Talk:Sex toys

I started to flesh this out, but I'm not sure I agree with the four-category breakdown. I'm going to work in /sandbox for a little bit. --jtl^talk 23:11, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Okay, I be-ed bold, and replaced the article with my attempt at a classification. I'm not entirely happy with this one either, but I think it's both more accurate and inclusive than the previous one. Plus, I added content. Anyone who disagrees with any of this should feel free to be bold, too. --jtl^talk 23:36, 10 July 2007 (CDT)

Looks good to me. Could use some pictures ;). Cracker asked me to take a look and add, by the time I got to it you'd fleshed it out pretty much. I'd like to see more on legal issues. though? Poor Heart is gonna have an attack when he finds this category... Actually, already started palpitating over the colorful flag. He'll catch up soon enough. human^{be in} 00:37, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

Dildos are illegal to sell in Texas and some other southern states; there's a very funny video with Molly Ivens exploring the law, we should find and link to. Oh! There's also the "it's dildo" video! --jtl^talk 03:56, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

hehe, you guys said flesh it out. Maybe a picture of jackhammer jesus would be good on here. I'd look for it here, but I like my job. Jrssr5 08:53, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

Just waking up here, looks real gud. Thanks jtl and human, I'll get started on the pictures. Any pictures I get will be from sites selling stuff, (fresh and CLEAN). Later I'll do some research on just where it's illegal to obtain dildos and buttplugs; although silly, I envision the local county rag having the "police blotter" section filled with:A Mrs Peterson was arrested after purchasing a "Mr. BigBOY" (artificial P*n*s) from undercover (none-o'dat) officers.
I'll also consult with PalMD about the A&P if why sex toys feel good.~~ CЯacke® 09:03, 11 July 2007 (CDT)
OH and the pics will all be of the medium sizes. While the "superextralarge" are fun conversation starters (or doorstops [or both]) we don't wanna scare anyone esp in the states where it's ill eagle. CЯacke®

If you're looking for pics of sex toys (not in use), there's some good stuff at the Venus Envy site, or possibly Toys in Babeland.

Bill O'Reilly

I'm trying to think of some way to refer to Bill O'Reilly in this article without it seeming to be some tasteless personal attack. For example: Famous Purchasers of Dildos; Dildo Deniers; Conservative Dildoing - but none of it quite seems to work. Any ideas? --Bob_M (talk) 10:23, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

Actually I'd like to try to maintain a fairly serious tone for the piece, (not that I'm asserting "ownership" or anthing like that), I'm thinking of editing the hand portion in the top to a less humorous, more mundane version. We can always make the piece serious and then link to parody (or other serious) articles of people through categories, say [[Category:dildo user]] or some such. CЯacke® 11:55, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

I moved the "hand" portion to hand job human^{be in} 14:56, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

A section on non-sex-toys used as sex toys would be appropriate, and that could mention BO'R's "loofah" thingie. --jtl^talk 13:27, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

Call it "Creativity"; and they would be "items not ordinarily thought of as sex toys", since once they is used as such, they is sex toys! human^{be in} 13:49, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

Maybe I'm not up to speed on this - but I thought he was famous for actually using a real one?--Bob_M (talk) 14:14, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

He's also famous for wanting to use a loofah as one, but getting the name mixed up and calling it a felafel. Mind you, for some girls a loofah is a sex toy... --Kels 14:39, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

Yes, he is. From the tape releases during the sexual harassment issue. Anyway, the section can include vegetables (insertion either way), non-intended lubes (honey, mayonaisse, whipped cream), loofahs (!!), and of course ordinary items pressed into service for bondage (belts, ties (ahem), etc.). But, this article is not supposed to just be a way to bust on O'Reilly, I think that cheapens it. If it can be worked nicely into a real footnote, though, fine. Keep in mind that "mocking" him for doing something we are saying is just fine is a bit, er, twisted. Even sex-toy-phobis, if you will. If it hadn't been harassment, his loofah escapades would have been admirable. human^{be in} 14:42, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

And don't forget that "innocuous" items can be used for S&M. Ping-pong paddles, clothespins, wooden spoons (wood is unforgiving), religious "icon" candles (the ones in the tall glasses), etc. Not that I would, uh, know anything about that stuff... >_> --Kels 15:20, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

I assumed it went without saying that we're all writing purely hypothetically and academically. blowfish.com is another possible source for photos, but I'm nervous about copyright issues -- I wrote and asked for permission to use a few, but haven't had a response. --jtl^talk 16:29, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

Well, I more or less know the women who run Venus Envy (having lived in both the cities where they have stores) and they're pretty cool about stuff. Might wanna give them a try. --Kels 16:42, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

Actually, I was writing only from direct experience. How about Pickyweedia for photos? They'd be at least GFDL. human^{be in} 16:43, 11 July 2007 (CDT)

What's this article doing here?

I like both sex toys and rationality, but I'm not sure of the connection between the two - what irrational claims about sex toys are being addressed here? - ciphergoth 195.172.218.226 09:23, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

• I read the article - and a lot of our sexuality articles - as a way to attack the stigmatisation of "alternative" (i.e. non-heteronormative and non-reproductive) sexualities. That stigmatisation, often based on irrational ideas of what sex "should be," is often used by religious and conservative types in very political ways. Thus, the need for articles that challenge the grounds on which those people try to make their claims. PFoster 09:35, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

I think it's much simpler: Conservapedia hates sex articles, therefore we want to have lots of them. ;-) --AKjeldsen^Godspeed! 09:54, 8 April 2008 (EDT)

Historical talk

Any chance we could just make this "sex toys" in general (and add it to the sexuality category), and add sections on Texas and Alabama. it seems so "out of place" right now.--WaitingforGodot 17:00, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Make it so Miss. W.F. Godot.   ^Contribs_Talk 17:05, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

I do believe we already have a sex toys article. This could be appended to it I suppose. CЯacke® 17:06, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Legal issues with sex toys or something like that? It's a huge topic, it seems like it could have it's own article. Besides. I like it.

Sex toy legiality maybe? -- Gen. S.T. Shrink ^{Mr. President...I lost the WMD's} 17:09, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

==Moved==
I moved en mass the article to sex toys under an appropriate header, we can delete this if we so choose. CЯacke® 17:18, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Yeah, put the legal stuff here, it can be the first few main sections if we want, put the crunchy definitions etc. after that. Since the legal part is more "on mission" anyway. ħuman 19:05, 25 July 2008 (EDT)

Bondage toys, real vs fantasy

There are two types at least of bondage devices. One might be called real, solid wood and metal with working latches or locks. The other "fantasy" types have break out balsa wood, foam plastic or other parts and quick releases on ropes, cuffs and so forth. In some there is a hidden velcro patch that allows the 'victim' to pull loose if they want too.

You can also get silk and coated ropes and straps that wont leave a mark unless you go way overboard.

Hamster (talk) 04:17, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

It's important to know which is which when you go on your kidnapping sprees. ^postate 08:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

Why?

Why the fuck do we have an article on sex toys? Hate to be "that guy", but this honestly has nothing to do with the mission. Not only that, but it's just a really kind of… bad article to have. If you want to know about fucking dildos and vibrators, watch a porno, go to encyclopaedia dramatica- but this article has to place here. Who thinks we should get rid of this shit? MESSIAH OF DOOM ^{What is this that stands before me?} 23:23, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

The only real connection I can see is that the authoritarian right/religious authoritarians are against them as they are with most sexuality. But that alone is much too thin to justify an article about it. As mentioned earlier on the page, this is basically a relic of "CP hates it so we must have articles about it". --Kels (talk) 00:07, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Same goes for a lot of our articles about sex acts, pornography, etc. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:24, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't see any missionality here. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 00:22, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

At least with porn, you've got feminism and conservative attempts to ban it. Here, we just talk about strap-ons and whatever fucking obscure kinky BDSM thing turns you on. You know what? I'm gonna call a vote. MESSIAH OF DOOM ^{Be judged by your suicidal desire} 13:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Delete

1. As I have already stated. MESSIAH OF DOOM ^{Be judged by your suicidal desire} 13:17, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
2. Needs to be closer to the mission. Zero (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
3. Even the legal section is just a summary of the history. And what else could be said, honestly? Delete it. Wehpudicabok [話] [変] [留] 07:16, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Keep, and improve missionality

1. The stuff on laws might be expanded beyond America. Moreover, sex in all of its dimensions is a breeding ground for woo and people eager to make money off of their self-claimed expertise. TeenageWasteland (talk) 15:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

While I will always agree with this action as a first resort, the actual content itself is lacking and it would need cut first. There's comparatively little potential in merely expanding upon the legal section if we don't have anyone with sufficient knowledge to do it. A shift to funspace would be another ideal, but will effectively mothball it never to be seen again. ^gnostic 19:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Why is this still here?

Okay, so this was deleted, and it was cool, but all of a sudden, I look in my watchlist and it's frigging back! Why? And if nobody has any problems, I'm just gonna re-vaporise it, 'kay? MESSIAH OF DOOM ^{The epitome of Gods and Men alike} 05:34, 16 March 2014 (UTC)

Unsure. The restore comment was "same again". Sophie has since culled a lot of the article, since, however. ^bomination 10:22, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

Broken Link

The link to the Slate article is valid, however the link inside the article to the slideshow returns a 404 error. Browsing on a phone, so that may have something to do with it. 70.197.161.81 (talk) 18:19, 1 September 2014 (UTC)