Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Hacking my Vagina

scanlime.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 273 posts

Re: Hacking my Vagina

#241

Post by namdnay »

rmc wrote: post #175
georgeorwell wrote: post #103

Warning: this is not a politically correct viewpoint, but nevertheless it's my perspective. The actual best thing about this post being in first place on Hacker News is not that it's a woman posting but that she has a Y chromosome and most people don't realize it. It's like her recently-acquired vagina is a new laptop to be hacked. It's still objectification of women if you try to turn into one and then objectify you…

By putting quotation marks around her & she, you're implying she is not female. Don't do that.

I find the quotation marks rather snarky, but your rebuke is incorrect too. Female is defined as:

"[the] sex which produces eggs and which has XX chromosomes"

She doesn't produce eggs and she doesn't have XX chromosomes, so if you follow the strict definition she isn't female either.

Re: Hacking my Vagina

#242

Post by finnw »

cindygallop wrote: post #222

cough Have already urged @scanlime to do this, but anyone else, as and when you hack your vagina - or penis, we're totally equal-opportunity :) - please do submit your (or your friends') #realworldsex video demo to https://makelovenotporn.tv/ (with our revenue-sharing business model, you could make a nice chunk of change :))

...but only you live in the USA

Re: Hacking my Vagina

#243

Post by cindygallop »

jQueryIsAwesome wrote: post #240
ruby_on_rails wrote: post #235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not everyone fits into neat little boxes. I read the article imagining using this device myself (and I'm a man!), or using it with a partner (man or woman).

Yeah, that is why I said "average". The average reader here is a white straight male engineer who is not interested in putting things on his rectum.

Ahem. You'd be surprised how many white straight males are indeed interested in that. We've been pleasantly surprised by the popularity of Violet & Rye's straight-couple pegging #realworldsex video on https://makelovenotporn.tv/....:)

Re: Hacking my Vagina

#244

Post by cindygallop »

duaneb wrote: post #166
vacri wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does any article focusing on women's experience have to have someone come along and say 'it's hard for us men'?

I have no problem with articles on sex appearing on HN-I assume most of us are adults-but it's disappointing that there aren't similar topics for men. I'm not sure whether it's because male sexuality is narrower (yet, strangely, far more accepted if it's accepted at all) or because an article on female sexuality is more popular among the (presumably) male-dominated site. Anyway, this is the first article of it's kind…

Absolutely. You might find this piece from HuffPoUK on gender differences in marketing sex toys which I was interviewed for, interesting: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012/11/20/sex-toys-sexist-r...

Re: Hacking my Vagina

#245

Post by cindygallop »

lifeisstillgood wrote: post #12

She is inventing an industry for something every human on the planet does pretty much every day. Big market, disruptive technology. Yet somehow I don't see it on techcrunch. I am reminded of pg's discussion on finding the taboo's in society. We still have plenty.

It is on Techcrunch, actually: http://techcrunch.com/2012/11/25/body-hacks-building-abody-h...

But you're absolutely right about the taboos in society. If you're interested, this is an interview with me on Inc about my and my team's battle to make https://www.makelovenotporn.tv/ happen. Every obstacle an entrepreneur with a tech startup encounters - have a tech startup dealing with sex, triple them. http://www.inc.com/chris-beier-and-daniel-wolfman/venture-ca...

Re: Hacking my Vagina

#246

Post by jQueryIsAwesome »

cindygallop wrote: post #243
jQueryIsAwesome wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, that is why I said "average". The average reader here is a white straight male engineer who is not interested in putting things on his rectum.

Ahem. You'd be surprised how many white straight males are indeed interested in that. We've been pleasantly surprised by the popularity of Violet & Rye's straight-couple pegging #realworldsex video on https://makelovenotporn.tv/....: )

Not the majority; wish is usually what is implied with the word "average."

Re: Hacking my Vagina

#247

Post by duzins »

jQueryIsAwesome wrote: post #210
ErrantX wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I don't like my tech articles biased by hormones"; is the most sexist thing I've read in this thread.

We have completly different definitions for that word then. For example If a boss needs to hire a good secretary for one of his employees; and assign him the task of finding one and then tells him "Don't let your hormones decide for you" is pretty clear what he means; that sexual attraction and gender should be irrelevant in the selection proccess and he should focus in practical skills a secretary should have. And t…

Do men still have to be told not to let their hormones affect their choice of hires? I didn't realize that was still a thing.

Also, why does it have to be a secretary? Are they 100% female now? If he was looking for an engineer, would he need to be told not to let his hormones decide?

Re: Hacking my Vagina

#248

Post by smagch »

The product seems really innovative sex toy for female. I've seen a interview of tenga's founder before. He thought there were much room for innovation of sex toy industry. I was quite impressed that he spent a year to build his first product. I've been impressed again.

http://www.tenga-global.com/

Re: Hacking my Vagina

#249

Post by rmc »

namdnay wrote: post #241
rmc wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By putting quotation marks around her & she, you're implying she is not female. Don't do that.

I find the quotation marks rather snarky, but your rebuke is incorrect too. Female is defined as: "[the] sex which produces eggs and which has XX chromosomes" She doesn't produce eggs and she doesn't have XX chromosomes, so if you follow the strict definition she isn't female either.

Who's definition is that?

That's not the definition of female either I (and others) use, and it's also not the definition of female used by modern society.

Hardly anyone knows what their chromosomes actually are, since people rarely get them tested (do you know yours? did you get them tested?), there are numerous biological conditions where people-commonly-treated-by-society-as-female do not have XX chromosomes, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Complete_androgen_insensitivity... and all the other "intersex" conditions. Likewise some people-commonly-treated-by-society-as-male do not have XY chromosomes. Phenotypically female does not always imply genetically XX. Many people only discover their genetic gender if they go to a fertility treatment (since many of these conditions affect fertility), sometimes the genetic gender is not their gender.

There are also lots of people-commonly-treated-by-society-as-female who do not (or cannot) produce eggs. Pre-pubescent girls, post-menopausal women, women after a hysterectomy, women on the contraceptive pill, etc. Likewise there are many people-commonly-treated-by-society-as-male who cannot produce sperm, sterile men, men after testicular cancer etc.

Regardless, some regions (e.g. UK), have law that allows a person to change their gender (they are treated as that gender "for all purposes"), and get a new birth cert in that gender, and makes revealing the previous gender a criminal offence. ( http://www.yourrights.org.uk/yourrights/right-to-receive-equ... ). That's another definition of gender right there.

Sorry, but the world/people/biology are complex and does not fit your simple definitions.

Re: Hacking my Vagina

#250

Post by flyinRyan »

jQueryIsAwesome wrote: post #144
Karunamon wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I just don't think that's necessarily the primary reason it has been upvoted. So do you always assume bad faith on the part of others or..?

Being biologically biased is not "bad faith", is just a well known human trait.

This seems to imply it can't be fixed (if it can, why do you assume the worst now?). If it is something that can't be fixed, what's the point of your bringing it up?
Post reply on HN