I also included some feedback I recieved on the prototype such as, “Show Me Another” so people can see a different recommendation, as well as user comments on how they prefer to use the product.

I created the jpgs using Omnigraffle, and then the images were mapped together using the  Dreamweaver image map functions. Upon reflecting on the prototype, an application requiring user input is not best prototyped in this way. In order to allow users to select multiple options, the the amount of images that would need to be incorporated per option. But for the purposes of illustrating the concept, I think it is successful. Any and all feedback is greatly appreciated.

The abstract shape of the Form 3 allows users to create their own meaning and use. It does not explicitly tell users how they are to use the product, but it does offer suggestions. This is opposed to other toys that imitate human genitalia: the producing is explicitly telling the consumer This is what this is, and here’s how you should be using it. Allowing consumers to meaning-make is extremely important, especially in regards to intimate artifacts.

One big issue I’ve been facing is one of ergonomics. Everyone’s body is very different, and even deep then that, the same body can be different depending on situation or arousal levels. An abstract shape addresses this issue by allowing the consumer to place it on their body in a multitude of ways. The big questions is, how far can something be abstracted until it’s not useful anymore?

For my design, I want to target people who are on the fence about buying or using intimate artifacts. According to my survey results, many people who have never used one are interested, but they are embarrassed. So, instead of just changing the buying ecology, could the formal elements of the artifact itself say something other than sex? Maybe wellness?

There are many positive health behaviors associated with vibrator use. Women who use them are less likely to experience pain during sex and have higher overall sexual satisfaction. They are also more likely to have had a gynecological exam in the past month. Now this is not directly caused by vibrator use, but an argument can be made that when a person is more in-tune and comfortable with their sexual self, they are more likely to take care of themselves.

So what if the artifact itself said to the consumer that it is something you use to maintain your overall wellness, like getting a massage (I’ve decided to use the word ‘wellness’ instead of ‘health’ to avoid any medical issues. I’m totally not a doctor.) It is something you do that feels good, even indulgent, but it also lends itself to your overall wellness. Could a vibrator be thought of like that? Could I buy one at CVS when I pick up my new stress-relief body lotion?

The difficult part about his is to now figure out what formal elements say ‘wellness’, but leave the form abstract enough. But not too abstract to intimidate new users.

I think this is incredibly interesting. Why would someone want to use an electric toothbrush as a vibrator? Do they own a vibrator? Are they afraid to buy one? Are they on vacation and left it at home? An electric toothbrush probably costs more then a cheap vibrator.

“Objects not manufactured as sex toys that are used as sex toys” is a great research question.

• Materials – There still isn’t a lot of research regarding germs and sex toys, or the best ways to clean them. Cheaper materials such as jelly are very porous and difficult to clean, but a higher quality silicone toy is going to cost more.
• Price – The price of a toy is very much related to its materials. A higher quality toy will last longer and be made of a better material, but a person new to sex toys wouldn’t be willing to spend the money on something they may not like. A silver bullet is a good entry toy because of it’s low price and multiple speed settings.
• Stimulation – There hasn’t been any research on whether utilizing a vibrator actually desensitizes. Dr. Herbenick said that it is a possibility, but desensitization doesn’t necessarily lead to lower sexual satisfaction.
• Sex vs. Masturbation – This was a big surprise to me. One big problem with insertable sex toys is they are not tapered at the end and are possibly too big. This is because (possibly) people do not begin masturbation aroused like they do when they are having sex.
• How are people using sex toys? - Honestly, researchers just don’t know. Dr Herbenick mentioned they interviewed some ergonomic professionals about finger and hand position, but they realized that masturbation is a “different beast”. The way a person’s body is moving and position during masturbation is going to be different then while having sex.
• Producers of Toys – Like many products, sex toys are massed produced, mostly in China. Companies tend to follow trends to see what is selling and what isn’t. This isn’t too much of a surprise, but definitely something worth noting. And often, sex toy companies will hire very talented people who are very good as making products, but who can’t make sex toys.
• Instructions – As with buying any new object, people are always wanted to learn just how to use it. Sex toys often don’t come with instructions because they are a novelty and  manufacturers are afraid of the FDA.

Some of my insights from this interview are the following:

• It is not only that different people like and want different things based on their wants, fears, experiences, and insecurities, but they want different things in different contexts. Basically, we could all own the same sex toy and use it very differently.
• Flaws are easily identifiable, but there is no one good solution.

My next steps are to look at exemplars of personal products. How are other objects that people use in highly specific ways mass produced? How do you balance usefulness with personalization? I also want to look into education myself more about ergonomics, and look at more sex toy exemplars while keeping these ideas in mind.

More than half of the women (52.5 percent) had used a vibrator with nearly one in four having done so in the past month.

Vibrator users were significantly more likely to have had a gynecological exam during the past year and to have performed genital self-examination during the previous month.

Vibrator use was positively related to several aspects of sexual function (desire, arousal, lubrication, orgasm, pain and overall function) with recent vibrator users scoring themselves higher on most sexual function domains, suggesting more positive sexual function.

Most women (71.5 percent) reported having never experienced any side effects associated with vibrator use. Those side effects that were reported were typically rare and of a short duration.

In the Journal of Sexual Medicine article the article is written about, the authors say, “…it may be that women who are more comfortable with their sexuality, or have more positive sexual function, are women who are also more comfortable with the use of vibrators” (Herbenick 1863).

This article is important not only for identifying the amount of women who have used a vibrator (52%!), but it’s acknowledgment there may be a third variable that is contributing to the positive associate of vibrators and gynecological visits. The authors say,

Although the relationships between vibrator use and having had a gynecologic exam in the previous year or performed a genital self-examination in the previous month are significant, the direction of these relationships is not known and it is possible that, rather than being causal, a third variable not measured in this study (such as erotophilia) influences both.

I think this could be an interesting focus for my design. Is it possible to encourage women to utilize vibrators in order to increase their sexual function? Or rather, what is it about the women who utilize vibrators that they are more prone to positive sexual health and satisfaction?

Citation: Herbenick, D., Reece, M., Sanders, S.A., Dodge, B., Ghassemi, A., & Fortenberry, J.D. (2009). Prevalence and characteristics of vibrator use by women in the United States: Results from a nationally representative study. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 6, 1857-1866.

I’ve decided to focus my research on the intersection of sexuality and HCI. Right now I’m particularly focusing on intimate artifacts (aka sex toys), but I’m open as to where my research is going to lead me in this field. The main reason I chose this topic is because it’s an area of study I find really interesting. I also like it because it has been barely researched in HCI, and I see it has a place where user-focused design could do so much good. Sex and technology have always been linked.

I recently read a post by Steve Portigal on Core77l discussing Jimmyjane, a high-end purveyor of sex toys. While talking about the packaging issues Jimmyjane was having with their products he says,

“…it suggests a potential mismatches between how Jimmyjane conceives of and produces products and how customers are buying and using products (and that’s just the ones who are buying).” (http://www.core77.com/blog/object_culture/jimmyjanes_sex_change_operation_12859.asp)

This seems like a huge opportunity for me and an interesting place to take my research. Although I’m not specifically interested in target users who are not currently utilizing intimate artifacts, I think there’s so much design potential in understanding how people think about their sexuality.

My big hestitations with this topic are as follows:

• Sex is a very difficult topic for some people to talk about. It’s hard enough to get participants to be open and honest with their feelings when the subject matter is not even quite as taboo.
• Everyone gets it on differently. What works for some won’t work for others. Although I find this to be a larger issue in design research as a whole.
• Can I do a good job on this topic?

I suppose the last one is an insecurity every designer feels when faced with a difficult problem. A very wicked problem.