Talk:Personal lubricant/Archive 1

Why was the Receipe here canceled

Why was the Receipe here canceled? (because of the DB crash, not good idea or ?) I would like to have it back. It would be nice if a native english speaking person could to correct possible mistakes in grammar and orthography.

This material is really still there, you just can't see it. If you look on the edit page, you will see it is there. For some reason, since the crash the displayed page is reverting sometimes to a previous version, probably one you have cached on your local computer. --Gary D 09:24, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Thank You

I did the English clean-up you requested, but I left some questions on the page as to what you meant about certain things; perhaps you can go back in and fix those.--Gary D 23:57, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I made the translation of the word decoct with dict.leo.org. Maybe boil is better. The origin and motivation for this receipe were among other things [1] and [2]. And Thanks again :).

I found a link to a site on Encyclopedia Dramatica ([3]) saying that no oil-based lubricant should be used for anal sex or masturbation. First, I'd like to know if I can confirm that with any other sources. Second, I'd like to know, if it's true, which articles it should be mentioned in. -Friday, Auguest 26th, 10:41 EST

A distinction should be made between petroleum-based lubricants, like Vaseline, which are unsafe to apply to the vagina, and oils, like olive oil or Crisco, which seem to be safe to apply. The rule that I saw was "if you can eat it, you can also use it for the vagina".

As far as I can remember, the trouble with oil based products is that they a) block your skin spores, which might lead to acne like syndroms, b) they do not wash off quickly enough unless skin-unfriendly solvents are used, and c) they eat into latex condoms. Decoy (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Vaseline

"It has been said that no oil-based lubricants should be used for anal sex or masturbation because "many oil-based substances will coat the lining of the rectum, providing a haven for many potential infections."

Um, last time I masturbated my rectum did not become involved in any point. I can't remember it doing so in the past, either. >_>

XD I agree entirely, that part needs to be fixed up a bit...er..the article, not the rectum..>.>DemonWeb 03:09, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

\they refer to "anal sex or masturbation" refering to anal masturbation. Pure inuyasha 02:53, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I just got rid of it. It's probably false anyway. Suppositories are often in the form of an petrolatum/parrafin base with the drug dissolved in it. If there were some great medical risk, then doctors would not use suppositories made of such oils. Gigs (talk) 07:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

In this department, the internal use of liquid hydrocarbons is contraindicated because they can form a film within the bowel, which hinders both water and nutrient intake (the first reason is why they're occasionally used as laxatives). However, we don't absorb anything through the vagina or the rectum, and said lubricants are very unlikely to migrate anywhere, so I think this is a moot cause. Decoy (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Petroleum based products are not absorbed via the internal mucosa in any appreciable amount, but it is wrong to say that we cannot absorb certain compounds via either rectal or vaginal exposure. The rectum for instance can absorb morphine very well indeed, a fact that is used for pain relief when the oral route is not viable

Silicone lube with silicone toys

The entry states "Silicone-based lubricants should not be used with silicone based sex toys." -- why is this? What will happen? --68.103.154.11 00:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

The silicone lube can/will react with the silicone in the sex toy and cause it to melt or degrade making a not so healthful mess or destroying the toy outright. Results may vary with silicone sex toys that aren't really pure medical grade silicone. Whitebox 00:09, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

In actual fact, there is no chemical reaction. What happens is that higher molecular weight, solid silicone absorbs lower molecular weight silicone oil because of the similar, chemical, surface properties. That way the surface of the solid toy is progressively dissolved by the oil. The process is usually quite slow, and you won't notice it at first, unless you push your toys really hard. But eventually it will cause stickiness/extra friction (caused by heavier, less viscose siloxane polymers being present), and also dissolve all of the additives in the solid part into mobile form (which might not be safe, irritation or allergy -wise). Decoy (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Oil based and Vaseline

Using the full name, "Vaseline Petroleum Jelly" it is clear that Vaseline is a petroleum based product. Clearly petroleum is neither animal nor vegetable and must be mineral.

Therefore the line "Mineral oil is a less viscous alternative to petroleum jelly and is easier to wash off the skin." seems contradictory and misleading as a mineral oil cannot be an alternative to a mineral oil in that context.

TFB.

Uh, petroleum jelly is a mineral and an oil, but not a mineral oil. Actually, mineral has a very specific definition, which excludes things like rocks and hydrocarbons. Also, if you use a long enough time frame, petroleum products are indeed animal and vegetable based. Also, "petrole-rump" would be a great name for an anal lubricant. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.72.21.221 (talk) 22:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC).

The real difference is in molecular weight. Petroleum *jelly* is different from petroleum *oil*. The latter has lower molecular weight, shorter molecules, and as such, is easier to disperse from on top of the skin than the former; the mechanical intertangling of the longer molecules in the jelly *literally* makes it "stickier". Decoy (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Alternatives

I notice in the Alternatives section, pie filling is listed. But it doesn't say what sort. The only kind of pie filling I can find has big chunks of fruit in it. Oh! I bet they mean pumpkin. Can someone change that to "pumpkin pie filling"? -Freekee 05:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

They might have meant the gel like pudding types of pie fillings, or take the cherries out of your cherry pie filling. Whitebox 00:11, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, and how about egg whites? Ew. All this perishable food going into crannies sounds very perilous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.189.251.27 (talk) 10:45, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Although this section has been removed, perhaps it should be re-introduced for those who cannot afford or are allergic to ingredients common across the industry. I would suggest alternatives such as saliva are widely used and this should be reflected across Wikipedia. Tallbert222 10:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The lubrication offered by saliva is minimal at best. In fact, being that there's amylase present in saliva, I would a priori expect that it degrades many of the sugar-based compounds that ultimately are responsible for the water-retentive, slippery properties of natural vaginal lubrication.

Egg whites, then, they've evolved to survive within an intact egg-shell. Just look at them after you've kept them, broken, spread out in a thin film over a plate, for just two seconds. They coagulate and harden. In a priori terms, a much more interesting cocktail would be blended egg yolks, water and vegetable oil. I.e. mayonaise. At least in there we have oil to lubricate, water to moisturise, and lecithin (an emulsifier) to hold that together for a longer time.

Even there we already seem to have contradictory evidence as to efficacy, so...Decoy (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Vegetable gums

Added Vegetable gums to "Alternatives" section. A good example is xanthan gum (very commonly used in gluten-free baking and not very hard to find, from bakery sypplies, in health food shops or even in the gluten-free section of supermarkets). Anyone interested in personal experiences and recipes, have a look at this xanthan gum lube thread on the Fleshlight forum. Other gums also work very well. Most commercial lube always has some type of gum in it. 82.109.84.114 19:44, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

FDA Classification

The section about the FDA classification seems superfluous. Interesting as the information may be, it does not quite fit in the context of this article, as the section goes on to explain the classifications and uses of the word "device" in detail. It looks as if that text was just copied from somewhere, does not feel like a Wikipedia style, and does not contribute much to the theme "Personal lubricant", in my opinion.

Second, the FDA is not an international administration, and applies (to my knowledge) to the U.S. only. This should be made clear in the article. Didi7 21:26, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The FDA section could be padded out a bit to explain that it not only classifies "devices" but also regulates standards across the industry. Although the FDA is an American organisation, it's high standards are recognised globally. Tallbert222 10:42, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

recommendations of the use of a lubricants...

if anyone finds any suitable lubricants based on the different criteria which gives general & helpful guides that is most accepted based on the safety research by certified expertise, i am sure most readers would focus on such article as it supposed to help lots of lubricants issues.
Xmlv (talk) 20:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I will try to contact some Finnish sexologists on the issue. If or when they do answer, I'll incorporate the research into this and/or other articles.Decoy (talk) 20:02, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

organic lubricants

The section about Nude and Firefly reads a little like an advertisement – the claim that Firefly has 'similar' benefits to Nude is unfounded, and Firefly does not contain organic ingredients. I would also like to point out that there is a fully certified organic lubricant available from this British site. Can we either get rid of all the stuff about Nude and Firefly, or try and make this section a bit more balanced by referring to the product that is actually certified? Staceysmith08 (talk) 16:35, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I've cleaned it a little, definitely don't think adding more advertising is the way to improve things.92.3.207.158 (talk) 19:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)