclusion, that this conclusion is sensationalist and some of their arguments require further justification.
And I should point out that I very often dismiss such articles as crying wolf, especially where there is something to be gained by doing so (in this case, lots of publicity).
But actually, the issue deserves some publicity. Even if it was just an intern jumping to a somewhat sexist conclusion (though it sounds slightly absurd that they would send an intern to rescind a winning entry, but then I have absolutely no understanding of the inner workings of CES)
So yeah - an intentional choice has clearly been made to view this through a lens; that lens happens to be a little sensationalist. But still, it's far from a baseless accusation.
(also prejudice does not necessitate malice. In my view, in the majority of cases, prejudice IS stupidity. But you can hurt a lot of people with stupidity)
The chain of events you're describing illustrates how sexism actually works. It's not usually the result of a cabal of Evil Sexists deliberately doing their best to be sexists.
I won't say anything about the immorality because differentiating between male and female sexual experiences is incredibly bigoted and I don't believe this is what was meant by their message at all.
I'd expect a similarly advanced fleshlight to be refused on the same grounds as this toy, despite being built for men. I don't think it's fair that this product, advanced as though it might be, is put in the same category as fully articulated sex robots.
Like I said, this isn't about intentions. It's entirely possible to unintentionally differentiate between male and female sexual experiences.
I don't understand why you think it shouldn't be in the same category as a sex robot. A robot doesn't have to be some kind of fake human to be a robot.
Without an example of them showing bias by actually giving an award to a product that is much like theirs that targets men this is sheer conjecture, and presumption of bias. Has the CES ever given an award for an adult product? Perhaps it could be due to the USA having very puritan views on sex still to this day (Violence OK on broadcast TV, but no nudity/sex).
Their initial response was to cite the following text:
> Entries deemed by CTA in their sole discretion to be immoral, obscene, indecent, profane or not in keeping with CTA’s image will be disqualified. CTA reserves the right in its sole discretion to disqualify any entry at any time which, in CTA’s opinion, endangers the safety or well being of any person, or fails to comply with these Official Rules.
So, if they didn't call it immoral, they called it obscene, indecent or profane.
It comes down to semantics, but based off the opening paragraph on "Robot" it seems that it would fit the definition:
"A robot is a machine—especially one programmable by a computer— capable of carrying out a complex series of actions automatically. Robots can be guided by an external control device or the control may be embedded within. Robots may be constructed to take on human form but most robots are machines designed to perform a task with no regard to how they look"
From the description in the article it sounded like the entry managed complex simulations of a tongue and fingers. I can see how it could be defined as a robot.
I haven't looked up what the CES definition/guidelines for a robotics entry is though.
Is an articulating cordless drill a robot? Because that’s all this thing is. It’s still an electronic, but it’s not a robot.
If this thing could learn and sense which movements produced the best effects, then it would be a robot. But it’s no different than a remote control car, and we don’t call those robots.
Problem is: The toy already won the robotics award and it was only withdraw later.
The conclusion that can be taken from your explanation is that CES have a bunch of robots experts in the judging team of a robotics contest and they could’t tell what is or isn’t a robot before awarding it a prize.
That’s even worse in my opinion. If I was them, I would rather stick with the accusation of sexism.
Agreed, this seems like a blatant attempt at co-oping the empowerment movement in order to boost their bottom line.
According to Fortune (http://fortune.com/2019/01/09/the-ose-toy-ces2019/), CES responded to the author two months ago. If this is truly about airing grievances about losing the award, why wait until now to publish a respose?
but it does get them clicks and is a way to milk the situation. marketing is getting paid for this one. mo one cares about appeals to reason. everyone clicks on appeals to emotion
To add, there's not much inclusivity in a company of single female-only product, in a market of overwhelmingly female-oriented products. Doesn't that fit into "majority" category?
The posting literally describes sex toys for men at CES being displayed. There have also been numerous sex toys over the years by multiple partners and companies. I'm not sure why the award was withdrawn, however none of the options make CES look good.
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".