I won't say anything about the immorality because differentiating between male and female sexual experiences is incredibly bigoted and I don't believe this is what was meant by their message at all.

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.

Like I said, this isn't about intentions. It's entirely possible to unintentionally differentiate between male and female sexual experiences.

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.

Without an example of them showing bias by actually giving an award to a product that is much like theirs that targets men this is sheer conjecture, and presumption of bias. Has the CES ever given an award for an adult product? Perhaps it could be due to the USA having very puritan views on sex still to this day (Violence OK on broadcast TV, but no nudity/sex).

Yes, CES has previously given awards to sex toys - even to sex toys targeted at women.

CES did not say it was immoral, that was deceptive on the part of the author.

Their initial response was to cite the following text:

> 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.

You left off the most obvious and least controversial option, “not keeping with CTA’s image” of course.

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