Talk:Dildo/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archaeology

All citations on Slovenian Neandertal dildo are unfounded. There is no museum in Sostro, there is no jade far around, no local archeologist knows anything about it: all according to the local weekly Mladina. LL, 14:49, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Correct. And neadertals were all extinct 4000 years ago, so this Slovenian dildo story is a hoax. I removed the entry. jure, 16.5.2006

added some citations and a quote for the history section which discuses why there are not many references to dildos in the literature, if anyone really cares! Voyager3 22:20, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Per Capita Ownership?

3.31 is an outrageous value for the entire world. Without mentioning exactly what region it applies to the statistic is useless. I'm going to remove it for now.

Whats the difference between a Dildo and a Dong?

Answer: It mays to improve your word power ..... [3] Candy 14:01, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Picture

All right, bananas, nature's dildos. Haha. Very cute. But misleading. Most people do not choose to use bananas to masturbate with; they're too soft. The picture should at least be of a cucumber. Grammar nazi 06:54, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Veggie-debates aside, the article needs more pictures in general. There are just too many types to be properly represented by just two photos.

Peter ^Isotalo 22:28, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

wrong, bananas can be used. Don't use an over-ripe one if you are finding it to be too soft, remember even a fully erect and hard cock is not that "hard"! Some girls think the trick of putting a peeling banana inside a condom is the best way to simulate the real life cock for it's feel. Mathmo ^Talk 19:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Bilbo Baggins

Would it be forbidden to include such a link to Bilbo in the 'See also' section? Theavatar3 20:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I believe you're thinking of his cousin, Dildo Baggins, who is not notable enough for an article of his own. In the meantime, best not to link : ) Doc Tropics 20:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

"Dildo Bugger" is the name of the Bilbo character in the Harvard Lampoon spoof "Bored of the Rings". This may be relevant here. (And no mention of Steely Dan? We are growing up!!) Britmax 21:02, 23 December 2006 (UTC)

Uses

Does it really need to be said that a dildo can be used to penetrate both men and women? Isn't that obvious? Anything that can penetrate a woman can penetrate a man. I'm removing the line. TrevorPearce 14:46, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

References in modern cinema/movies

I think it would be beneficial to include references in modern cinema as to appearances of the dildo - for example, "Me, Myself, and Irene" and "Reqiem for a Dream". Anyone want to take this on?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.68.241.2 (talk) 17:55, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

More Than What They are Worth?

The following was part of a larger block of text added recently. Some people pay more than what they are worth for longer, thicker, and wider dildos to challenge their anus or vaginal area This sounds vaguely like a sales pitch, and not very encyclopedic. Keep in mind that larger dildos overall may be harmful to your sexual heath if used to hard and fast. also sounds odd. Prometheus^-X303- 15:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC) That's POV. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.113.135 (talk) 03:01, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Pictures

Not that I have anything wrong with porn - in fact, as long as it's not illegal, I really don't care - but is it really necessary to have an illustration of a woman screwing a guy with a strap-on? I hardly see how that contributes to the article, and I honestly believe people are just looking for reasons to put stuff like that on here. Wikipedia is not a HowTo site, and really, I think people will get the point if you simply say "The woman inserts the dildo in the man's anus." Also, Firefox's spell check tells me that "dildo" isn't a word, heh.

Furthermore, is there really a need for so many different images of dildos? I'm pretty sure people get the point after the first image. Two gives people a definite understanding, three is more than enough... four or more is just overkill. Perhaps my dildo image reference scale could use some credible sources, but I think you all get my point. Sandwiches99 (talk) 04:48, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

The different dildo types demonstrate the diversity in the construction of dildos, and the illustrated picture of the practice of "pegging" is presented in a responsible, clinical way, it is certainly not porn. Asarelah (talk) 21:20, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

External Links

Is the FedEx link really appropriate? I tells nothing about dildos, it seems to be just something vaguely dildo-related that someone thought funny.

found something interesting: history Michelle2005 00:48, 20 April 2006 (UTC)michelle2005

Removed the link for the animal dildos... though I suppose it could be put with the external links at the bottom.... Yes I'm bored Voyager3 22:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Could somone add a link for the town of Dildo, Newfoundland and Labrador. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Menchion (talk • contribs) 05:05, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

lol,it must be so embarrassing to live there!

sorry

im just being bored and immature

i find thiss talk page hilarious

sorry --Nirvanarox55 (talk) 21:28, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

The word "Dildo" in other languages

The word Dildo seems to be a rather international word, found in most germanic and latin languages, at least? (The french page indicates otherwise, but then, the french have always been quite anglophobic... ^^) According to www.etymonline.com. It was used in english as early as 1593. Has it been used earlier in this sense elsewhere? Which words are most common internationally? (Unfortunately, I couldn't find an entry at wiktionary.) Does this widespread word come from the success of int. english, or are there other factors involved? Grateful for answers...

I can only tell you that in Germany, the word "Dildo" is used as well and can be found in rather old manuscripts, though I can't quote one. --DasallmächtigeJ (talk) 20:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

long picture

Do we really need a picture that long? It's distracting and suggest dildos are supposed to be hugeYVNP (talk) 07:56, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

We do need a picture at the start of the article, preferably of a faily ordinary dildo. I'm replacing the one removed, but I'd be happy to see it replaced with something equally or more suitable. --Simon Speed (talk) 09:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I'll look for another image in commons. This image is okay, but very large. Someone could resize it. Atom (talk) 22:54, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I noticed there was an issue with the size of the rather large picture of the dildo - it is a bit long.

I have re-sized it and would be happy to replace the existing one. Please let me know if this is okay. --Fingeerling (talk) 17:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Why is there a nun using a dildo? I honestly don't care but I doubt that would very respectful towards nuns. They really don't need to be reminded of what they can't do. Sheesh! ~~m0u5y —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.246.93 (talk) 02:05, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Its the only picture of a woman using a dildo available in the commons, sorry. Asarelah (talk) 17:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

pedantic point about vibrating/non-vibrating

I understand the vibrating/non-vibrating distinction is discussed in the article, but it's a little glaring that the first sentence in the body of the article says "A non-vibrating device..." and the image for the article, immediately adjacent to that sentence, depicts "A vibrating dildo." Without prejudicing the vibrating/non-vibrating debate, perhaps the non-vibrating variety would be better for the main image for the article. Either that, or make the first sentence sound a little less definitive. Hairhorn (talk) 21:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Well, i do agree with your notion that a non-vibrating dildo might be preferable for the main image, but i don't know if we have anything great in the commons. Maybe the 7-inch silicone dildo in the gallery from the bottom of the page? I suppose i could learn how to upload some of my own photos, but i've never dabbled in the commons before, and i don't know if i'm ready to dive into that pool yet.

As for your pedantry about the first sentence of the main body of the article, i would point out the second sentence goes on to mention "Some people include vibrating devices in this definition," and then the third sentence elaborates even further. So it's not really contradictory, it just requires looking at the whole paragraph. However, if you do have a better wording, certainly please do go ahead and edit there, i'm sure things could always be improved somehow. Maybe a semi-colon instead of a full-stop between the 1st and 2nd sentences? Thanks kindly ~_{Teledildonix314}~^Talk~_4-1-1~ 01:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Colorado loves legal issues

"Similar statutes have been struck down in Colorado, Kansas and Colorado" Maybe deleting an occurrence of the word 'Colorado' could be a good thing here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vhann (talk • contribs) 04:06, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Done.^L_Wizard @ 16:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

I think...

I think you should mention the double-ended dildos that lesbians use. --Nerdzforlifelol (talk) 16:24, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

They are mentioned in the article. Asarelah (talk) 16:39, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

There is good article about traditional Russian Wooden Dildos http://russian-wood-dildos.com/story/ May be we must add some information about them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ide404 (talk • contribs) 09:32, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Now I want to look that up, because all I can imagine is a cheerfully painted, folk-art style dildo that you can open up, to find a smaller dildo inside, and another in that, with another in that and so on down to pinky-sized. 72.49.66.68 (talk) 11:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Name origin

Hi, I found that the origin is a corruption of the italian word diletto (delightment). The information is in an ethymology dictionary online.--Wikiléptico (talk) 13:30, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Can you please give us the link here? / edg ☺ ☭ 14:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

This is the link in which I found dildo as a corruption of the word diletto.

References

--Wikiléptico (talk) 11:02, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Name origin

This article should also mention the etymology of the word.

Yes. Origin, please. mikka (t) 07:26, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

Etymology from ancient greek "olisbo" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.18.53.189 (talk) 08:50, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Size

Weirdly enough, the size isn't mentioned: this is generally about

• 4 to 8 inches long, with some as a long as 1 foot.
• and 1 to 3 inch thick, average being 1 3/4 inch

add in article—Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.182.222.202 (talk • contribs) 4 September 2010, 07:01:41 (UTC)

The article already includes an approximate size reference.

“ ...resembling a penis in shape, size, and overall appearance ”

Obviously dildos can be made in any size, and a trivial web search will likely provide documentation of larger and smaller toys in use. None of the above-suggested sites seems to cite a comprehensive study of what has been manufactured, nor it seems can they claim medical expertise in what is considered safe. I would say leave this out until more reliable sources can be found for this information. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:52, 4 September 2010 (UTC)

References

Edit request from 24.42.111.5, 21 November 2010

{{edit semi-protected}}

The Dildo was invented 700 years ago by some Sunni Islamic jurists, the companions of Ibn al-Qayyim (1292-1350CE / 691 AH- 751 AH) permitted their women to use dildo and they justified that it would be less Haram than adultery sin, Sunni Muslim countries like Saudi Arabia often import dildo for that reason. Ibn al-Qayyim (1292-1350CE / 691 AH- 751 AH) mentioned that fact in his book Badai Al-Fawaid in the masturbation chapter / Chapter 4/ page 602 http://www.ansarweb.net/artman2/publish/64/article_258.php

24.42.111.5 (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Not done: Note that the article itself points out that dildos are likely to be tens of thousands of years old. That one reference (which may or may not be reliable) can't override many other reliable sources (especially since it's highly unlikely from a common sense perspective). Qwyrxian (talk) 11:50, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Christians and Sex Toys

I was surprised that I actually found quite a few sites that showed that the Bible does not prohibit sex toys in any way -- even found a website that is "Christian-friendly" and sells sex toys openly. However, the only "reference" I can find is the sale site itself, and as with many things religious, the remainder of the sites found are opinion rather than fact. I'm playing with the idea of expanding the paragraph dealing with Christianity to show that sex toys seem to have a better reception with the majority of those in the Christian religion than what is led to believe here. Thoughts? Dagrrl (talk) 19:55, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

I think that is open to interpretation. One could make a case against dildos, given the prevalence of phallic worship in antiquity, as forbidden under the injunction, "Thou shalt not make for thyself any graven image," etc. 72.49.43.222 (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

NPR covered the woman who set up the "Christian-friendly" sex toy shop, Book 22, in 2008. (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18975616) Although a somewhat unconventional viewpoint, it may be worth pointing out that not all Western religious groups are strictly against the use of sex toys within a specific context. Or, perhaps, it's a better topic for the "Religious Views on Masturbation" page. Thoughts? If nothing else, a link to that page is likely warranted. Sutematsu (talk) 07:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

See Ezekiel 16:17: (KJ) "madest to thyself images of men, and didst commit whoredom with them" condemning their use.--Chemical Engineer (talk)

References

Alabama Supreme Court ruling

Found a citation for paragraph one under Legal and Ethical Issues: United States. A local news story covers the issue. Although they don't specifically state the date of the ruling, the story itself is dated on 9/13/09, which is only 2 days after the ruling is said to have been handed down. Is this an acceptable citation in this case, or do we need to find the ruling from the AL Supreme Court itself? Sutematsu (talk) 08:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"Citation Needed" on Dan Ireland

Is this really necessary any longer? There are two different quotes by Rev. Ireland against dildos, and in one of them he's calling from them to be outlaw (which strikes me as filling the "outspoken critic" part). If these aren't sufficient, what other kinds of citation should we be looking for? Sutematsu (talk) 08:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Just discovered that more information on him is available on the Anti-Obscenity Enforcement Act page right here on Wikipedia. There's a citation for his work defending the law: "Lyman, Brian. Ban on sex toys targeted. Mobile Register Dec. 7, 2007" Is it possible for this page to use the same? Sutematsu (talk) 08:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Plural of dildo?

Dictionaries I've found either list no plural or list "dildos" first and "dildoes" second. Is one form considered more proper than the other, or is it just more commonly spelled "dildos"?

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/dildo?jss=0

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/dildo

Should this be incorporated into the article somewhere?

Ianboggs (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC).

There has been a shift over my lifetime in standard written English regarding the preferred plural of nouns ending in a vowel. When I was in primary school, "dildoes" was preferred (like "potatoes"), but currently the e is preferably omitted, as in "dildos" or "potatos". 72.49.43.222 (talk) 22:45, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It should be without the "e". There is absolutely no rule about putting an "e" before an "S" with words ending in a vowel. Eg pianos and casinos. Plus on this page it should at least be consistent. Please remove the "e" under the first image. Googly75 (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Silicone dildos

Silicone dildos cannot be used with silicone based lubricants, as they erode and damage the shape and structural integrity of the dildo. This can be verified by asking any sextoy expert. Anyone care to add this or find a citation? Jamieyk (talk) 05:23, 25 July 2011 (UTC)

Pictures?

It mentions in the article that upmarket dildos often have less phallic shapes in order to increase penetration. Two things: does anybody have a picture, since this would be useful in illustrating how they are superior. And secondly, wouldn't you expect the human penis, which has evolved over thousands of years for the same purpose, to have more or less the optimum shape anyway?

With regard to the last point, I fear most women would unhappily disagree. The penis certainly has gotten the job done over the years, but that job is getting women pregnant, not giving them pleasure, at least not to the point of orgasm.--172.190.25.54 (talk) 04:50, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Images

Not to suggest the article should be without images, but the gallery has a lot of pictures. And a lot of them are of the same type/design/etc. However, judging from previous issues like this in similar articles I don't want to just go in and remove them without any type of consensus. ZS 06:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The article must first and foremost be educational. I think the gallery is quite useful in its current form but is a rather unstructured collection. The last 2 images should be moved out of the gallery to better places. The remaining group could then be trimmed down to give a simpler and clearer idea of the range of dildos. There are more images in Commons:Category:Dildos and Commons:Category:Vibrators if you want to substitute or add any. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we can remove the strap-on pictures, they are all included in the strap-on article. Asarelah (talk) 22:52, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The current first pair of images are both of rather startling penis-shaped devices, rendered in a style which might be called realistic, but would better be described as surrealistic. The classic dildo did not have much anatomical detail, because that was not necessary for its use. I suggest that the very prominent display of penile anatomy is misleading in the context of this article. One might come away from reading the article with the idea that a dildo is a sex toy in the shape of a penis.

But a dildo is not a penis. Rather, it is an abstract, intentionally artificial device for penetration. It is an important part of the idea of a dildo that it need not look like anything in particular. Its purpose is to give pleasure to its user.

I suggest using images of more generic, smooth, non-anatomical devices, at least for the very prominent first image. Those who need to study the penis in detail will find a number of far better images -- real rather than merely realistic -- in the Human Penis article. Dratman (talk) 03:04, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Thats Not a Dildo!

Why is the picture of a vibrator? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.71.160 (talk) 11:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Image:Amy with dildo.jpg

Hey, i'm just wondering, but do they really need a picture of a naked woman "about" to use a vibrator on here? Seems like it is unnecessary to me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.69.0.143 (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It's sexually explicit, contributes nothing to the article and is unnecessary. 63.135.17.241 (talk) 05:18, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree too, we have enough exibitionist sites on the webs to go around fullfilling "I want the world to see me" sexual fantasies of old women. 201.29.76.77 (talk) 16:13, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Is Image:Amy with dildo.jpg really that useful as an illustration? I don't get much information from this other than that women masturbate with dildos. It has been removed and restored a couple times now, and I'm wondering what advocates for keeping this image believe it contributes. / edg ☺ ☭ 00:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid I agree. I think the image is quite a turn-on but it's not terribly educational and being an erotic photograph of an identifiable person it has a few points against it in terms our discussions on image policy. I think an illustration of a dildo actually being used or of lubricant being applied might have good educational value, but if nobody speaks up for this image in the next few days we should accept the consensus and delete it. --Simon Speed (talk) 12:16, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

The image is needed because it shows how dildo is used. May be the illustration not clearly depicts the use, however it gives a overview of the usage. Otolemur crassicaudatus (talk) 12:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't a howto site, and I don't see how this shows how to use a dildo. She's just rubbing it against her crotch, there's no insertion going on here. Besides, I think people will get the point just by saying that it's used via insertion. I think people are just trying to think of reasons for keeping porn on here. Sandwiches99 (talk) 04:40, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

please note wikipedia is not censored, and the picture helps to educate one on how the device should be used properly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.28.246 (talk) 09:01, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

Personally, I think the only thing the image does is illustrate how cute Amy is. --Simon Speed (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Porn is great! and very easy to get hold of on the web. Do we really need to see a woman inserting it into her vagina on wonderful Wikipedia? I encourage my son to use Wikipedia but am put off by this unnecessarily graphic image. I think its more about the contributor getting his rocks off. Robvanvee (talk) 07:28, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

As noted to others asking these kinds of questions here and on other talk pages (where you've also posted), Wikipedia is not censored - see WP:NOTCENSORED. Please stop deleting images you don't like. JoeSperrazza (talk) 21:41, 21 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 June 2013

You should consider not having an image of a dildo inserted into a vagina. 99.234.40.83 (talk) 04:09, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. The image serves the educational purpose of demonstrating how these devices are normally used. —Psychonaut (talk) 07:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Legal, U.S.

The right to privacy is guaranteed by the 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which is made applicable to the states by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. The following sentence should be corrected to reference the 1st Amendment rather than the 14th Amendment:

"In February 2008, a federal appeals court overturned a Texas statute banning the sales of dildos and other sexual toys, deeming such a statute as violating the Constitution's 14th Amendment on the right to privacy.[17] " — Preceding unsigned comment added by Abulgin (talk • contribs) 23:44, 30 September 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 13 March 2015

The current reference #3 in regards to the source of "The Maid's Complaint for want of a dil doul" under Etymology currently directs to a website without the information. I've located an alternate source here: http://ebba.english.ucsb.edu/ballad/21716/image — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realbrickwall (talk • contribs)

 Done -- Aronzak (talk) 08:41, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2015

I would like to add a few lines regarding "strapless" (that is not "strap-on") dildoes. 81.240.169.232 (talk) 00:57, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Cannolis (talk) 02:21, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

"Hindi दार्शिल्दो"

Does anyone know what the Hindi reference is supposed to be? Each example around it gives how the word in said language has a meaning such as "consoler" "fake penis" but the Hindi just is the word दार्शिल्दो. Ogress _smash! 01:01, 2 June 2015 (UTC)

Putting this through Google translate identifies this word as Darshildo, although it also works in Nepali, as darsildo. Probably a transliteration.--Auric talk 12:20, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

Change anxious to eager

"...anxious to discover from a friend where she recently acquired a dildo...". She is not anxious she is eager.

Meaning of anxious: experiencing worry, unease, or nervousness, typically about an imminent event or something with an uncertain outcome. "she was extremely anxious about her exams" synonyms: worried, concerned, uneasy, apprehensive, fearful, perturbed, troubled, bothered, disturbed, distressed, disquieted, fretful, agitated, nervous, edgy,

Anxious comes from Latin angered which also mentioned strangle. RicD (talk) 03:45, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

Meh. You may be right that it should be changed, but not for the reason you state. "Anxious" is widely used to mean eager, and at least five major dictionaries—Chambers, Webster's New World, Merriam-Webster, Collins and Random House (unabridged)—support such usage. AHD, which tends to be more cautious, does have a usage note about it, and they're pretty ambivalent about it. Merriam-Webster also has a usage note, noting that the "eager" usage goes back at least to the 17th century. The Latin word is angere, by the way, not angered, and it doesn't necessarily mean "strangle". Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 05:46, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

needs edit

Request that article be amended as to shape to reflect that there are actually dildos shaped like animal genitalia. See references as search results at https://www.google.com/search?client=ubuntu&channel=fs&q=Animal+shaped+dildos&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8. I believe that this is necessary to keep a neutral tone to the article, avioding the apperance of a "strictly conservative" line of thought. 108.201.29.108 (talk) 21:54, 23 July 2017 (UTC)

Lots of things exist, but Wikipedia doesn't necessarily mention them, even if their existence is verifiable. You'd need to provide multiple reliable sources with adequate in-depth coverage to demonstrate that they are noteworthy. Google search results won't cut it. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 02:39, 24 July 2017 (UTC)

Care to elaborate? "Noteworthy" in what way? And Mind you the Google results are only intended as cursory research, and not as full research. I would be of the opinion that the mere existence of what could be regarded as an "extreme" or "taboo" variant of something is in and of itself noteworthy in the encyclopedic context as to maintain a encyclopedic point of view in terms of neutrality. 108.201.29.108 (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information; we don't put something in an article just because it verifiably exists. You're perfectly welcome to try to make a case for the article's mentioning dildos shaped like animal genitalia. If you get consensus, it will be added. It would help your case if you'd propose specific text to add, along with reliable sources. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 16:20, 29 August 2017 (UTC)

Interesting. I'll see what I can find. 108.201.29.108 (talk) 02:17, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 February 2018

Remove the following: The world's oldest known dildo is a siltstone 20-centimeter phallus from the Upper Palaeolithic period 30,000 years ago that was found in Hohle Fels Cave near Ulm, Germany.

It is certainly not known, that this was a dildo. The article by Jonathan Amos which is referenced as a source only says this, without any sources: Its life size suggests it may well have been used as a sex aid by its Ice Age makers, scientists report.

Which scientist actually reported that stays Amos' secret. We do not get to know.

I could not corroborate this anywhere. Any other webpage that talks about this piece says, it was probably used for knapping flints. I think it is entirely possible, that this was used as a dildo, but it is certainly not known, and as far as I can tell, no scientist went on record to say something like that. It seems, only Amos said that. 2003:DC:33D6:7F2C:B902:8E18:1E9B:9BDF (talk) 06:56, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done: Rather than removing it, I have reworded it somewhat and moved it to a more appropriate place in the section. For our purposes, BBC News is a reliable secondary source. While we may wish that they'd cite their sources and use more specific attributions, I'm not comfortable with removing content sourced to them simply because they've failed to do that. If you're willing to make a stronger case for removing it entirely, feel free to reopen this edit request. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 14:59, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

I like it a lot better this way. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DC:33D6:7F2C:B902:8E18:1E9B:9BDF (talk) 15:26, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 March 2018

Currently reads: On the other hand, Heidi Johnson, an ELCA pastor, teaches that "in the Christian tradition, we are called to love God with all our heart, strength, mind, and soul...Sex toys are presented as a medium to engage in body love, self care, and exploring your sexuality as one of the ways we love God with all of our holistic being."[35]

Ms. Johnson is not an ordained minister of the ELCA. Nor will she ever be.

Should read: On the other hand, Heidi Johnson suggests that "in the Christian tradition, we are called to love God with all our heart, strength, mind, and soul...Sex toys are presented as a medium to engage in body love, self care, and exploring your sexuality as one of the ways we love God with all of our holistic being."[35] 173.172.213.250 (talk) 22:36, 27 March 2018 (UTC)

Comment. The source, a July 2017 article that should meet WP:RS, says that Johnson "is getting ordained with the Evangelical Lutheran Church of America". I cannot find a source that says this actually happened. Out of an abundance of caution, I'd be inclined to support the proposed change on verifiability and BLP grounds, but I think we should go a step further. Neither Johnson nor Dan Ireland, mentioned just before Johnson and to whom she is presented as a sort of counterpoint, appear to be notable; they appear to be basically just random people whose views on sex toys have received some fleeting coverage, and there's no indication that their views are representative of the sects to which they (purportedly) belong. I propose removing the entire paragraph, but I'd like to get a second opinion. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 03:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

 Partly done: The reference to Dame magazine seems not verifiable and the quotes taken from it were removed. The claim here that she is not and never will be a Lutheran pastor are unsupported and seems based on original research. On the other hand there is a LinkedIn page and a page on her completing an pastoral internship that seems to contradict that assertion. Also, Duke Divinity School is one of the most prominent Protestant theological seminaries in the country and founding a student sexuality group there was also subject to coverage. The coverage of Johnson wasn't solely about sex toys but about recognizing sex and pleasure have a role in the religious life of Christian laity, which was covered in a major magazine and generated notable amounts of[backlash. Similarly, Ireland's anti-sex toy crusade has generated significant coverage in reliable sources. I've therefore re-written this section to follow the sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Correction to Dildo Article

I am referencing the page found at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dildo

Under the section "Legal and Ethical Issues", it states the following:

"Other Christian religious leaders such as Evangelical Lutheran Church of America pastor Heidi Johnson, who founded a student group on sexuality at Duke Divinity School, have a positive view of sex toys in Christian sexuality.[36]"

Heidi Johnson's Candidacy Committee formally blocked her final Approval to become an ordained pastor in the ELCA. Information found at the main, ELCA Directory, https://directory.elca.org/#/home will confirm this information.

While the original article stated she would be going on Internship, she is no longer associated with the ELCA, and the connection to this denomination should be removed. Thank you.

2600:1702:3AD1:60C0:3D9E:6590:3668:BDE9 (talk) 05:31, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Source on history is wildly inaccurate

On 7 December 2018‎ editor Marchcid added lots of information to the History section from a 2017 book about sex toys (ref. 11) -practically everything appears inaccurate. To wit:

• The first sentence referenced by it was actually plagiarised from a 2012 book called 'All About Sex...In the Bible', but with some extra construction materials added recently. I also don't understand how useful a tar dildo can be, that's like making a chair from yoghurt.

• Second claim is about the existence of neolithic double-headed dildos, which is stated as fact, however, the previous paragraph already goes into this claim and renders it doubtful. Basically a class of objects known as bâtons de commandement were purported to be dildos by a single popular TV archaeologist, whose sensationalist interpretation in this regard is widely dismissed. Also see below.

• 'Cantonese groin' in medieval times: this claim appears to be derived from the 'kuang-tung-p'ang' mentioned in the pornographic fiction novel 'Chu-lin yeh-shih' (Unofficial History of the Bamboo Grove) from the late Ming period (not medieval times). I.e. name is a modern transliteration, the time period is off, and claim is based on a work of fiction.

• The other claim about Chinese dildos appears derived from another Ming period novel, the 'Chin-p'ing-mei'. The claim appears less unlikely, but still, if fiction novels are to be used as sources... Or it might refer to/conflate with a set of Han period artefacts found in a tomb? Then the date is more than a millennium off.

• Ancient Egyptian dildos? I can't find anything factual/reliable this is based on -one would think that these 'various paintings' would be somewhere. Instead, there is something Greek about a buttplug from Ptolemaic times (2800 years later), a juvenile polemic painting from 2000 BC abouts depicting the Pharaoh sodomising some guy, Osiris getting a wooden penis from Isis after a fish ate his original, and the use of fossilised belemnites and votive phalli as symbolic objects or offerings for a period in the worship of Min (god) (of which there are carvings, not paintings).

• Eurasian Ice Age defloration rituals? Now that's piling speculation on the unlikely bâtons de commandement theory. There's that German rock shaped like a cock (complete with rings of grooves at one end suggesting a glans), but going from one possible interpretation by two people of a cylindrical object to defloration rituals with dildos is reaching. The report mentions defloration by dildo, but in the context of modern India. This object is also interpreted as a flint-napping tool (could be a tool made to look phallic). Note the report only mentions the object's possible use as a dildo once in the footnote (pg.11); it also discusses how Hopi peoples plant cilindrical stones in their fields during harvesting rituals or that certain Aborigines give young men such rocks as a symbol to carry during initiation rites (i.e. the existence of cylindrical objects in a culture doesn't necessarily mean they need to be inserted into bodily orifices). Note also that although the BBC has popularised this particular object on the interwebs, it is one of a number of phallic or fish-shaped objects found from prehistoric Europe -see the pictures, many are not really insertable.

• Roman defloration rituals? Perhaps the author is referring to the holy phallus supposedly kept at the temple of the Vestal Virgins (no mention of it being used as a dildo) or early Christian detractions involving the Liberalia festival (scandals and here say after the fact).

• dildos being used for ritual ceremonies worshipping Shiva in 4000 BCE Pakistan? This is completely specious: Are they referring to lingams? -these are generally too big to be used as dildos, are not used in this way, and the time period is off by 4000 years. The earliest evidence for Shaivism is 400BC. The oldest lingam, from Gudimallam, is 5ft tall and thus hardly usable as a dildo and is most likely from 100-200AD (300BC is also claimed, but likely wrong), although it is stated in some parts of Wikipedia (without evidence) to be from 2800 BC. Proto-hindi Indo-Aryans are not thought to have penetrated this region until much later than 4000BC, perhaps they are conflating the Indus Valley civilisation with Hinduism, specifically the now discredited theory of the Mohenjo-daro pashupati seal from 2500BC being ithyphallic? Or perhaps the Harappan cylindrical pillars from 2300BC? This may be from the now generally thought far-fetched/untenable 100 year old phallus-worshipping theories of Marshall and Mackay which have been exaggerated into dildo rituals and spuriously set a few thousand years earlier (see also Chakravarti's phallo-centric theories)?

A risqué/titillating subject like this invites exaggeration/sensationalism. Little hard evidence (haha). Seems like a crappy book -I suggest deleting everything. Some people see a phallus everywhere. Two thousand years from now there will be crappy books detailing how rolling pins were double-headed buttplugs.

Cheers, Leo86.83.56.115 (talk) 18:18, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

___

References

Typo

Under "Description and uses", section "Materials", they're talking about cyberskin: "It often decomes sticky after washing". That's "becomes", right? Just a friendly helper spirit from the north. 85.76.22.246 (talk) 17:44, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

 Done--Auric talk 21:20, 10 February 2019 (UTC)

Materials section needs cites, not text removal

The Materials section has a long-standing hat calling for citations. Back in January 2018 an editor removed just the paragraph on silicone, appealing to the hat. Granted, it was badly written and sounded like it was lifted from ad copy, but removing the established real-world fact of silicone dildos entirely from the article made it worse, not better, and didn't fix the problem the hat is drawing attention to. I restored that paragraph and then cut down the non-encyclopedic, ad-like text.

The Materials section is still in dire need of citations, but let's please add citations rather than remove entire materials/paragraphs from the list. Removal just adds inconsistency and incompleteness, and makes future editors' work harder than it needs to be. Given how long the section has gone almost entirely uncited, I can guess that the easy kind of reliable sources—online ones—are few to none. We might need to do hardcopy book research in sexology or similar sections of libraries to find proper citations for these materials, their details, and dates. In the meantime, we shouldn't allow that slow kind of citation research to be discouraged by removing the text that is waiting for citation. (Especially not text that is, frankly, obviously true just by browsing online or brick-and-mortar sex toy stores.) Thanks! — Saxifrage ✎ 21:30, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

"RoboSuck" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect RoboSuck. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 11#RoboSuck until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

"Deep Stroker II" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Deep Stroker II. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2020 August 11#Deep Stroker II until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:15, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2020

173.224.179.133 (talk) 07:46, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

show what a dildo represents show pic of dick

 Not done. Unnecessary, already in lead. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:07, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 August 2020

this shows that women like to use dildos and men to be in their vagina https://faperplace.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/KalinasMulti-OrgasmicDickDildoDP_s01_JonniDarkko_KalinaRyu_540p-cover.jpg 173.224.179.133 (talk) 07:51, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. NSFW warning for link above. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 09:08, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Sex toys and Hysteria

There should be a section that explains the history of sex tpys as a treatment for hysteria during the Victorian-era — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aguerrero22 (talk • contribs) 00:16, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

2004

Can't see anywhere to report vandalism, but there's something wrong with this article..

dildos necessarily intended for insertion? Would a penis-shaped fertility statuette or icon intended for worship, as in aboriginal tribes in Africa, be considered a dildo, or is the term exculsively reserved for a penis-shaped item intended for use? --zandperl

Dildos are not necessarily insertables, contrary to several modern definitions, although I would argue that the term should indeed be reserved for those items intended for a sexual use, as distinct from the more generic 'phallus'.Dildos give you experience and helps stretch out your vagina flaps so it will give less pain during sexual intercourse (penis to vagina).

Phallic (i.e. penis-shaped) objects have been both worshipped and used as objects d'arts throughout history, but I think a commonsense interpretation of 'dildo' requires some physical, i.e. bodily, context. Therefore, I guess it's OK, if a little 'clunky', to say that a dildo is 'intended for bodily interaction', as the current definition proposes.

Of course, phallic worship has occasionally gone beyond veneration of the lingam by decoration with flowers, annointing with oils, etc, and extended to full-blown orgiastic acts including 'defloweration' of virgins.

All the dictionary definitions I can find suggest that dildos are intended for, and used for, insertion. This suggests that they should be designed for that purpose. I think you are correct in using "phallus" in the sentence above; as "phallus" can either mean a real penis, or an object shaped like one. -- Karada 12:24, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Etymology

The Latin etymology given in the beginning of the article is nonsensical. There is no Latin verb dildare. The false etymology is probably someone's joke and must be removed, if Wikipedia should not mislead its readers. 188.95.60.182 (talk)

Why is the false etymology still there? The above comment is correct, the latin etymology is nonsensical and directly contradicts the later article. Can't remove it myself because the article is locked. --91.153.52.162 (talk) 19:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Removed. Above comments are correct (a cursory search reveals that the word is of obscure etymology). Anagogist (talk) 20:27, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

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) 19:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Sexual Wellness

If there is a project on here regarding Sexual Wellness, I think it would be beneficial to include it in that scope as this article is within that category for inclusion. 2601:642:4400:9F00:40BE:5017:3B61:E593 (talk) 21:58, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

An Archaic stringed instrument.

Oxford unabridged dictionary that I read in the 8th grade. And if you search "Dildo Archaic Stringed Instrument" you will find it. 100.15.34.88 (talk) 21:43, 17 April 2023 (UTC)