A study published in The Journal of Sex Research surveyed 11,944 people from Denmark, Sweden, Norway, Finland, France and the United Kingdom: more than half had owned or had a sex toy. An analysis by Grand View Research estimates that the global sex toy market will reach $41.1 billion by 2025 and It is estimated that it will reach 82.8 billion in 2033, half of what we spend globally on pet food. It is a huge market in which technology and design are at its roots. So…
How does a sensation become a variable that an engineer can measure? The question summarizes one of the most particular problems in the development of a sex toy: a machine can generate a certain pressure, vibrate at a specific frequency or modify the speed of a stimulus, but none of those figures alone say how it will feel on a body. “A pressure curve that looks good technically doesn’t necessarily feel good,” explains Tobias Zegenhagen, Product Manager at Womanizer and Lovehoney Group.
In the case of Pleasure Air Technology, the system developed by Womanizer generates alternating changes in pressure around the glans of the clitoris without the need for stimulation through direct contact. Making these changes precise and repeatable requires studying the entire system: how the mechanism generates the pressure, its frequency and its intensity. But also forces us to resolve a question that no equation can answer alone: how people perceive these patterns.
Technology has changed a lot since that first generation. More than a decade ago, users could modify the speed of the pressure changes, while the intensity remained fixed. The subsequent feedback expanded the map: Some people wanted gentler stimulation, others asked for higher intensity, and many wanted quieter devices. A word that was especially difficult to convert into a technical specification also appeared: “natural.”
Today, both the speed and intensity of pressure changes can be controlled, and certain settings slow them down to modify the sensation. The most recent evolution adds another variable. Pleasure Air 3D incorporates a linear drive system instead of the conventional rotary mechanism and allows greater control over stimulation. “3D” does not mean that the device physically moves in three directions. According to Zegenhagen, The third dimension adds more control to the previous technology: in addition to speed and intensity, it allows you to control the depth of the pressure changes. The result is a wider range of patterns that can be shaped in ways that were not possible before.
But arriving at such a technology begins long before a recognizable product exists. The process usually starts from a user need, an observation or a new stimulation principle that the company considers interesting. Ideas can also appear from the data. The first question, however, is always whether it can provide a significant benefit.
Then the prototype cycle begins. The first models of a completely new technology can be quite rudimentary, not seeking to look like a finished product, but rather answering a much more basic question: does the idea work and is the sensation interesting? Small groups of experienced users test these first concepts and their responses determine what is modified in the next version.
As the concept matures, the work multiplies. Designers and engineers work on form, mechanics, electronics and software where necessary, but also on ergonomics, materials, noise, reliability, safety and ease of use. Then come increasingly extensive technical and user tests, until we verify with larger and more representative groups that what works in the laboratory also works in real life. “It is much more iterative: idea, prototype, test, learning, improving and starting again,” explains Zegenhagen. There is, therefore, no fixed number of prototypes: a simple evolution may require a few iterations and a completely new technology many more. In some cases, the process can take several years.
Arcwave Ion illustrates how far that process can go. The challenge was to translate Pleasure Air Technology, originally developed for clitoral stimulation, to the male anatomy, specifically the frenulum. There was no comparable product to serve as a reference. The team tested numerous concepts, forms and ways of applying stimulation. Some ideas seemed technically promising, but did not produce the desired experience when tested by users. The result was a long process of testing and redesigning until we found a combination of stimulation, shape, design, material and interaction that worked.
The difficulty is better understood when another variable is introduced: the body. “We can’t design around a standard body,” Zegenhagen points out. Anatomical differences and individual preferences affect the shape and dimensions, ergonomics, where stimulation is applied, how the device is held and positioned, and the range of stimuli it can deliver. That is why the ability to adjust is important. But anatomical data is not enough either. Lovehoney Group has 17,000 testers around the world within its MasturbaTeam program, with which it checks whether people with different bodies can use the products in a comfortable and intuitive way.
The company also measures numerous physical parameters. Depending on the product, analyzes vibration frequency and intensity, acceleration, pressure output on Pleasure Air devices, noise levels, battery consumption and performance, durability and consistency over life. They are objective and necessary data, but they have a limit: they describe what the machine does, not what the user feels.
This is where perhaps the most interesting problem of the entire process appears. A user may say that something feels “softer,” “stronger,” or “more natural.” Engineering has to transform this language into variables that can be measured and modified: intensity, frequency, pattern, contact surface or speed of pressure changes. Then you have to test the result again to check if the translation has been correct. “Technical data tells us what the product is doing; our users tell us what it really feels like”summarizes Zegenhagen.
The next step points towards even greater customization. It would not simply be a matter of adding more levels, but rather allowing each person to find their own stimulation pattern with greater precision. The challenge will be that this complexity does not end up complicating the experience. “More technology should not mean that the user has to understand more technology – warns Zegenhagen -. Products will become much more adaptive and personalized. Today, users generally choose a setting and then modify it themselves. In the future, products will respond to each individual user and adapt the experience in real time. Sensors and AI will play a role in that. “If a device can understand certain physical responses, it could theoretically adjust stimulation dynamically, rather than relying solely on the user pressing a button.”
Perhaps the true technological leap does not consist, then, in obtaining a device that does more and more things, but rather one capable of better understanding what each body is looking for. Because in the end, the challenge remains the same: turning a subjective experience into something that engineering can measure, modify, and retest.