{{Title link: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/jan/09/vibrator-design-tech-product-orgasm }}
This was a fun one! The concise history of vibrators; how they started as scary medical devices and shameful secrets, became a feminist statement, and are now a massively profitable industry that employs the same guys who used to design iPhones.
I, for one, welcome our new tech overlords. Thank you, tech overlords, for helping me maintain my long distance relationship!
From a 1908 vibrator ad: “Bebout is ‘gentle, soothing, invigorating and refreshing. Invented by a woman who knows a woman’s needs. All nature pulsates and vibrates with life.’” It does indeed.
My reactions are torn between “ooh, knowledge! neat!” and “*fumes at normativity*”.
So, followers, here is some neat knowledge. Try to look past the bits like “women who used vibrators were actually more likely to take care of their sexual health by going to the gynecologist for regular exams”, as if there were no reasons other than “failure to take care of one’s sexual health” why one might avoid both vibrators and gynecologists.
(Hint: my GP told me that, as someone too young for disorders of age and too virginal for disorders of the sexually active (emphasis added), I should not have gynecological checkups because I wouldn’t get anything out of them.)
(Hint 2: some people just aren’t into genitals, sometimes including their own.)
You know, that part flew right by me without my even thinking twice about it. This is why privilege checks are important- when you are normative it’s hard to notice when you are being exclusionary or offensive, Thanks @brin-bellway!
You’re welcome!
Like I said in the tags, though, it’s impossible not to be exclusionary when talking about sexuality: people are just too diverse to be able to account for everyone. While I would definitely like people writing for small audiences that they know I’m in to be inclusive of me, I don’t seriously expect inclusivity of general-audience material (even if part of me is always disappointed when they fail to measure up). I do respect people who have considered these things, thrown up their hands at the impossibility of going much beyond the top few most common options, and knowingly sacrifice the visibility of people with very unusual sexualities to the altar of the greatest good for the greatest number: it’s not like I can come up with a better plan.
(Stuff that’s specifically about sex ed does need to be careful to acknowledge when it’s throwing up its hands, though. Some of the ““inclusive”” sex ed I got was worse-than-useless misinformation when applied to myself, and maybe if it had stated up front that it couldn’t cover everyone and “none of the above” was an option, I wouldn’t have had to learn that the hard way.)
(Whether “women* who are ineligible for gynecological checkups” is a common enough group to be worth accounting for is another matter. I reacted to this particular issue as an instance of the general case.)
*I’m not even getting into gender issues here, as I’m focusing on my own personal area of relevance.
Tags:
#reply via reblog #sexuality and lack thereof #nsfw?
Brinens and Things 
One thought on “Orgasmic design: how vibrators have become ambitious tech products”