Sex Tech-nicalities
In the world of sex tech women are stepping up to help each other find pleasure, but blatant sexism is preventing these new businesses from thriving. If key decision makers are still predominantly men, how do we push female-focused sex companies to the next level? We all know that sex sells, but why can't we sell sex tech?
Kristen Liu-Wong capturing my quarantine essence
Good Vibrations
My boredom levels during this pandemic have been at an all time high. There’s nowhere to go, nothing to do, and thousands of people stuck in isolation. This can really only lead to one thing - a huge uptick in porn consumption.
Everyone has more time on their hands, so they're spending it… with their hands. And porn is just the tip. Sex toy sales and sex app downloads have also seen huge increases all over the world. Maybe it’s the bit of extra income, maybe it’s boredom, maybe it's the complete lack of physical touch, but people have *come* together to boost the sex tech industry in a big way. Sex toys alone are a $27 billion global industry, and they have no signs of climaxing anytime soon. As it stands, the vibrator business is is growing at 13% each year, and I'm sure that will continue to climb if we end up working from bed for eternity.
With this booming market, many female-led companies are hoping to capitalize on new customers. To be clear, sex tech isn’t just vibrators. The industry spans family planning, dating apps, period underwear, postpartum recovery kits, education resources, contraception, menopause support - you name it. Women’s bodies go through an obscene amount of changes, and there are companies coming up with solutions to make our lives easier on all fronts. Female sexuality is also a largely under-indexed area of research, and these businesses offer new insights into women's sexual health. As much as I love to plug the ever-hilarious Sqweel, female sex tech companies are going well beyond tongue-covered fidget spinners when it comes to sexual wellness.
Like many startups, these sex tech companies often are born from personal stories. Take, for instance, Unbound, a sexual wellness company founded by a young woman who went through menopause at age 21. Though it was a necessity, she found shopping for lubricant intimidating and wanted to elevate the experience to be more inclusive.
Even companies that specialize in toys are working hard to change the stigma. Vibrators aren't only fun, but they have long been prescribed by doctors as tools to help improve “low-libido, arousal disorders, and sexual function issues for those recovering from abuse, cancer, and more.”
Talk about a magic wand.
And some of these tools are extremely innovative. There are audio porn apps designed for female listeners, online courses to improve orgasms, an app designed to help couples recognize when you’re in the mood, hands free vibrators, orgasm trackers, sustainable condoms, and plenty more on the way. This is an industry rife with creativity and talent. Last year a vibrator even won a robotics award from the Consumer Technology Association for its design.
Well, it eventually won….
The CTA initially gave the award, then recanted its decision based on the toy being “profane.” A bold stance to have for an event that dedicated a full room to VR porn and sex robots. The sexist basis for the decision was put under fire, and the vibrator was re-awarded 4 months later. But, as I'm sure you've guessed, this kind of double standard is common in the world of sex tech.
Vice Vice Baby
The distinction between a vibrator and a sex robot is a small but important one. Vibrators are generally for women, sex robots are for men. At the end of the day, they are both engineering devices geared at sexual pleasure, but the line dividing the innovators and the immoral is often defined by the audience using the product.
Unsurprisingly, not everyone is as thrilled about these female sextrepreneurial feats as I am. While there is clearly a market and a need for female-focused sex tech, getting support for these companies can be a challenge. Unbound, for example, struggled to get an office and open a bank account due to the nature of their business.
Any company that deals with pornographic content, be it actual porn or just vaginas in general, is considered a “vice” company. Naturally having that name attributed to your business is a scarlet letter on your reputation. Most venture capitalist funds, for instance, have moral clauses defined in their partner agreements that prohibit them from even thinking about investing in sex-focused startups.
What a buzz kill.
The barriers to online advertising and distribution are just as harsh. I’ve written about the challenges sex workers face advertising themselves online. From government policies to individual safety, maintaining a brand in a virtual forum is no easy task. Alas, established sex tech companies aren’t finding it any easier.
As an app, getting through distribution channels like the App Store can be a gruelling process. Apple, Facebook and Instagram rule the online space, making it next to impossible to work around their advertising and distribution policies. Facebook pretty explicitly barres any sexual company from advertising on their platform, citing in their policy that “[a]dverts must not promote the sale or use of adult products or services, unless they promote family planning and contraception."
In layman's terms, it doesn’t matter how wellness-focused you might be, if you aren't selling a baby-blocking contraption, Facebook advertising is out of the question.
Yet it appears there are a few holes in this protective layer, specifically when it comes to sexual wellness products for men. For whatever reason, erectile dysfunction medication has been freely advertised for years without arousing suspicion.
I’m not sure how ‘profane’ ED medication is compared to an award-winning robotic device that can help women increase libido, but clearly Facebook and others see a distinction. And no, it’s not based on the potential for revenue. Remember how big the sex toy market is? ED has some pretty soft sale numbers, hitting only about $2.6 billion annually. Again, the biggest distinction is the audience. Viagra isn't marketed to vaginas.
Let’s Get Physical (Advertising)
Of course, there are other ways to advertise beyond Facebook. In the days of yore (the winter), I would fill my commute to work staring mindlessly at subway ads. Physical advertising seems somewhat archaic now, seeing as I never have to leave my apartment, but in-person campaigns are ever present. For example, our neighbourhood just launched a beautiful Humans of Riverside campaign to share BIPOC stories around our community.
Alas, getting representation in physical spaces is even more challenging for sex tech. In 2018, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority denied Unbound’s ads on grounds that it was a sexually-oriented business. Before that, they had denied Thinx, the period-proof underwear company, for the same reason.
The ads in question are barely even suggestive. Unbound worked with an artist to create images that look more like street art than vibrator marketing. Like the image above, they showcase long elaborate scenes where toys are drawn in. I mean, can you even spot the toy? This looks more like a bathroom renovation inspiration board more than a sex toy ad to me...I’d rather see this any day than the giant boobs of a Victoria Secret model accosting my commute.
Besides, riding the subway isn’t exactly a wholesome experience to begin with, so what’s a drawing of a butt plug really going to do? I'm more likely to see a man whip out his penis than I am to see a family-planning app poster, and that is pretty discouraging.
Dame Girl!
One sexual wellness company refused to take the MTA’s censorship lying down. Dame Products, my new favourite sex-toy company, has been in a long legal battle with the MTA after deciding to sue last year.
The company spotted a plethora of sexually explicit ad content covering the subway and were furious that their tasteful copy had been rejected. Like Thinx and Unbound before them, Dame noticed a huge double standard in what was being approved. Hims and Roman, for example, are two male sexual wellness companies that partnered with the MTA on erectile dysfunction ad campaigns.
Why is it that ED keeps ruining the party?
Not only did Dame work alongside the MTA to come up with their beautiful posters (and some fantastic train puns), but they also went through endless revisions to appease the MTA's policies before getting rejected. What a waste of time. After being denied, Dame pointed out the blatant sexism in allowing ED ads to spring up all over the city. Don't those that clearly break the same policies used to silence their sex toy campaign? Below are examples pulled from their lawsuit:
#DerailSexism
How is it that these are acceptable, but a product oriented at female pleasure is too racy? I can’t put it better than they did in their document:
12. In 2019, the MTA’s Victorian view of female sexuality and the First Amendment cannot stand. The MTA’s censorship of Dame’s advertisements cannot stand. All New Yorkers—and all women—deserve better.
You can't claim erectile dysfunction as a valid health concern and also ignore female-dryness. You can't push me to get breast implants and pretend that women's nipples don't exist. Penile health is not more important than vaginal health, and male orgasms are not more important than female orgasms. Full stop - yield other passengers- don't forget your belongings as you get off.
Here’s My Beef
All of these examples make one thing abundantly clear: sex is only okay when it’s on male terms. Women addressing their sexual health in the public eye is seen as shameful and foreign, yet this same standards don't apply to male products.
To be clear, I have no problem with advertising ED pills. Erectile dysfunction should be discussed as a genuine health issue, but sexual wellness doesn’t start and stop with boners. Having resources and tools for my own sexual well being is important, and opening up the dialogue is a huge part of that. Maybe a vibrator ad on the subway is a good place to start.
The more troubling issue is that we don’t have any shortage of sexual content in advertising, it’s just not used to sell vibrators. We’ve used women’s bodies to sell burgers, cars, and pretty much anything you can think of. Why is it so crazy to sell a product for these bodies?
We have learnt to advertise sex as a means to an end, but not for sex as its own entity. There is a grotesque distinction. Sex sells, but don’t you dare sell sex. Female bodies have become the product, not the consumer. And we all know who those consumers are.
If I’m forced to sit through another Axe commercial wherein models fling themselves off cliffs to get a piece of a guy who defines average, I think it’s only fair I get to see more about companies looking to enhance my sex life.
Size Matters
I have to mention that there are rules in advertising. This has and will always be true, but there are ways to advertise even the least child-friendly product. Horror movies, for example, can’t run adds before 9pm. There is a need to maintain some of sexual content policies - no one wants to accidentally promote an app filled with child porn- but often they go too far in censoring content that could be beneficial for large facets of the population.
It would also be unfair for me to blame these decision makers. How would they know that a vibrator can be a great tool for sexual health if they don’t have a vagina to use it on? The issue then, like usual, is the lack of diversity among stakeholders.
If we had more women in positions of power, maybe these sexual advertising parameters would be updated. Or, maybe if these companies could get by arbitrary rules if they were more financially influential. For instance, Playboy, as a wealthy and established brand, had no problem getting up and running on the app store.
Today a few coalitions exist to help fund female sex tech organizations. The Case For Her and iFundWomen are both trying to help small companies off the ground. The more women we have in power supporting other women, the more likely we are to live in a world where products and research exists for us to use. The more we see these products, the less taboo it will become to talk about sexual health and female pleasure. The founder of Dame nailed it with this description:
“If [the MTA] continue to value and validate the ability to have sex as [a] health [issue] and important, but treat sexual pleasure as problematic to society, we're encouraging more sex but not encouraging that sex to be good.”
If sex is an inevitability in advertising, we should at least make the messages worth while. I probably won't look like a model if I eat a burger, but maybe I would feel sexy testing out a new toy. Why are we saving the hot content for the least beneficial items?
The next time I spend time reading subway ads covered in boobs, I hope the product is meant to be used on them.
