I think at first someone at the top (or middle management) just said "that's not relevant, someone get that project out of here", which got passed down the chain of the company to some intern writing a standard email with a useless explanation. Then, when that blew up, an actual response was formed by the PR department, then by the top of the company, complicated further by the authors of this piece contacting people unrelated to either statement and getting another explanation from them. Just a corporate communications cluster fuck.

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity" and all that.

And I should point out that I very often dismiss such articles as crying wolf, especially where there is something to be gained by doing so (in this case, lots of publicity).

But actually, the issue deserves some publicity. Even if it was just an intern jumping to a somewhat sexist conclusion (though it sounds slightly absurd that they would send an intern to rescind a winning entry, but then I have absolutely no understanding of the inner workings of CES)

So yeah - an intentional choice has clearly been made to view this through a lens; that lens happens to be a little sensationalist. But still, it's far from a baseless accusation.

(also prejudice does not necessitate malice. In my view, in the majority of cases, prejudice IS stupidity. But you can hurt a lot of people with stupidity)

I'd expect a similarly advanced fleshlight to be refused on the same grounds as this toy, despite being built for men. I don't think it's fair that this product, advanced as though it might be, is put in the same category as fully articulated sex robots.

I don't understand why you think it shouldn't be in the same category as a sex robot. A robot doesn't have to be some kind of fake human to be a robot.

> Entries deemed by CTA in their sole discretion to be immoral, obscene, indecent, profane or not in keeping with CTA’s image will be disqualified. CTA reserves the right in its sole discretion to disqualify any entry at any time which, in CTA’s opinion, endangers the safety or well being of any person, or fails to comply with these Official Rules.

So, if they didn't call it immoral, they called it obscene, indecent or profane.

But it makes for a better outrage narrative if we cherry pick the most offensive interpretation possible.