Business
CES will allow sex tech on a one-year trial bias, and finally bans booth babes
The Consumer Technology Association, the organization behind the annual Consumer Electronics Show, is slowly getting up to speed with the modern-day. 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.
This comes after the CTA royally messed up with sex tech company Lora DiCarlo last year. The CTA revoked an innovation award from the company, which is developing a hands-free device that uses biomimicry and robotics to help women achieve a blended orgasm by simultaneously stimulating the G-spot and the clitoris. In May, CTA re-awarded the company and apologized.
“CTA is committed to evolving and continuing to create an experience at CES that is inclusive and welcoming for everyone,” CES EVP Karen Chupka said in a statement. “We worked with a number of external advisors and partners to update and improve our existing CES policies.”
Additionally, CTA has banned booth babes, or, booth people, as it’s applicable to everyone, regardless of gender.
“Booth personnel may not wear clothing that is sexually revealing or that could be interpreted as undergarments,” the new policy states. “Clothing that reveals an excess of bare skin, or body-conforming clothing that hugs genitalia must not be worn.”
-
Entertainment7 days ago
‘Only Murders in the Building’ Season 4 ending explained: Who killed Sazz and why?
-
Entertainment6 days ago
When will we have 2024 election results online?
-
Entertainment7 days ago
5 Dyson Supersonic dupes worth the hype in 2024
-
Entertainment5 days ago
Halloween 2024: Weekend debates, obscure memes, and a legacy of racism
-
Entertainment6 days ago
Social media drives toxic fandom. Is there a solution?
-
Entertainment5 days ago
Is ‘The Substance’ streaming? How to watch at home
-
Entertainment5 days ago
M4 MacBook Pro vs. M3 MacBook Pro: What are the differences?
-
Entertainment3 days ago
Menendez brothers case reignites online: The questions that keep resurfacing