This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Okay, this article is begging the question: What kind of "educational purposes" are legal in Texas? - Sekicho 22:08, Nov 13, 2004 (UTC)
Needs some information telling male users of such devices can permanently desensitize the penis.
Educational purposes are usually for teaching proper method of condom use. Also, "types of vibrators" include strap-on's? Commking
Why do people need educating in putting condoms onto vibrating phalluses?? --Sillylizard 20:54, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
See Dildos in Texas law. But what about the links at the bottom of this page - are they linkspam? They are nearly all comercial. Trollderella 19:08, 26 August 2005 (UTC)
How bizarre. I've lived in both Oklahoma and Texas, states where I've heard it claimed that sex toys are illegal. Yet here in OK, there are plenty of vibrators for sale, and naughty magazines too! In Texas it's a similar situation, except that the prices and selection tend to be much better. People in southern OK frequently drive across the border into TX to buy their porn and sex toys. Okay, so in both states the label says these things are for "novelty use only" or for massaging the "upper extremities", but we all know what it really is. Bouncey 14:42, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Texas has to be careful with its laws so that they don't conflict with previous supreme court rulings. I think there was a case in CT in 1964 that involved a married, middle-class white couple trying to buy contraception because they were tired of raising kids. No store would sell it to them because the store owners considered it unethical. The supreme court ruled in the couple's favor, and henceforth, you can now get condoms all over the place. The problem is that Texas has laws forbidding any device exclusively used for sexual purposes other than pregnancy. So techniquely, Texas has bannded the condom, the tampon, etc. If anyone challenged this law in court, it would be struck down immediately. So TX walks the tightrope trying to keep control of vibrators and the like, but turning a blind eye to condoms, spermatocide, etc. I read recently a page on the net saying these laws were overturned, though. Anyone know for sure?72.78.20.31 (talk) 23:34, 22 March 2008 (UTC)
I think that you're thinking of Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965) ("The [challenged] statute forbidding use of contraceptives violates the right of marital privacy which is within the penumbra of specific guarantees of the Bill of Rights" id. at 481.), further extended to unmarried couples in Eisenstadt v. Baird, 405 U.S. 438 (1972) ("By providing dissimilar treatment for married and unmarried persons who are similarly situated, the statute violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment" id. at 446.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.68.136.100 (talk) 08:44, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Illegal?
Ok, they say vibrators are illegal in Mississippi, where I live, except as novelties meant for the upper body. But I have seen for sale here the "Butterfly" which is meant to strap around the woman's waist and vibrate the clitoris. They even had instructions for proper usage.
-- There are many regions that consider adult toys illegal. The local communities have been known to place the sale of an adult product into the "obscene" category. This is the reason why all adult toys sold state side have a disclaimer stating "Sold As Novelty Only". The word "Novelty" products the adult toy makers because Novelty use inplies that the product is not ment to be used as a sexual aide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.91.45.50 (talk) 18:02, August 28, 2007 (UTC)
Though on a commercial site, the link to Good Vibrations Antique Vibrator Museum is significant in that it is a notable collection of antique vibrators which corresponds to a physical museum display that is a San Francisco tourist attraction and a point of reference for those interested in the history of vibrators. The Good Vibrations collection has been cited by the media and travel sites, including Slate * Slate and the [1]. San Francisco Chronicle] and assorted tourist guides. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.60.22 (talk • contribs) 21:42, 23 June 2006
I personally always like having two options for external links, especially when their coverage differs significantly (Good Vibrations has a broader cross-section in time, while the other seems to cover different mechanisms better), but what do other editors think of the link in question? I don't trust Bigsexyguide's judgement in the matter, as he seems to simply want to remove competitor's links from Wikipedia while adding his own. The above anon comment resolves to the Bay Area, and so could be affiliated with Good Vibrations. Does anyone else have an opinion on the link? — Laura Scudder☎ 03:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
Back Massage
Perhaps I'm niave, but I think some people really do use some vibrat
ors for back and muscle masage. Some of them just don't look feasable as masturbatory devices (for either gender, perhaps I'm not imaginative enough), but DO provide very strong deep tissue vibration, expecially in the back and neck.
Also I won't deny the sexual uses of vibrators, but there are about 100 other uses for them as well, like mechanical power supply vibrators that turn DC into AC in old vacuum tube devices. (Which is what I was looking for). This article needs some expanding.
Hi. I do agree with the above assertion--and if anything, sexual uses were an afterthought as a use for vibrators. Some professionals, e.g. barbers, beauticians, the Massuese at the Y, use professional massage instruments that are quite expensive, and generally designed to transfer rotating and patting motion to the hand via a metalic spring that connects the instrument to the hand. Believe you me, you don't want one of those in the bedroom! Not unless you want the folds of your skin pinched! These types are applied to scalp massage, neck massage, and standard swedish, and non sexual massage. Also, the motors of many home massagers are not nearly strong enough for sustained matrurbatory use without danger of fire! Most owner's manuals of these warn that they are not intended for sexual use. Sex toys are sex toys and a majority of massage instruments, while some may use them for sexual purposes, are not by intention of their craftsmen who made them. ````
P.S. That thing about bringing some women to orgasm is true. As Bush would say, "It's hard work!" Wiki Tiki God 01:06, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
I recall the very model illustrated in the historical advertizement in this article that was owned by my grandmother, who died at age 80 in the early 1970's. We'll suffice it to say, I've inherited it after my mother passed on and kept it as a historical curiosity, as it mentioned the primary intent and other uses. The primary intent of the device was to treat "female hysteria", the other uses included regeneration of hair, prevention of hair loss, body aches and pains, etc. Listed in order of appearance in the manual that was still in the box with the device. Still, TODAY, the article is Vibrator (sex toy), hence, this topic is inappropriate for this article.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:31, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Historical Medical Uses?
Does anyone know about vibrators used to treat "hysteria" in female psych patients?? Is this fact or myth? (About to look it up) 24.148.69.57 16:12, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
It's a very well-documented fact. There is a good deal of sociological and historical scholarly interest in hysteria recently, and female hysteria is trying to cover this. — Laura Scudder☎ 15:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Reading this makes sense of the first vibrators I saw advertised in my youth (a good few years ago now :-) ) which were called "Non Doctor" or something similar. It struck me as a curious name, but this article throws it into context. Cheers. --Bilbo B 09:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
This is really belated, but this is in fact a myth perpetuated by one book: The Technology of Orgasm by Rachel Maines. Her sources have been highly criticized by other historians, but unfortunately this idea has caught on like wildfire. See this short blog post for a quick critique and links to other sources. Every citation in the History section of this article comes back to that one book. I would edit, but every time I have edited an article in the past it has been reverted so hopefully a more experienced editor can make appropriate changes. 129.173.196.188 (talk) 02:29, 6 April 2012 (UTC)
Cornell University
I removed a reference to a local scandal and a link to an incomprehensible article, as they refer only to parochial concerns rather than adding to the sum of knowledge on this subject. Scarlett McQueen 7 May 2006 (UTC)
What frequency do they vibrate at?
What are the frequencies that they vibrate at? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.35.2 (talk) 02:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
If they're too big, the frequency is measured in mega hurts. Sorry. Booglamay (talk) - 19:47, 23 November 2008 (UTC)
It depends on the brand, model, power source (battery powered handheld "cordless" units would have substantially less power available to drive a strong motor) and even quality. At the high end, one would consider the built in vibrator in a Sybian, which some have testified "threatened to rattle teeth from their sockets", on the handheld side, the Hitachi Magic Wand, also testified as powerful. On the low end, small units. That said, some of the lipstick sized units DO have quite a bit of power in a small package. It's all a matter of offset weight mass, motor strength , power source and intent of the designer. As for frequency, the lipstick models can have higher RPM's than the Magic Wand unit, again, designer's intent and limitations of available technology. I'd consider myself an expert after over 27 years of marriage and way too many deployments and, erm, domestic tranquility.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:20, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, Grenville invented the vibrator, updating article. Twobells (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2013 (UTC)
The first para
Yes, some are shaped to be inserted into a "cavity", but most are used on the clitoris, which is not inside at all. Is beyond the outer labia within a cavity or does only inside the vagina count as inserted? So why is that first para being quite self-censoring and coy about the uses when the article is called Vibrator (SEX! TOY!). We don't need to ease the reader into the subject as if it is really controversial and dance around the real primary use of these products. Most women need clitoral stimulation to get off. Why pretend that the object of the device is anything other than orgasm? --81.105.242.11 (talk) 21:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Well yes, I certainly do agree. I just watched a documentary "Passion and Power" on TV and really did have to chuckle when I looked up vibrator on Wikipedia and found the very same "dance around the real primary use of these products" in the first paragraph! Gandydancer (talk) 16:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
"Hard work"
Hi fellow wikipedians - does anyone else think the references could be better for the claims about doctors not realizing that direct vaginal stimulation had anything to do with sexual function, and finding it hard work?
It refers only to a work by Rachael Maines (another work by the same author is referenced for this claim at Female hysteria). Presumably there are some primary sources referred to in the Maines work(s) - I think a claim as implausible sounding as this (Victorian prudery is one thing, but really!) calls for more exploration.
Does anyone agree/is anyone in a position to look at Maines' arguments/evidence here? (I do not have access to the works cited) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.150.118 (talk) 11:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
I just watched a very well-done documentary, "Passion and Power", and yes, it did back up the claim re "finding it hard work". Interesting stuff! I had no idea about the history of vibrators. Gandydancer (talk) 16:16, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
LELO =/= all other brands
I noticed that both photos of vibrators in this article are specifically LELO brand, designer vibrators, which aren't exactly the run-of-the-mill, normal vibrators. It's like having only photos of Fleshlights on artificial vagina. Is there any way we can get at least one other photo of a generic vibrator, rather than only high-end types? --132 21:42, 9 July 2010 (UTC)
Yes. By replacing them. ;-) -- Seriously though, I noticed the same thing. Was almost suspecting that the pics were added by LELOs PR department... 87.78.2.191 (talk) 03:12, 1 August 2010 (UTC) (...a quick look into Commons reveals: there's a lack of quality vibrator photographs! Someone should find some CC-licensed images on flickr, they oughta have some over there...)
morderska: I would like to add a nice photo of first in the world producer of designers vibrators. Fun Factory was the first one in the world and if we talk about modern vibrators, I believe there should be added pics of the products that changed history :) and set trends.
I do agree there should be photos of more "popular" products. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morderska (talk • contribs) 16:27, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
Morderska: I am putting in a vibrator that was a milestone, receiving an award for its design, showing that sex toys go beyond sex life and intimate areas in modern culture. Yes, it's particular's brand vibrator to receive this award for the first time, and yes - I do know the brand. Why than it is wrong to put information about it? If any other brand does something so significant they should have right to put such information for the sake of knowledge. People have right to know these kind of trivia or rather significant information about any subject. I consider ridiculous blocking information like this. Same goes with their dildo Jim O. which was created by Boris Hoppek, known street artist and was first piece of art that was a fully functional sex toy.
Morderska (talk) 00:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
Frankly, I'd stick with some average units, high end units and of course, the "first" models of consumer AND medical professional for illustrations. NOT any particular brand, but rather a reflection of the vast assortment and many, many brands available. That would prevent the potential for this page to become a brand name advertizement.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
You are absolutely right 13 ! It is also not just one brand its also seams to be forced advertising. The User uploaded all those pictures is blocked as i see this right. Also the pictures are not very good. I am photographer and special searched my personal pictures for some good pictures. I uploaded a nice vibrator picture just because of this case. You find here. high class vibrator Maybe someone will put it in the article. I am scared to do. ( PS: Sorry not sure how to post file better) Regards MiaMami (talk) 20:23, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
Mention in the Bible?
Could the passage Ezekiel 16:17 be considered a mention of a sex toy?
Ezekiel 16:17: Thou hast also taken thy fair jewels of my gold and of my silver, which I had given thee, and madest to thyself images of men, and didst commit whoredom with them,
No, not at all. One makes a VAST stretch from the intent of that singular passage, as it was, per the ENTIRE chapter, regarding adornment of temple prostitutes of other city states and their religions.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Why is there no mention of other types of vibrators? There are percussive vibrators, etc that are used in massage therapy to disrupt nerve impulses, relax muscles and relieve tension. The article would be more complete if it discussed the original purpose of vibrators in more detail; as well as current use in practice other than sexual purposes. The article seems to give the impression that vibrators are exlcusively used as sex toys, and that the ones not used for sex are just disguised but really inteded for sexual pleasure.
There are also other types of vibrators not listed in this article, as I mentioned there are a variety of other applications and models available that are used for genuine therapeutic purposes.
The article, in a nutshell to me seems to claim the only current use as a sexy toy and that is not correct and therefore not comprehensive.
It's late, so excuse my lack of due diligence in looking up when the article was forked. At THIS time, the article is "Vibrator (sex toy)", hence, other uses would belong in a disambiguation link at the top of the article, not mentioned in THIS article.Wzrd1 (talk) 03:27, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
Reference 7 - only 30 % of woman reach orgasm through intercourse
Hello!
I think reference 7 and its text - It is estimated that only 30 percent of women achieve orgasm through intercourse. In many women the position and stimulation of the clitoris during sexual intercourse is not conducive to orgasm and there is no way that intercourse alone can produce an orgasm ( http://www.centerforfemalesexuality.com/orgasm-from-intercourse.html ) is not serious and should be updated / deleted. A quick search with Google Scholar shows neither results in favor of this percentage or against it, so I'm tagging it with [unreliable source?]
Update: 09.06.12
Well, since noone can provide a good citation for this, I am deleting the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.231.212.43 (talk) 14:25, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
fleshlight?
does this recent device deserve a mention in the enumeration of types? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.184.178 (talk) 21:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
G. Legman
In the article on G. Legman, he is credited with inventing the vibrating dildo, with a reference. Clearly he did not invent vibrating devices, but at some point the innovation of vibrating a dildo must of occurred. Does he deserve a mention here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.155.184.178 (talk) 21:25, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on Vibrator (sex toy). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).
YAn 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.
I have just modified 8 external links on Vibrator (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:
Between 1835 and 1920?, Gustav Zander also designed a device /.../
Correction/concretisation needed here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cabana (talk • contribs) 10:13, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Types of vibrators. Redundancy?
It seems that the section about types of vibrators is too extensive. For example, there's an entrance for clitoral vibrators, and then a lot of other entrances that are as well for clitoral vibrators (only that of a very specific type or brand). Shouldn't all of those be merged under the same section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.125.23.101 (talk) 03:19, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Logical1004, I saw this tag you placed on the G-spot vibrator article. What benefit is there in merging the fairly decent-size shaped G-spot vibrator article into this article? We don't need the Vibrator (sex toy) article focusing on one type of vibrator significantly more than other types. That's what a WP:Spinout article and Wikipedia:Summary style is for in this case. Flyer22 (talk) 23:36, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
That stated, whether the merge is done well or not, the one benefit I can think of is that it will save readers from having to go to a different Wikipedia article just to read that information. Flyer22 (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
Flyer22 I agree G-spot vibrator article is decent shaped. And Vibrator (sex toy) will not be focusing on just one type of article. It will be expanded. If Vibrator (sex toy) will cross the maximum limit of an article, then you can split the article in separate categories, but it is not feasible to start a new article for every single category or type of vibrator. Regarding the readers to read only a specific type of vibrator, a redirect can be placed that will redirect the G-spot vibrator article to G-spot vibrator section in Vibrator (sex toy) article. That will save time as he need not look to the whole Vibrator (sex toy) article in that case, if he doesn't want to. I am postponing the merging for sometime to get some more feedback on this. Please feel free to discuss. Logical1004 (talk) 08:54, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Logical1004, I wasn't concerned with the Vibrator (sex toy) focusing on one type of vibrator; I was concerned with it possibly focusing on one type of vibrator significantly more than the other types. As for splitting an article... Per WP:Content fork, we should strive to keep aspects of a topic in one article instead of causing readers to go to multiple articles, unless necessary. The WP:Content for guideline and the guidelines I cited above are indicative that I understand when splitting is necessary; so no worries on that front. Flyer22 (talk) 13:00, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
Oppose merge of any of these. Each of the independent articles has plenty of coverage in secondary sources to warrant expansion of the individual articles. — Cirt (talk) 01:09, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
Dispute over history
Our history section draws heavily on one book, The Technology of Orgasm by Rachel Maines (Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999). That's unsurprising, because it's been widely cited and has even had quite a bit of pop-culture influence on this subject. But aspects of the history that that book presents (and which we repeat) have been criticized pretty strongly by other scholars. Some criticisms dating to 2011 are linked in an earlier discussion on this talk page, but at the time there was nothing really solid to cite in the scholarly literature as far as a rebuttal or alternative history goes. More recently, however, Hallie Lieberman has published a PhD dissertation (turned into a book), which gives a history she believes to cover the subject more accurately, and, just this week, a journal article that's a pretty direct attack on Maines's book, which claims to have checked every source cited in Maines's book in support of its core thesis, finding that they are all either irrelevant or misrepresented ("We examined every source that Maines cites in support of her core claim. None of these sources actually do so."):
Hallie Lieberman (2017). Buzz: A Stimulating History of the Sex Toy. Pegasus. ISBN978-1681775432.
What to do about this dispute should become clearer once some time passes and other scholars weigh in on the controversy. But in the meantime perhaps we can at least hedge our bets a bit more instead of going all-in on one source's narrative, given that the source no longer appears to have the consensus among academic historians and sex-studies scholars that our usage of it here would imply? --Delirium (talk) 23:53, 2 September 2018 (UTC)
Delirium, see this discussion, where we discussed the matter. Our solution was to note Rachel Maines's hypothesis, that it's widely repeated in the literature on female anatomy and sexuality, and that "some historians dispute Maines's claims about the prevalence of this treatment for hysteria and about its relevance to the invention of the vibrator, describing them as a distortion of the evidence or that it was only relevant to an extremely narrow group." We also added that "Maines has said that her theory should be treated as a hypothesis rather than a fact." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:23, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
I hadn't seen the discussion over there, thanks! --Delirium (talk) 11:26, 3 September 2018 (UTC)
Delirium, this piece is also now in the article. And I see that this article, just like the Female hysteria article, notes that Maines has said that her theory should be treated as a hypothesis rather than a fact. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:54, 6 September 2018 (UTC)
Debunking bunk
The "conjectured use" section amounts to undue coverage of a fringe theory, it seems to me. See this recent piece from the New York Times:LINK. This should be either trimmed back or written in a manner which demonstrates that it is a fringe theory. Carrite (talk) 13:14, 23 January 2020 (UTC)
Carrite, see this discussion if you haven't already. That "the historical prevalence of genital massage as a treatment for female hysteria, and over the extent to which early vibrating massagers were used for this purpose" has been disputed doesn't mean that so-called genital massage was never used as a treatment for female hysteria. Opinion pieces aren't the best sources to use for this topic. The section already states, "Maines has said her widely reported theory should be treated as a hypothesis rather than a fact. In 2018, Hallie Lieberman and Eric Schatzberg published a peer-reviewed article that found 'no evidence' to support Maines's claims in the book's citations. They called the wide acceptance of Maines's work 'a fundamental failure of academic quality control'." So what do you have in mind for the section? Maines's theory has been widely reported as fact, which is why it should perhaps continue to have two paragraphs dedicated to it the article.
No need to ping me if you reply. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.