Talk:Sex toy

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 April 2019 and 5 June 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): CatCas96.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 29 November 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jweaver8. Peer reviewers: SrushtiPai, Ryanccraw.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of toys[edit]

I did some reorganizing. Still need to fit clitoral pump in there somewhere. It seemed silly to separate them all out by which organ they're meant to touch when so many toys have multiple uses anyway, so I grouped vibes together. --Hurtstotouchfire 05:16, 10 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nipple Toys[edit]

There's no mention of nipple toys at all. Strange. I'll poke through the history and see if there ever was one. --Hurtstotouchfire 22:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nippel toys Bikashroy1290 (talk) 17:45, 24 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

history[edit]

needs a history section, if anyone knows about its history, would be nice... There is some stuff here Towsonu2003 01:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think some history on this would be very interesting. Unfortunately I'm not knowledgeable enough about the subject to contribute, but if you are: be bold! 85.166.233.69
Agreed. I know Good Vibrations has a vibrator museum, and they reference a few books there. --Hurtstotouchfire 22:38, 7 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps there could be a statistics section covered under History as well? PleasureDen Australia have recently conducted a sex toy survey among Australian adults with some interesting results. Ausbeau (talk) 23:20, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, I attempted to add a history section (if yall could check it out in the page history). I know it could use a little beefing up and some better sourcing, if anyone has any links they could drop to help me that would be great. I'd really like this section to stick. jweaver8

Agreed, history desperately needed. Some refs that should meet wiki standards...

Commercial/advertising links[edit]

I'm not going to plunge into editing a contentious page like this one, but all those "sex toy supplier" links at the bottom of the page are against wikipedia policy: we're not a link farm used to boost Google rankings. I spend large amounts of time killing off links to used-book sellers in various literary articles - these should be killed off, too. - DavidWBrooks 21:29, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removed all but one (after checking - what wouldn't I do for Wikipedia). Here are the removed links (if any of them seems to be useful, please leave your comments about this fact on this Talk page). Paranoid 23:17, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 
It's hypocritical to eliminate other links while claiming that yours is the only useful one. Find the good grace to stop this "editing war" at least until someone can show that Wikipedia policy allows these commercial links. --Sladey 15:53, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Removed by Sladey:

It is not hypocritical - I am not selling sex toys, I am not promoting them, I have no affiliation with any of the sex toy sites and, as a matter of fact, I have never used a sex toy in my life (hope that doesn't immediately disqualify me from contributing to this article). However, I see your point that the decision to place a commercial link in this article should probably not be arbitrary. Paranoid 18:33, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I do feel that more than one site could be useful here, and the heading for that area is External Links (plural).

I also understand that being adult in nature, there is a an amount of spamming that will occur in this area.

Seeing as my site that was removed (Added by Paranoid: breakthrough-boutique.com) is good enough for various quality human edited directories, I thought it would be an useful resource here.

There's a lot that isn't covered on the Wiki page, or the 'last site standing' that people might want to learn more about.

(the above comment is by User:24.146.22.192. You can sign your comments with your IP by writing ~~~~)

In my opinion in such "commercially attractive" articles (another example: Sildenafil) the preference should be given to purely informative external links, including academic resources, news, articles, etc. Links to purely commercial sites should not be permitted. However, when (as is the case with this article) some commercial sites also have useful informative content (in this case bbssm.com and breakthrough-boutique particularly have sufficiently well-written and broad texts that would compliment this article rather nicely), they can be included, if there is no non-commercial replacement.
I am not sure whether a formal mechanism is needed to avoid extensive lists of only marginally useful links. If it is needed, I suggest that the links be added to the talk page first where they would remain until they get 2-3 "votes" in support (preferably from wikipedians with some history of contribution). Commercial links added to the article itself should be deleted and moved to the Talk page for review. Paranoid 18:33, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
Links here give an advantage in search engines, so I think you will find people will be constantly trying to use the article as a self

Both of the blog links are thinly veiled advertising copy. Industrious, and well written for most ad copy, but still obviously ad copy. Sethwoodworth 10:13, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Google no longer looks at wikipedia links bc wikipedia changed the follow-links policy Towsonu2003 01:09, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Navigation template?[edit]

It seems to me that a sex toys navigation template would be a good idea. Unfortunately, my coding is not yet up to the task. ^_^; DocWatson42 (talk) 12:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Canine sex toy?[edit]

[1] This link points to a Baltimore Sun blog about a new sex toy for dogs being manufactured in Brazil. I don't edit this article, but perhaps this should be included, which would also entail changing the definition. Bob98133 (talk) 19:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

0.o Zazaban (talk) 21:24, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


I was lucky enough to discover the most incredible sextoy ever. It is called a fantasy reign (for men and women) and the straps create indescibably delicious and exquisite mindboggling sensations. I am serious when I say this thing delivers pleasure beyond your wildest imagination. There is nothing that compares to this anywhere else on earth and will for ever change the way the human race views pleasure! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.151.17 (talk) 09:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment is definitely spam, and is even autosigned by a 'SineBot'... so I'm going to go ahead and delete the link, while leaving the comment for others to know what i'm talking about. 142.68.85.192 (talk) 07:00, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wierd...[edit]

this is so strange that this shoudl be here. not appropiatrate for kids--Arice911 (talk) 23:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not censored, if something is notable, as this is, the article should exist. ~~ GB fan ~~ talk 01:04, 6 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PUHLEEESE! Wikipedia aint only for kids you smartypants. By dudey —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.77.138.62 (talk) 23:09, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Jigsaw Squirting Dildo-0.jpg[edit]

Somebody keeps adding this stupid image to the article and to dildo articles on other language Wikipedias. It's not a sex toy but some sort of joke. A vibrator is a very low powered device running on a couple of batteries and producing nothing more than a buzz. The jigsaw shown is several hundred watts of health and safety risk (even in normal use), capable of slicing through some pretty tough materials. Don't say "Nobody would be that stupid", Wikipedia articles are specifically for people who do not know about the subject matter!!!!! --Simon Speed (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The image is question is a fucksaw. I have added it to Sex-machine. Jokestress (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected, it's a real device not a joke. I'm still left worried about how an encyclopedia handles the reporting of dangerous activities - the sex-machine article now has a brief description and this picture which could serve as a blueprint for a dangerous homebuild. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
There were some reliable sources discussing fucksaws following a recent fucksaw demonstration at Northwestern University. Most journalists focused on the ethics and the ensuing investigation, but some may have discussed the physical dangers (rectovaginal fistulae, etc.). You are welcome to add any reliably-sourced statements about the dangers of fucksaws and similar devices. Jokestress (talk) 22:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reliable sources are notoriously hard to come by in the area of sexuality: the mainstream press concentrates on the lurid, wrapped up in gleeful outrage. What really worries me about this image is that it shows a homebuilt device based on a power tool. With a dildo and a jigsaw an amateur could cobble this together in seconds by jamming the dildo on the blade and as soon as the blade breaks (they do!!) you've got a 600W reciprocating dagger inside a human body. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, these are almost always modified prosumer-level power tools, but despite the risks, Wikipedia is not an advice column or manual. This stuff is so out there it's really not even discussed in sex manuals. This article says they look "highly dangerous." Maybe add that. Jokestress (talk) 23:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The principle of "no advice" needs to be applied intelligently. It comes from the fact that this is an encyclopedia and as such informs and does not advise. The principle stops us from straying into campaigning and advocacy, it doesn't justify producing content without regard for the consequences. An encyclopedia also aims to be responsible. Suppose you told someone about some food and failed to mention that it was laced with rat poison, would you simply be informing them and avoiding giving advice? How about explaining that to a jury? --Simon Speed (talk) 23:51, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like to discuss Wikipedia policy, please go to the appropriate policy page. I found and added a reliable news report of a 2009 injury. You are welcome to find and add more. Jokestress (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very very much for finding and including that piece of information. I feel much happier about the article with it there. I don't think it's enough, this is about an extreme activity (like cliff diving) and needs more negativity to be balanced, but the move from nothing to something is very important. --Simon Speed (talk) 09:28, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Merge Butterfly vibrator into this article[edit]

I was directed to Butterfly vibrator by an AfC contributor who was complaining about other articles which also were unsourced, this was one example. It's pretty close to spamvertising, in my view; however, I suggest that there is not enough there to justify an independent article, and have proposed a merge here as this is probably where it does belong. Comments please? David_FLXD (Talk) 20:41, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Before merging that to here, it should first be merged to the more specific article Vibrator (sex toy). Then, if you wanted to merge Vibrator (sex toy) → Sex toy, that would be another proposal. I'm changing the tag to the more wp:SPECIFICLINK. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:40, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my, there's yet another more specific article. Merge sequence should be started at the most specific level, then work up to the more general topics:
-- Wbm1058 (talk) 16:58, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

2 suggestions...[edit]

First, we need a history section otherwise this article comes off (almost) as one big promotional essay.

Second, the Industry section needs some serious expansion. There are trades shows dedicated to the products and AVN used to have a publication that featured it. Plus, since Trojan and Adam & Eve started running tv ads, there is a "mainstreaming" aspect to consider.

Comments, suggestions, opposition? --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed history section and trade/industry expansion. Dakinijones (talk) 05:21, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Materials[edit]

Please revert the materials section to my latest revision:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sex_toy&oldid=625271555&diff=prev#Materials_used_in_sex_toys

I edited this section while researching the connection between STD's and materials used in sex toys, condoms, ...

Please revert, I think it would help a bit with the fight against STD's

KVDP (talk) 08:09, 15 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Besides reverting the materials listed there, also mention nylon and polyester. Polyester appears to be less porous than polyester, but I assume even polyester is somewhat porous. See

KVDP, those are poor sources. Reddit, for example, does not count as a WP:Reliable source. And for medical information, you should use high-quality sources, per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS). That's why I reverted you here and here. The Health and safety concerns section needs more cleanup because of the WP:MEDRS guideline. Flyer22 (talk) 08:10, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Flyer22, agreed, they're not the best sources I used. Still, all sources say the same, and since they're independant, I'm pretty sure what I've written is completely accurate. The article text states that Holistic Wisdom / Lisa Lawless is a reliable source, so why don't we just add <ref>[http://www.holisticwisdom.com/sex-toy-materials-glossary.htm Description of sex toy materials]</ref> Perhaps that adding additional "poor" sources increase the reliability as noted above ? Here are some additional links to add as references:

<ref>[http://www.bigteazetoys.com/materials Materials description by bigteazetoys]</ref><ref>[http://dangerouslilly.com/sex-toy-reviews/sex-toy-care-and-maintenance/ Materials description by dangerouslilly]</ref><ref>[http://discreetsensuality.com/guide-to-sex-toy-materials/ Materials description by discreetsensuality]</ref>[http://queerkink.tumblr.com/post/1251400792/the-qk-guide-to-sex-toy-materials Materials description by queerkink]</ref><ref>[http://www.tinynibbles.com/unsafe Materials description by tunynibbles]</ref>[http://www.pleasurepiratess.com/p/sex-toy-material-and-safety.html Materials description by pleasurepirates]</ref> KVDP (talk) 17:39, 24 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Italy, the last year, we have get a christmass three decorated with sex toys. I write a reference, but trere are many more online in english and many others languages. --Damiano Crognali 15:27, 15 October 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ilbellodelweb999 (talk • contribs)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Sex toy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:18, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Scaremongering terminology[edit]

As I seem to have garnered my own little stalker, here's the talk page discussion as they requested:

Toxicity claims removed from the article as the terminology used states that all toys containing PVC are unsafe for use. This is not the case, nor does the source even claim this. The rest is just copy-editing, but for similar reasons. Curved Space (talk) 06:31, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the user requesting talk page input has now been blocked for disruption, it's unlikely they'll reply. Reverting to updated version. Curved Space (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 18 June 2018[edit]

007faysal (talk) 14:46, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Please specify what needs altering IdreamofJeanie (talk) 14:50, 18 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Health, safety, and privacy concerns tone[edit]

The tone of this section, particularly the second half, reads as a how-to guide for cleaning your sex toys. Although the concern for people's wellbeing is commendable Wikipedia is not an instruction manual or how-to guide https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_manual,_guidebook,_textbook,_or_scientific_journal I think this section should be reviewed for proper tone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:801:C100:2920:7823:B9BE:E307:13F3 (talk) 02:40, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Separate List of sex toys page?[edit]

I’d like to see much of the individual sex toys material moved to a separate List of sex toys page similar to the current List of BDSM equipment. Reserve this page for an overview of the different kinds and link to the list for further details and individual articles reachable from the list. Any thoughts and comments are of course welcome. Dakinijones (talk) 05:29, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dakinijones, I don't view the BDSM thing as actually similar. BDSM is a topic that just so happens to include BDSM equipment. Sex toys, on the other hand, are equipment. The topic is the equipment. I'm not for unnecessarily creating spin-off articles. I keep WP:No page, WP:No split, WP:Spinoff in mind.
Please don't ping me if you reply. There is no need since this article is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 06:19, 28 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant entries under History:Ancient Greece[edit]

A quote attributed to Page DuBois under this section recurs in both paragraphs present. Indeed, the section both begins and ends in the quote:

  • Greek dildos were often made out of leather stuffed with wool in order to give it varying degrees of thickness and firmness. They were often lubricated with olive oil, and used for sexual practice and other activities. The Greeks were also one of the first groups to use the term “toy” in reference to a dildo.[17] Dildos may be seen in some examples of ancient Greek vase art. Some pieces show their use in group sex or in solitary female masturbation.[25] One vessel, of about the sixth century BCE, depicts a scene in which a woman bends over to perform oral sex on a man, while another man is about to thrust a dildo into her anus.[26] shop.
  • Page DuBois, a classicist and feminist theorist, suggests that dildos were present in Greek art because the ancient Greek male imagination found it difficult to conceive of sex taking place without penetration. Therefore, female masturbation or sex between women required an artificial phallus to be used.[25] Greek dildos were often made out of leather stuffed with wool in order to give it varying degrees of thickness and firmness. They were often lubricated with olive oil, and used for sexual practice and other activities. The Greeks were also one of the first groups to use the term “toy” in reference to a dildo.[17] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:F:4513:0:0:0:4 (talk) 13:20, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

2600:387:F:4513:0:0:0:4 (talk) 13:22, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sex_toy&oldid=1213650078"