So simultaneously it is both more for and more against sex. Using sex to sell things is bad but selling things for use during sex is good. If you tried to explain these moral values to visiting aliens their minds would explode.
"body-conforming clothing that <i>hugs genitalia</i> must not be worn."<p>Can anybody explain what they mean in this sentence? Clothing that "hugs genitalia"? Is it to ban the tight trousers for men or tight trousers in general or what?
Brings up an interesting quandary about personal choice. Where there is seen no moral issue in personal choice about what tech to use sexually, there is seen morality in the personal choice to accept a (presumably) high paying job that is more than legal in other contexts (eg strip clubs) but also involves sexuality.<p>I'm not taking a position for or against, simple observing the seeming contradiction...
"Banning booth babes" is 100% inaccurate -- they banned body-hugging or suggestive clothing.<p>Besides, it's not possible to ban "booth babes" -- how can you tell if it's a paid model or just an attractive company employee? And if they banned paid models the companies would just hire them.<p>Banning suggestive clothing? I mean, OK, congrats, I guess. Not sure how much of a difference that will make. A model is still a model, even in a pantsuit.
"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."<p>Ummm, where is the proof that any of these sex techs are good for human health?
It's absolutely disgusting that CES is going to allow such perverted products into their event. Does CES have no morals? I do think it is a good thing that they have banned booth babes as it promoted sexual immorality. As a reminder, sexual immorality is a sin and should be avoided.