IDG seminar
Aug. 18th, 2009 08:18 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
squirmeliaThe Interaction Design Group Seminar at the University of Melbourne this Friday, by Judith Glover, sounds interesting. Shame I'm not still in Melbourne, so can't go to it. Here's the abstract:
'Sex Toys – Design, Technology and the Future for Human/Machine Sexual Interaction
Sex toys and their precursors are not a product genre you will find mentioned in the canons of design history and theory. In fact, as a field of research, they appear infrequently in any field of study. Yet they are manufactured and consumed in their millions year after year and have done so for decades in their modern form. There is evidence they have been manufactured for thousands of years and Victorian England and America supported a thriving vibrator industry treating middle class women for hysteria. As mass produced objects they are embedded with the socio-cultural meanings of constructed gender ideology and sexual control. As technological objects they are as complicated and harmless as an electric toothbrush. So, 30 years after the sexual revolution, why are they still socially taboo? What if they weren’t and what if they were designed using the innovation methods and strategies of industrial, product, multimedia, interface and HCI designers?'
'Sex Toys – Design, Technology and the Future for Human/Machine Sexual Interaction
Sex toys and their precursors are not a product genre you will find mentioned in the canons of design history and theory. In fact, as a field of research, they appear infrequently in any field of study. Yet they are manufactured and consumed in their millions year after year and have done so for decades in their modern form. There is evidence they have been manufactured for thousands of years and Victorian England and America supported a thriving vibrator industry treating middle class women for hysteria. As mass produced objects they are embedded with the socio-cultural meanings of constructed gender ideology and sexual control. As technological objects they are as complicated and harmless as an electric toothbrush. So, 30 years after the sexual revolution, why are they still socially taboo? What if they weren’t and what if they were designed using the innovation methods and strategies of industrial, product, multimedia, interface and HCI designers?'
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-08-18 11:35 pm (UTC)And I kind of can see why there's a bit of a taboo about those things. Particularly when people start naming them and treating them like members of the family and stuff.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-19 06:12 am (UTC)I don't know about this sexual revolution, I still get weird looks from people when I start discussing the careers of porn stars in polite company.
I think we'll have to wait for the 'baby boomers' to died before that changes.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-19 08:53 am (UTC)It's amusing how many people recognise her and enthuse about her work.
no subject
Date: 2009-08-19 06:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-08-19 06:50 pm (UTC)Perhaps those dildos you can text to make them vibrate and things like that? http://www.thetoy.co.uk/