Speaker 1: Get in touch with technology with tech Stuff from how
Speaker 1: stuff works dot com. Hey there, and welcome to tech Stuff.
Speaker 1: I'm your host, Jonathan Strickland. I'm an executive producer with
Speaker 1: How Stuff Works and I heart radio and love all
Speaker 1: things tech. And before I jump into today's topic, first
Speaker 1: I want to welcome a special guest. I have Annie
Speaker 1: from Stuff Mom Never Told You right here in the studio.
Speaker 1: That's right. Thank you so much for having me. Yeah,
Speaker 1: thank you for literally sitting still in the studio after
Speaker 1: just recording an episode of Stuff Mom Never Told You
Speaker 1: and letting me come in here and record tech Stuff.
Speaker 1: It's kind of like it's my job or something. I
Speaker 1: was very excited to have this opportunity to have this
Speaker 1: conversation with you, and also, um, yeah, be beyond tech stuff. Awesome. Well,
Speaker 1: I'm glad you can slum it. Stuff Mom Never Told
Speaker 1: You It was a phenomenal show and has been ever
Speaker 1: since its inception. I remember actually being there on the
Speaker 1: pitch meetings for that show. So it's been fantastic seeing
Speaker 1: that show grow over the years and evolved. It's been
Speaker 1: a phenomenal. And again, before we jump into this topic,
Speaker 1: one thing I want to say at the outset for everybody.
Speaker 1: This is gonna be a very special episode of tech Stuff.
Speaker 1: It's gonna be We're gonna deal with some mature themes, uh,
Speaker 1: some adult themes. These are all euphemisms. We're gonna be
Speaker 1: talking about sexuality. We're gonna talk about gender bias. We're
Speaker 1: gonna talk about double standards. We're gonna be talking specifically
Speaker 1: about a product that is a sex toy. We're gonna
Speaker 1: be talking about this frankly and honestly because I think
Speaker 1: it's a very important subject for many reasons. But I
Speaker 1: wanted to make that clear at the outset just in
Speaker 1: case there are any listeners out there who are not
Speaker 1: comfortable with this subject matter. Uh, they feel like that's inappropriate.
Speaker 1: I'm not passing any judgment whatsoever. I completely understand. So
Speaker 1: this is a fair warning if you do find those
Speaker 1: sort of topics uncomfortable, I totally understand. However, I do
Speaker 1: stress that you should check out stuff Mom never told you,
Speaker 1: because you will learn very quickly to become comfortable with
Speaker 1: the subjects because they are important ones, and you'll realize, oh, okay,
Speaker 1: I get it. But I realized that for Tech Stuff audience,
Speaker 1: that might be asking a lot right of the gate.
Speaker 1: So now that that's out of the way, what did
Speaker 1: what brought us here together today? So I went to
Speaker 1: see E S two thousand nineteen in Las Vegas, Nevada,
Speaker 1: which I have learned is pronounced Nevada, not not Nevada. No, no,
Speaker 1: I've been making that mistake for you years, you and
Speaker 1: most of the country. But the people of the fine
Speaker 1: state of Nevada will tell you, yes, that you are incorrect.
Speaker 1: When I went there, one of the stories that popped
Speaker 1: up was about a product called ose o s E
Speaker 1: with an accent uh and oh excellent, My my French
Speaker 1: is not parfit. Unfortunately, that was be good though I think,
Speaker 1: I think and blame, but Francai not so well. So
Speaker 1: at the c E S there was this ose product,
Speaker 1: which some people have described as a vibrator, although the
Speaker 1: creators would quickly point out that that is far too
Speaker 1: simple simple a name for this thing. But it's specifically
Speaker 1: a sex toy marketed for women, designed by women. And
Speaker 1: they had submitted this product to the Consumer Technology Association,
Speaker 1: that's the organization that throws c E s for consideration
Speaker 1: for what is called an innovation award. They got one.
Speaker 1: Then they got a letter saying, just kidding, we're not
Speaker 1: going to give you that award, we're taking it back.
Speaker 1: And then also, oh and by the way, you aren't
Speaker 1: allowed to show this product at c E S. And
Speaker 1: that brought up this enormous conversation about what actually happened.
Speaker 1: Who's in the wrong? Was this say about the not
Speaker 1: just the technology, but the attitudes towards sexuality, specifically women's sexuality? Um?
Speaker 1: Are there double standards in play? And so we're gonna
Speaker 1: suss all that out. Annie, And I asked you on
Speaker 1: here because I wanted someone who has credibility to be
Speaker 1: on this show for once. Well, thank you, thank you,
Speaker 1: I appreciate that. UM, I have never been to see yes,
Speaker 1: and I know you're kind of old hat with it.
Speaker 1: Um was this something because from what I understand, they
Speaker 1: found out like a month later that the award had
Speaker 1: been rescinded. Right They submitted the the application earlier in
Speaker 1: UH in two thousands, two thousand eighteen, So this process
Speaker 1: takes a long time. Obviously, UH companies typically submit these
Speaker 1: products to the Consumer Technology Association. They, in theory anyway,
Speaker 1: go through and screen all the products and then all
Speaker 1: the ones that at least past the initial screening go
Speaker 1: to an independent review board. They assign a score. Any
Speaker 1: product that gets a certain score or higher meets a
Speaker 1: threshold gets the designation of Honoree. Whichever product gets the
Speaker 1: highest score in its category gets a Best of Innovation award.
Speaker 1: So there is no limit to the number of honorees.
Speaker 1: The limit is only based upon the quality of the
Speaker 1: products that they get. UH. And the companies that submit
Speaker 1: these no no well ahead of time because they need
Speaker 1: to be able to market the product as a Best
Speaker 1: of c E S or an Honoree or whatever. UM.
Speaker 1: So they had known all the way back in October
Speaker 1: two thousand eighteen that this was gonna be an Honoree product,
Speaker 1: But then they got the letter in October That was
Speaker 1: like a month after they had found out the the award.
Speaker 1: So I guess they technically learned to the award in
Speaker 1: September two tho eighteen, get the letter in October two
Speaker 1: thousand eighteen saying loll just kidding, we're taking it back
Speaker 1: and uh. And so the news didn't break immediately then,
Speaker 1: which some people would argue was kind of a publicity stunt,
Speaker 1: but I would argue that's absolutely what was needed um.
Speaker 1: The news broke during the show itself because they did
Speaker 1: show off the OZ at an event called show Stoppers.
Speaker 1: So CS is this huge, huge event, and there are
Speaker 1: a lot of little spinoff events that are some of
Speaker 1: which are directly connected to c e S and some
Speaker 1: of which are not at all endorsed or sponsored by
Speaker 1: c e S, but are always part of it, and
Speaker 1: show Stoppers is one of them. It's an opportunity for
Speaker 1: some of the smaller exhibitors to get together and show
Speaker 1: off their products and be seen. And so while OSE
Speaker 1: was banned from ce S because show Stoppers was not
Speaker 1: an official ce S event, they still could exhibit there.
Speaker 1: So they did go there, and that's where the story
Speaker 1: really started to get traction because this was the OS
Speaker 1: is the very first product from the company Laura Dick
Speaker 1: de Carlo, which is that that's the name of the
Speaker 1: company that produces it. Um It's the first product they've
Speaker 1: ever made, so they didn't have a lot of press
Speaker 1: attention leading into this. This is kind of in a
Speaker 1: way you could argue ultimately it's probably the best thing
Speaker 1: that could have happened for that company because it brought
Speaker 1: so much attention to it and there it's the subject
Speaker 1: of eight patents, right, like any robotics and bioimicry. Because
Speaker 1: obviously the team at De Carlo wanted to know what
Speaker 1: reason are you sending this award? Yeah, And they got
Speaker 1: a couple of different responses, uh, one of which was infuriating. Um, well,
Speaker 1: both of them, I would argue are infuriating, but the
Speaker 1: first one in the initial letter that was sent to
Speaker 1: them that told them that the award had been rescinded.
Speaker 1: There's a passage. I'll quote it directly because I want
Speaker 1: to make sure I get it right. This is what
Speaker 1: the ct A wrote back. They said, entries deemed by
Speaker 1: c t A in their soul discretion to be immoral, obscene, indecent, profane,
Speaker 1: or not in keeping with c t a s image
Speaker 1: will be disqualified. C TA reserves the right and its
Speaker 1: sole discretion to disqualify any entry at any time which,
Speaker 1: in c t a's opinion, endangers the safety or well
Speaker 1: being of any person or fails to comply with these
Speaker 1: official rules. End quote. That is a loaded statement if
Speaker 1: I ever heard one. Right. So, women's sexual pleasure is
Speaker 1: either immoral, profane, yeah, or not in keeping with CTIAS image,
Speaker 1: which I would argue is probably the one that is
Speaker 1: the most true. But in a way that is is
Speaker 1: me passing judgment on C t A, not on women's sexuality.
Speaker 1: So let's let's get a little broader picture here for
Speaker 1: a second. Um, C E S and sexuality are not
Speaker 1: separate things and never the twain shall meet. In fact,
Speaker 1: it is totally not the case. From the nineteen eighties
Speaker 1: until two thousand eleven, the two the C S event
Speaker 1: happened in conjunction with another big event in Las Vegas,
Speaker 1: the Adult Video Network Awards or an Adult Video a
Speaker 1: v N show. So this was a show in which
Speaker 1: adult content, essentially pornography if you prefer that term, was
Speaker 1: going on and frequently you if you had a badge
Speaker 1: to one, if you had a badge specifically to C
Speaker 1: E S, it would get you entry into the other
Speaker 1: conference as well. And there were lots of comments about
Speaker 1: this about how the target audience for both conferences tended
Speaker 1: to be the same, which was mostly straight dudes, um
Speaker 1: and that. But anyway that there was no real there
Speaker 1: was no real shying away from that. It's not like
Speaker 1: they weren't officially handshaking being buddy buddy about the two conferences,
Speaker 1: but they also weren't shying away from it at all.
Speaker 1: And the only reason the two conferences went their separate
Speaker 1: ways and now are scheduled at different times of the
Speaker 1: year or different times in January is because they were
Speaker 1: just running out of space. It wasn't so much that
Speaker 1: it was oh no, we can't be associated with them,
Speaker 1: as opposed to well the adult video guys were saying,
Speaker 1: the real problem is that c S is jacking up
Speaker 1: all the prices of all the hotel rooms in all
Speaker 1: of Las Vegas, so people can't afford to come to
Speaker 1: our conference. So we're gonna hold it a different time
Speaker 1: where the hotel rates will be back down to normal.
Speaker 1: So I had nothing to do with being obscene or profane.
Speaker 1: So the question then is why is this product viewed
Speaker 1: as that? Especially if you were to walk around c
Speaker 1: e S. Especially if you were to walk around and
Speaker 1: really pay attention, you would find that there was a
Speaker 1: meeting room off the main hall and c e S
Speaker 1: where Naughty America was showing off a virtual reality application
Speaker 1: in which you could view pornography and virtual reality, and
Speaker 1: they were giving live demonstrations of this. At CES. There
Speaker 1: was so Lerna, which was a sex robot meant for men,
Speaker 1: essentially a very advanced sex doll um. And there are
Speaker 1: other aids as well that mostly you could argue, even
Speaker 1: those that are intended to be used by women are
Speaker 1: done so in a way that kind of reflects back
Speaker 1: toward men. Yeah, those all seemed to be fine. They
Speaker 1: were all allowed to be shown. The OZ was not right.
Speaker 1: And I know that CS until pretty recently, right had
Speaker 1: the not that this is exactly on the same level,
Speaker 1: but they had booth babes. Oh yes, yeah, in fact
Speaker 1: they still do, but it's not it's not nearly as
Speaker 1: prevalent as it used to be. But yes, that used
Speaker 1: to be that if you walked in. When I first
Speaker 1: went to ce S in two thousand eight, it was
Speaker 1: a very common practice to employ women, usually models, typically
Speaker 1: wearing revealing clothing um for really just the purpose of
Speaker 1: enticing people into the booth a slee men. Yes, and
Speaker 1: it was it was typically these women would have at least,
Speaker 1: you know, kind of a bird's eye overview of what
Speaker 1: was in the booth, so that they could at least
Speaker 1: give a very shallow spiel of what was happening there.
Speaker 1: But rarely was it the case that they were informed
Speaker 1: enough to really talk about the products, so they were
Speaker 1: there almost like set decoration. Uh. It was very much
Speaker 1: an objectification kind of thing. Uh. There were exceptions. There
Speaker 1: were some people who employed what would folks would refer
Speaker 1: to as booth babes, and they were incredibly well informed
Speaker 1: and good on them, fantastic. Still was a little weird
Speaker 1: that they're using women in revealing clothing to try and
Speaker 1: get people to come into a booth. Um. I can't
Speaker 1: tell you how many times I was trying to get
Speaker 1: from point A to point B in a conference center
Speaker 1: and couldn't get through the hall that I was in
Speaker 1: because there was just an enormous crowd stopped to taking
Speaker 1: so they can take photos of booth abes posing. Um,
Speaker 1: I know this will shock you. The ed Hardy booth
Speaker 1: one year was particularly bad about that. Um. But yeah,
Speaker 1: that that is less prevalent today. There are still booths
Speaker 1: that use women uh to try and entice people to
Speaker 1: come in, but it's not nearly as overt and it's
Speaker 1: not nearly as prevalent. So that's largely been cut back,
Speaker 1: but it's still something you see occasionally and in in
Speaker 1: these are current times. UM. Well, one I probably hear
Speaker 1: from listeners so much about this UM tech company ABC
Speaker 1: has done X y Z sexist thing. UM. The culture
Speaker 1: is hostile towards women and i'n binary folks. UM forces
Speaker 1: them out and it's infuriating because it is a self
Speaker 1: fulfilling prophecy. It maintains this tatus quo so many stories
Speaker 1: and technology and entertainment gone. Yeah, but also CS because
Speaker 1: of this climate we're in where you will get called
Speaker 1: out for this stuff now, Like they in sen they
Speaker 1: had an all male lineup of keynote speakers UM, and
Speaker 1: that led to the hashtag CS so male and also
Speaker 1: these terms like programmer and bro topia. So in your experience,
Speaker 1: is it I'm sure there's probably data somewhere, but is
Speaker 1: it mostly men? Okay? Let me put to you this way. Okay.
Speaker 1: One of the long standing jokes, and it's not really
Speaker 1: a joke, but it's kind of like the trope is
Speaker 1: that ce S is a conference where it's one of
Speaker 1: the few places where you're going to have an enormous
Speaker 1: group of people and there's always a line for the
Speaker 1: men's room and not one for the ladies room. So
Speaker 1: you get immediately what that means, right, immediately understand you're thinking, oh, yeah, no,
Speaker 1: that tells me what's happening here is like and you'll
Speaker 1: I remember talking with so Press gets real chummy chummy
Speaker 1: at CES, you know, because we all end up working
Speaker 1: in the same media rooms, so we end up talking
Speaker 1: with each other. I talked with a lot of women
Speaker 1: impress over the last twelve years of covering C E
Speaker 1: S and I remember multiple times where they said, like,
Speaker 1: the one thing I like about this show is I
Speaker 1: never have to wait if I need to go to
Speaker 1: the bathroom. I just there's never a line like that's
Speaker 1: the one good thing. And I'm thinking, you know, I
Speaker 1: was like ha ha ha at the time, and then
Speaker 1: as time has gone on and I've become more as
Speaker 1: the kids say, woke, I thought, hole, that was more
Speaker 1: of a warning red flag that I should have really
Speaker 1: paid attention to. That wasn't so much a you know,
Speaker 1: here's something funny about the show, but rather uh this
Speaker 1: is this literally is one of the few positive things
Speaker 1: I can say about this experience from from the perspective
Speaker 1: of a woman. And the more I paid attention and
Speaker 1: the more I stepped outside of who I am as
Speaker 1: just a boring straight white dude. Uh, the more I
Speaker 1: began to appreciate that, but it does require that you
Speaker 1: take if you're like me, it does require that you
Speaker 1: take yourself out of that. The state of Georgia is
Speaker 1: still a state where as far as I know, where
Speaker 1: sex toys have to still be called adult novelties. Yeah,
Speaker 1: obscenity laws, Yeah, I think it was. It prevented storage
Speaker 1: from selling sex toys until a few years ago they
Speaker 1: sold novelty items. Or I think this is really telling
Speaker 1: marital aids. Yeah, yeah, I mean that's the state I
Speaker 1: grew up in, So you know, it's it's it's taking
Speaker 1: a long personal journey of growth for me to get
Speaker 1: to the point where I can have at least an
Speaker 1: appreciation of what is happening. Not it's still not directly
Speaker 1: affecting me um in that sense, which again is a
Speaker 1: reason why I wanted to have somebody else on this
Speaker 1: show to talk about this topic. Hey, it's Jonathan from
Speaker 1: the Future breaking into Jonathan from the past, and I'm interrupting,
Speaker 1: probably me, but possibly Annie. Either way, We're going to
Speaker 1: be right back with more of this conversation. But first,
Speaker 1: let's take a quick break to thank our sponsor. Another
Speaker 1: thing that kind of gears back into this is, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, I said that the initial response was saying
Speaker 1: this obscenity thing, and obviously that needed to be walked
Speaker 1: back on right away or else that was going to
Speaker 1: be the worst optics in the world. And not like
Speaker 1: I mean, you can't you can never unsay stuff, so
Speaker 1: it's still really bad optics. But there was a subsequent
Speaker 1: letter that came from Gary Shapiro, who's the president of
Speaker 1: c T A and UM. One of the executive vice presidents,
Speaker 1: Karen ch I believe, wrote a letter and they said
Speaker 1: in that one not that this was an obscene or
Speaker 1: profane product, but rather the reason that they rescinded the
Speaker 1: award was because the product did not meet the qualifications
Speaker 1: of the category to which it had been submitted, Because
Speaker 1: there are twenty eight, at least in nineteen there were
Speaker 1: twenty eight different categories for Innovation Awards, and Ose was
Speaker 1: submitted in the Robotics and Drone category, which, when you
Speaker 1: first think about it, you know, if you if you're
Speaker 1: told the oversimplified story of this is a vibrator that
Speaker 1: was submitted to Robotics and Drone, your first thought is
Speaker 1: like well, yeah, that doesn't that doesn't seem to fit.
Speaker 1: But in fact, one, it's far more complicated than a vibrator.
Speaker 1: It doesn't vibrate. It has all these motions that are
Speaker 1: meant to mimic human motions. The one of the purpose,
Speaker 1: the stated purpose of the OSE is to create a
Speaker 1: blended orgasm, and in fact that the founder of Laura
Speaker 1: de Carlos, says that she's very up front. She says,
Speaker 1: I'm working to perfect the female orgasm. That's what I'm
Speaker 1: looking to do. And this is to be a product
Speaker 1: where you don't have to use your hands. It's mimicking
Speaker 1: human motion. It's meant to mimic up partner. It's supposed
Speaker 1: to UH. It has all these complicated things like it has.
Speaker 1: It has a high end it, it's got uh, it's
Speaker 1: got high tech materials in it, it's got robotics all
Speaker 1: through the design of this product. They have a PhD
Speaker 1: in robotics who worked on this, so they said that
Speaker 1: it obviously should qualify. And I actually went back and
Speaker 1: looked at earlier recipients of the Robotics and Drone honorees,
Speaker 1: and in one of those honorees was a lidar sensor,
Speaker 1: which in itself is not a robot. It's not a drone.
Speaker 1: It's a component. Now it's it's an important component. Light.
Speaker 1: Our sensors allow robots to detect the range between them
Speaker 1: and other objects, and they can do it very very quickly.
Speaker 1: It's what autonomous cars use as part of their systems
Speaker 1: to detect the environment around them. So very important. But
Speaker 1: it's not a robot, it's not a drone. It's a component.
Speaker 1: And yet this other device, which you would argue this
Speaker 1: seems to fit in robotics way more than a sensor would,
Speaker 1: is somehow disqualified. So it still doesn't seem to be
Speaker 1: a satisfactory reason for and it certainly doesn't seem to
Speaker 1: be a satisfactory reason to say, not only were we
Speaker 1: taking your reward away, we aren't allowing you to to
Speaker 1: exhibit at c S right. And I mean they went through,
Speaker 1: like you said, they had to go through this panel
Speaker 1: of judges and they all said, oh, yeah, it qualifies.
Speaker 1: And like I said earlier, it's the subject of eight
Speaker 1: pending patents for robotics, biomimicry, and engineering. That doesn't seem
Speaker 1: like it's something that is just a simple device. And
Speaker 1: you know ce s is no shortage of the same
Speaker 1: thing a billion times over. And simple gadgets. I mean
Speaker 1: you see them everywhere, and some of them still are
Speaker 1: considered honorease because they fall into whatever the category is.
Speaker 1: I would argue, if in fact they genuinely think that
Speaker 1: this doesn't fit in robotics and drone, that perhaps what
Speaker 1: needs to happen. First of all, I disagree that that
Speaker 1: isn't a valid answer. I reject that, But if you
Speaker 1: have to go with that, I would say there's a
Speaker 1: very real need to create a category specifically for health
Speaker 1: and sexuality that is called for that. I think because
Speaker 1: these products do exist on the show floor, like again,
Speaker 1: mostly geared with men in mind at least at some
Speaker 1: in some way, shape or form, and if they're if
Speaker 1: those are allowed, I cannot understand what the justification is
Speaker 1: for denying this other one. Right, And this kind of
Speaker 1: gets to that bigger issue that's not This isn't a
Speaker 1: tech issue. This is a culture issue of viewing women's
Speaker 1: sexuality and sexual pleasure as being taboo. Yeah, this is huge,
Speaker 1: It is huge. I have a kind of joined universe
Speaker 1: of horror movies that almost all of them are male writers,
Speaker 1: struggling with their fear of female sexuality. Oh sure, yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean I love to talk about that one one day.
Speaker 1: That would be I wish I could talk about that
Speaker 1: on this show, Different past, it's a different podcast, but
Speaker 1: as someone who loves horror movies and also loves the
Speaker 1: social commentary that is in there, yeah, like, and I
Speaker 1: think of ones that try to treat it in a
Speaker 1: way how I'm going off on attention, but we'll get
Speaker 1: back to it, don't worry. But I think of ones
Speaker 1: to try and treat in a way that is more aware,
Speaker 1: like it follows, I would argue, is a little closer
Speaker 1: to being more aware because it's treating this, uh, this
Speaker 1: idea of sexuality and almost like treating like a like
Speaker 1: a paranormal um entity as almost like a sexually transmitted disease.
Speaker 1: I think that that one is probably a little better
Speaker 1: than say things like car which I think still is
Speaker 1: not the worst the worst. Uh Why am I trying
Speaker 1: to say it's not. It's not the absolute worst version
Speaker 1: of viewing women's sexuality as being this kind of related
Speaker 1: to this kind of thing of of either being unclean
Speaker 1: or being taboo. But it's closer because you know, you've
Speaker 1: got the whole menstruation aspect of carry that's in there. Anyway,
Speaker 1: back to this other topic. So this is something that
Speaker 1: is clearly think it's clearly seen beyond tech and for
Speaker 1: women this is not a surprise. For for men like me,
Speaker 1: you might think like, oh, yeah, I never really thought
Speaker 1: of it that way, because again, it never directly affected me.
Speaker 1: But this is this is something that is getting more
Speaker 1: and more attention as women are able to assert themselves
Speaker 1: more and more, and we're starting to see that trend
Speaker 1: change where that we're seeing less suppression of that voice
Speaker 1: I got. I would say that we're seeing more of
Speaker 1: this despite to men, as opposed to because men are
Speaker 1: giving women space. It's more that it's because women are
Speaker 1: taking space, which is good but also sad that it
Speaker 1: has to happen. Sad in the sense that you know,
Speaker 1: guys like me aren't aren't making more room. But um yeah,
Speaker 1: let's talk about that a bit. So the implication to
Speaker 1: me is that if if a device is ultimately intended
Speaker 1: to enhance the sexual pleasure of a man, that's fine, yes,
Speaker 1: But if it was only for a woman, which you
Speaker 1: could also says, since the message if it's to eliminate
Speaker 1: the man's role in in providing sexual pleasure to a woman.
Speaker 1: That's not cool. Yeah. That founder of DeCarlo, Laura Haddock,
Speaker 1: she said, you cannot pretend to be unbiased if you
Speaker 1: allow a sex robot in shape of an unrealistic female body,
Speaker 1: but not a vagina focused robotic massager for blended orgasm. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I think that's yeah, And I think that's pretty clear
Speaker 1: now to be totally fair to all parties. Uh, the
Speaker 1: ct A has not really commented on this very much.
Speaker 1: In fact, I tried looking a lot to see about
Speaker 1: any follow up from this, because there was a lot
Speaker 1: of media attention in the immediate uh fall out of
Speaker 1: the the announcement that oh, by the way, we were invited,
Speaker 1: but then they revoked our invitation and I couldn't find anything. Um, So,
Speaker 1: if there are any truly ethical or legitimate complaints on
Speaker 1: the part of c t A, they have not been
Speaker 1: shared publicly. So we are left to lean what we
Speaker 1: can from the letters that were sent to Laura de Carlo,
Speaker 1: and those are the ones that seem pretty damning with this,
Speaker 1: And UM, I'm curious, what when I asked you to
Speaker 1: do this and you started looking into it. What were
Speaker 1: some of your reactions, Oh, not surprised. Um, it's so
Speaker 1: much of in the words of past stuff I've never
Speaker 1: told you co host host Caroline, the female orgasm is
Speaker 1: more regulated in this country than almost anything, um, and
Speaker 1: that we have a long history of that. Until like
Speaker 1: the early nineteen hundreds, doctors and men in general in
Speaker 1: Europe and the US thought women did not experience sexual
Speaker 1: desires or pleasure. Yeah, that's recent, and that's where the
Speaker 1: whole hysteria, genital massage UM, doctors complaining of cramped hands.
Speaker 1: That's the only reason we have vibrators is because male
Speaker 1: doctors we're tired of giving genital massages. UM. And at
Speaker 1: the time masturbation was called self abuse, so you didn't
Speaker 1: really have any other option. And you can argue that
Speaker 1: a lot of these topics are still very largely taboo.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's this is one of those things where
Speaker 1: I think, only recently I would be able to have
Speaker 1: this conversation with you and not feel like I was
Speaker 1: doing something wrong. Um. And it wasn't because of any
Speaker 1: intrinsic thing with the subject. It was rather this cultural
Speaker 1: belief that has been instilled in me. You know, I'm
Speaker 1: I'm a generation older, well not quite a generation, but
Speaker 1: I'm older than you are any significantly older. Because we
Speaker 1: had a conversation earlier that that were I had been
Speaker 1: married for several years and you were talking about being
Speaker 1: in middle school and I was like, well, okay, but
Speaker 1: I come from a generation where it is still kind
Speaker 1: of it's a foreign thought to me to be able
Speaker 1: to have these sort of conversations frankly and uh and
Speaker 1: not feel like I'm doing something wrong. But I've been
Speaker 1: seeing that growing trend where people are embracing sexuality. They're
Speaker 1: embracing this and there's sex positivity has become an enormously
Speaker 1: powerful movement, and it still has a long way to go, obviously,
Speaker 1: but it's miles beyond what it was when I was
Speaker 1: your age. And uh, So this has been a sort
Speaker 1: of a transformative experience that I've I've managed to to
Speaker 1: witness in my own lifetime. I also, outside of my
Speaker 1: work here at how stuff works. I'm a medievalist. So
Speaker 1: for me, I think back to the rise of the
Speaker 1: Puritanical era, which you know, you have had Catholicism, you
Speaker 1: had the Protestantism, then you had the outgrowth of Puritanism.
Speaker 1: From Protestantism and the Puritans. The Puritanical view was essentially
Speaker 1: anything anything related to pleasure was considered a distraction from
Speaker 1: your devotion to God and that therefore was sinful. And
Speaker 1: a lot of that has gone into becoming the groundwork
Speaker 1: for American morality and American social mores. Because again, the Puritans,
Speaker 1: a lot of them were the people who fled England
Speaker 1: from from persecution in England because everyone in England got
Speaker 1: fed up with them, so they fled to America, to
Speaker 1: the New World. And so while I wouldn't think that
Speaker 1: American culture today is particularly Puritanical, there's still a lot
Speaker 1: of holdovers in that in our culture. And I would
Speaker 1: say that this particular story really played that out on
Speaker 1: a specific stage, the tech stage. Yeah. So um yeah,
Speaker 1: not to be t m I, but I didn't know
Speaker 1: women could masturbate until college college, so we don't talk
Speaker 1: about it, we're embarrassed to bring it up. But one
Speaker 1: third of American women own a vibrator. And again, the
Speaker 1: device that we're talking about is not a vibrator, but
Speaker 1: it does have to do with sexual pleasure for female
Speaker 1: non binary folks. So you can kind of extrapolate the
Speaker 1: conversations we have around vibrators to this. Um. But if
Speaker 1: you look at so going back to that whole marital
Speaker 1: aid thing. Okay, so back in the eighteen and early
Speaker 1: nineteen hundreds, sex toys, which by itself, if you think
Speaker 1: about that term already says that this is kind of
Speaker 1: a frivolous, wasteful activity, that this is not in any
Speaker 1: way inherent to someone's health. Right, And you would hear
Speaker 1: from more recent authority that sexual pleasure and health are
Speaker 1: very much they're they're all part of the same umbrella. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and not not like, oh, this is just for fun times,
Speaker 1: like this doesn't mean anything, This doesn't contribute to your
Speaker 1: well being in any meaningful way. Yeah. And I am
Speaker 1: a huge advocate for sex education, such a huge advocate,
Speaker 1: but I do think that the little sex education we
Speaker 1: do get in this country, or at least in most
Speaker 1: of the country, UM, it's focused on fearmongering. Of these
Speaker 1: are the diseases you could get, you could get pregnant.
Speaker 1: We should be talking about when it's when sex is
Speaker 1: done well and people consent and your adults, it's pleasurable.
Speaker 1: It should be pleasurable. We never talked about I can't
Speaker 1: imagine hearing that, Yeah, that's what it's gotten to the
Speaker 1: point where it's so taboo. I mean, it's not gone
Speaker 1: to the point it's been this way for for decades,
Speaker 1: for centuries, but it's it's at the point where if
Speaker 1: you try and imagine that scenario, like you you first,
Speaker 1: I'm sure you put yourself in your own shoes back
Speaker 1: when you were in middle school or high school, and
Speaker 1: you think, all right, well, I'm in health class and
Speaker 1: we're hitting that sex said block of content, and you
Speaker 1: imagine what your reaction would have been like had that
Speaker 1: discussion started up. And the first thing you think is
Speaker 1: everyone being immature and giggling and not being able and
Speaker 1: blushing and not being able to like just wanting to
Speaker 1: be anywhere else than where you were. And that's because
Speaker 1: we have this cultural taboo against sexuality. It's not again,
Speaker 1: it's not inherent in the subject itself that if we
Speaker 1: were able, if we were able to change that, uh,
Speaker 1: that set of more rais and beliefs and values and
Speaker 1: our perceptions, that we could get to a point where
Speaker 1: you could have this conversation. And I'm sure there's always
Speaker 1: going to be someone who's from a household that is
Speaker 1: more conservative or more restrictive or whatever. That still feels
Speaker 1: like this is an inappropriate or uncomfortable topic. But we
Speaker 1: could get to a point where you can have that
Speaker 1: sort of conversation. I think it's a very important conversation
Speaker 1: in the in the wake of all the stories we hear,
Speaker 1: many of them the text fear of harassment and worse,
Speaker 1: a lot of that deals you could trace that right
Speaker 1: back to a lack of education, which leads also to
Speaker 1: a lack of empathy. And uh, you get this this
Speaker 1: uh reinforced sense of entitlement, especially among straight dudes. You know,
Speaker 1: they everything in our society establishes the straight dude as
Speaker 1: the norm, and then everything else is a deviation from
Speaker 1: the norm, and the norm gets everything and the more
Speaker 1: deep you deviate from the norm, the less you get.
Speaker 1: So as the norm, you have an expectation for sexual pleasure,
Speaker 1: You have an expectation to get it when you want it,
Speaker 1: from who you want it. This is me making like
Speaker 1: the most extreme case for that. But that that that's
Speaker 1: kind of the problem we have to tackle, and again
Speaker 1: one that ends up being illustrated by this case we're
Speaker 1: talking about. I know that we're arranging why and follow
Speaker 1: for tech stuff. But the important thing for me is
Speaker 1: one it relates back to the specific story and what
Speaker 1: happened to It relates back to the concept of inclusion
Speaker 1: and diversity in technology in general. We want more women
Speaker 1: to get into those fields. Everyone benefits when you get
Speaker 1: a more diverse level of expertise and perspectives into any industry,
Speaker 1: not just technology. UM and that I know that there
Speaker 1: are a lot of women who listen to tech stuff,
Speaker 1: and I want them to know that, like, I'm totally
Speaker 1: on this particular train, like I am not. I don't
Speaker 1: want anyone to get any mistaken belief about where I
Speaker 1: stand on this um, which means that I'm going to
Speaker 1: get a billion tweets telling me that I'm preachy again.
Speaker 1: But that's okay. I don't mind. I don't mind being
Speaker 1: preachy about this. Yeah. I think this is a good
Speaker 1: topic to get those kind of tweets about. Yeah yeah,
Speaker 1: as opposed to some of the other ones that I mean,
Speaker 1: like when I get real mad about Android versus Apple.
Speaker 1: That's that's kind of kind of minor in comparison. Jonathan
Speaker 1: from the Future again, jet packs are awesome. It's time
Speaker 1: to take another quick break to thank our sponsor. Now
Speaker 1: what do you think what do you think ct A
Speaker 1: should do? Let's say that you you're brought on as
Speaker 1: a as an advisor, like they're a consultant. C t
Speaker 1: A brings you in there, like Annie, we're in a mess.
Speaker 1: We we did the stuff. The optics are terrible. Everyone
Speaker 1: is is saying that we're sexist and misogynist and there
Speaker 1: there's gender bias. What should we do to fix it? Well,
Speaker 1: I assume there's no time machine invented, though if it
Speaker 1: had been, I'm sure would have gotten a best of innovation.
Speaker 1: That's true, that's true. I feel like at this point,
Speaker 1: since CS is over, they're going to have to think
Speaker 1: about what they're going to do, the steps are going
Speaker 1: to take for that is wild that we're talking about, Um,
Speaker 1: what what can they do to get not only more
Speaker 1: women to come to the conference, but more female or
Speaker 1: non binary companies or technologies to exhibit there. And like
Speaker 1: you were saying, I think that's a great idea for
Speaker 1: health and sexuality to have its own right um, But
Speaker 1: I do think on top of that there needs to
Speaker 1: be some kind of public because, like you said, we
Speaker 1: don't really know where c t A stand UM, so
Speaker 1: make some kind of public statement saying we were wrong
Speaker 1: to do this, or either this is why we did this,
Speaker 1: this is why we thought we should this is a
Speaker 1: thing that we should have done, some kind of clarity
Speaker 1: around it. Here are the steps we're going to take
Speaker 1: so that we can be more inclusive and we can
Speaker 1: be an environment that does welcome innovation from everyone. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I think if you don't do that, then the danger
Speaker 1: you run into is saying, oh, all this inclusion that
Speaker 1: you're talking about, this fifty fifty split of keynote speakers,
Speaker 1: it's all for show and you don't actually mean it,
Speaker 1: Like you're responding to the perception but not to the
Speaker 1: actual problem. And doing what you're suggesting shows that, oh, no,
Speaker 1: we recognize that there are there are hurdles to overcome,
Speaker 1: and we are dedicating ourselves to actually doing that. I
Speaker 1: agree entirely. I think I think they need to say
Speaker 1: either we were in the wrong or we don't believe
Speaker 1: we were in the wrong, but we do believe we
Speaker 1: did it the wrong way. Right, Like, here's here's what
Speaker 1: here's also leave why we made the decision we made,
Speaker 1: but the way that it was communicated and the way
Speaker 1: it uh it unfolded was wrong, and we are responsible
Speaker 1: for that. You cannot blame Laura de Carlo for their
Speaker 1: reaction because they got an award and then they got
Speaker 1: it taken away. That is listen, that's that's Charlie Brown
Speaker 1: going to kick the football and the football gets pulled away. Right,
Speaker 1: you don't do that. It's not cool. And and beyond that,
Speaker 1: the denial to exhibit like that's still to me, that's
Speaker 1: like the thing that I can't get past the most.
Speaker 1: Like the award I think is bull hockey. What what
Speaker 1: word am I going to use? Um? I think that's nonsense.
Speaker 1: I think the I think resending the award is nonsense. Uh,
Speaker 1: but I think the denial of exhibiting at all is
Speaker 1: like I can't understand unless you go with that initial
Speaker 1: response they gave where they think it's up seen, and
Speaker 1: that's what has to change. Yeah. So, um, I'm glad
Speaker 1: that we're able to have this conversation. I am sad
Speaker 1: that it is necessary. Yeah, I mean that's generally, I mean,
Speaker 1: come listen to stuff I've never told your listeners. So
Speaker 1: that's kind of what I can't believe we have to
Speaker 1: talk about this right now, But we do yeah, well,
Speaker 1: I can't even imagine, like I've had this. Actually, this
Speaker 1: also tells me that I should have had you on
Speaker 1: numerous times before because I've covered other topics like I've
Speaker 1: covered topics. Google had the infamous sexual harassment issue that
Speaker 1: that you where you had women organizing so that they
Speaker 1: could do a walk out and protest because of this stuff.
Speaker 1: And and you know, for the longest time, Google was
Speaker 1: looked at as a fairly benevolent company. That has obviously
Speaker 1: changed over the last i'd say five years, but you know,
Speaker 1: for a long time their official model was do no
Speaker 1: do no evil, or do not don't be evil. I
Speaker 1: think was specifically was don't be evil. By the way,
Speaker 1: that has not been their motto for at least five
Speaker 1: years exactly. So I will definitely reach out to you
Speaker 1: to talk about these kind of things in the future.
Speaker 1: But yeah, I agree entirely. This is something that there
Speaker 1: there's an opportunity here to address a problem and to
Speaker 1: make an improvement and to set up twenty twenty so
Speaker 1: that these these sort of products can take their rightful place.
Speaker 1: I mean, I also read a great interview where they
Speaker 1: were talking with Laura Haddock about the possibility what if
Speaker 1: c e S were to create a show space where
Speaker 1: all the the sex toys and and marital aids could
Speaker 1: exist and maybe it's apart from everything else. And she said, well,
Speaker 1: we have those already. We have those kind of trade shows.
Speaker 1: Those trade shows exist. What we're asking for is a
Speaker 1: seat at the consumer electronics table where we're not treating
Speaker 1: this as a taboo subject or something that needs to
Speaker 1: be behind closed doors or that that you know, oh
Speaker 1: you have to go behind the curtain at the video
Speaker 1: store to go check that out, like because that, again,
Speaker 1: it already sets the stage that this is a taboo thing, right, Um,
Speaker 1: so I agree with that. I think I don't think
Speaker 1: I'm ever going to reach a point of maturity where
Speaker 1: I'll be able to walk through the show floor without
Speaker 1: maybe blushing quite a bit. But that's because of my
Speaker 1: own personal hang ups and the fact that I went
Speaker 1: way too long before getting uh semi woke. But that's
Speaker 1: my own personal failing, not anyone else's sure. I do
Speaker 1: want to throw in here that sex toys are estimated
Speaker 1: to be worth about thirty billion dollars. That's a lot
Speaker 1: of money. Yeah, that's a lot of money to pretend
Speaker 1: like no one does it. It is yeah, to put
Speaker 1: it behind the curtain, yea, to sit there and and
Speaker 1: and say like like, well, I mean, come on, how
Speaker 1: how important could this industry be? Look, when you're starting
Speaker 1: to throw around billion with a B, you're talking, you're
Speaker 1: talking a serious industry. So um, thank you Annie for
Speaker 1: agreeing to be on the show and to have this
Speaker 1: conversation with me. I greatly appreciate it. I was. I was.
Speaker 1: I remember when I first walked up to you and
Speaker 1: I wanted to approach you about the subject, and I
Speaker 1: literally I was like, I have no idea how this
Speaker 1: conversation and Annie, to your credit, you were like, totally,
Speaker 1: let's talk about it. Thank you very much for asking me.
Speaker 1: I've this has been a great conversation. I could, Um,
Speaker 1: I could talk about this a lot. And that's perhaps
Speaker 1: why I am on a podcast that does that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and I hope that if you guys over at stuff
Speaker 1: Mom never told you cover topics like this. I can't
Speaker 1: wait to hear them because I want I really want
Speaker 1: to hear your full perspective. UH that show obviously you
Speaker 1: you've developed your own uh structure and tone, and it's
Speaker 1: it's a very special show. A very important show. And
Speaker 1: you know you're able to balance rage and humor in
Speaker 1: a way that I greatly admire. Thank you. It's a skill. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I know, the fact that you aren't just constantly going
Speaker 1: around and punching everybody is a phenomenon to me. I'm
Speaker 1: I'm amazed. Thank you, You're welcome. I don't get complimented
Speaker 1: on not punching people enough. I also just want to
Speaker 1: say thank you because I like my face not punched. Annie.
Speaker 1: So where can people find all of your work? In
Speaker 1: case they are not familiar. You can find me over
Speaker 1: on Stuff I've Never told you, And you can also
Speaker 1: find me on Saver, which is a podcast about food
Speaker 1: and travels a little bit lighter but not always formally
Speaker 1: called food stuff formally called food stuff. Yes, um, and
Speaker 1: I'm assuming that most people who listen to this are
Speaker 1: pretty uh they know what to do in technologically. Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: so you can. You can find it on Google. Um,
Speaker 1: you find on the I Heart radio app. I think
Speaker 1: we're legally obligated to say that, are we need to
Speaker 1: get the time, but yeah, come on over. We have
Speaker 1: conversations like this all the time. Fantastic Annie, Thank you
Speaker 1: so much, And guys, if you have any questions, maybe
Speaker 1: have follow up questions about this episode, Maybe you have
Speaker 1: suggestions for other topics. Maybe you heard this and you
Speaker 1: thought this was really interesting. I want to hear more
Speaker 1: on this line of topics. Then let me know. Even
Speaker 1: if it's not something that tech Stuff should tackle. I
Speaker 1: can certainly hand it over to Annie so that she
Speaker 1: can look into that, or maybe who knows. You never
Speaker 1: know what will become the next mini series episode. That's true.
Speaker 1: Thing like, we are constantly on the lookout for possible
Speaker 1: podcast topics that may not fit in any existing show
Speaker 1: but might be a great, let's say, ten episode series.
Speaker 1: So if you have something where you're like, I really
Speaker 1: want to hear, maybe like a full series about the
Speaker 1: history of the inner section between sexuality and technology, that
Speaker 1: could be phenomenal. I am not the right person to
Speaker 1: do that because I will at some point just end
Speaker 1: up blushing so hard I pass out. I'll come back anytime. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'll be happy to hand the baton to you. But
Speaker 1: that might be an excellent mini series. But if there's
Speaker 1: anything else along those lines, you should send me an email.
Speaker 1: Let me know the addresses tech Stuff at how stuff
Speaker 1: works dot com. You can check out the website that's
Speaker 1: tech Stuff Podcast dot com. You can find all the
Speaker 1: archives there, as well as other ways to get in
Speaker 1: touch with me. Don't forget to pop over to the
Speaker 1: merchandise store that's t public dot com slash tech stuff.
Speaker 1: Every purchase he make goes to help the show, and
Speaker 1: we greatly appreciate it. And I'll talk to you again
Speaker 1: really soon for more on this and thousands of other topics.
Speaker 1: Is that how stuff works dot com. Two