Pro-sex. Pro-porn. Pro-knowing the difference.

Cindy Gallop: Investors Must Forget Fears of Booming Sex Tech Industry / Future of Sex

Written by Joseph Viney for Future of Sex. Originally published on February 17th, 2016.

Screen Shot 2016-02-03 at 2.31.28 PM


“In part one of our interview with MakeLoveNotPorn founder Cindy Gallop, we discussed how the future and proliferation of sex tech lies in destroying the boundaries and taboos hindering its progress.

Seeking and securing investment may be the biggest obstacle faced by sex tech. It isn’t just venture capitalists (VCs) who keep adult services at arm’s length. Banks refuse to open business accounts, credit card companies won’t process payments through fear of chargebacks, and a great deal of web hosts still refuse to host “adult”content.

When it comes to companies like PayPal leaving you out in the cold for operating a legal, ethical, and honest business, you’d forgive those on the receiving end of such hostility to wonder if the game is rigged. There’s a common link for this financial shutdown: the collusion against adult services.

What is it that causes investment to be such a thorn in the side of sex tech? Furthermore, who are the people who are responsible for making such decisions?

Who’s who and why not?

VCs have the interests of any number of stakeholders to consider at once, and decisions will be made for the benefit of ”the greater good.” They’re managing too much of too many people’s money to be making such divisive decisions, and so they go for the safer, more traditional options.

According to Gallop, VCs have told her and other sex tech entrepreneurs that they themselves love their ideas, but it’s the people whose money they’re managing who want distance. So VCs are out, unless any have the vision and courage enter into this niche.

“I’ve spoken to other VCs who’ve said ‘I think you’ve really got something here, I totally see the potential but if I took it to my partners they would say, ‘What are you on?’’” says Gallop.

The wisdom of crowds

The stance of “thou shalt not be discussed” posed by a large number of potential investors affects sex tech’s chances of securing investment through another popular method: crowdfunding.

The sense of exclusion is systemic. Kickstarter does not allow any “pornographic material” and even removed the Vibease campaign from its website. Although Indiegogo does allow sex toys, it doesn’t help those offering sex as content or visuals. Tony Been, a company representative, said in February 2014 that “we have some restrictions—we don’t allow fundraising for pornography or violence”.

Successful crowdfunding also requires a large number of people willing to publicly rally around something and attract more people to do the same. Gallop posits that people will very willingly rally around a piece of hardware or video game, but they will not around anything to do with sex.

While it may be true, sex tech hardware has still managed to thrive on crowdfunding platforms. These major successes shouldn’t be overlooked. Dame Products’s hands-free vibrator, Eva, smashed its initial goal by receiving $525,000; ten times more than its target. .

MysteryVibe—whose Chief Technology Officer we spoke to about the plusses and pitfalls of seeking investment—also achieved its crowdfunding aims and gained the momentum setting the company up for a positive year.

There are enough success stories for crowdfunded sex tech hardware for good vibes to weave through the industry, but, for endeavours like MakeLoveNotPorn and their ilk, the problem is less quantifiable and more ingrained in people. Perhaps divine inspiration is needed.


Head over to FutureofSex to read the rest of this fascinating piece! You can read Part One here!


2 Responses to “Cindy Gallop: Investors Must Forget Fears of Booming Sex Tech Industry / Future of Sex”

  1. makelovenotpornblog

    Cindy, Your subscribers are your best supporters. They are the ones that believe in your mission. I would propose a life time investor/member status. For a one time fee of $1,500 a member would be entitled to one rental every three weeks for life. Why $1,500? At 3 weeks per rental that is 17 rentals per year or $85. At 6% APR that is $90 per year as a return on investment.

    I have no idea what kind of documentation is required. This is something that a public announcement with a TED talk or a YouTube video would make the offer more credible.

    This may be an idea that you have already discarded. But it may be one worth revisiting.

    Ed Warren

    Sent from my iPad


    • madamcurator

      Thanks for your suggestion, Ed – we so appreciate all of your incredible support! We do plan to implement a subscription model in due course and will certainly take your suggestion on board 🙂


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Basic HTML is allowed. Your email address will not be published.

Subscribe to this comment feed via RSS