Talk:Sex machine

Comment
Background: Fucking machines can be used for vaginal penetration, anal penetration, or penile stimulation through attachments (e.g. ManJack) that can hold vaginal simulators, such as the Fleshlight. I advise anyone interested in the experience to first review images of people using them on sites such as www.fuckingmachines.com. I cannot emphasize enough the importance of purchasing a high quality device, which can cost in excess of $1000 US. The reader can find an excellent FAQ at http://www.orgasmalley.com/faq.htm.

Advice for Reciprocating (thrusting) Fucking Machines: The user attaches a dildo to the reciprocating rod with either a Vac-U-lock attachment or for dildos with a flat base, the user can strap the dildo onto a small flat metal plate that screws into the rod. The soft, flexible dildos are better than hard dildos, especially for anal sex. High quality machines are usually heavy, but should be secured to some structure to keep them from moving. The user will have to experiment to find the best angle of penetration, which usually involves a comfortable posture in which the dildo will stroke against the g-spot or prostate, or in deeper anal penetration, stroke the vagus nerve area. Fucking Machines greatest appeal is their ability to stroke the right spot indefinitely until the user experiences orgasm. It is common for women to achieve multiple orgasms, and to the writer’s knowledge, the fucking machine is the only phenomena that could overcome the orgasm dampening affects of seratonin reuptake inhibitors, such as Zoloft and Wellbutrin.

Music: Industrial music makes and excellent accompaniment to sex play with a Fucking Machine. Synchronizing the music with the thrusting action immerses the user much more fully. The reviewer recommends Lords of Acid in particular.--Authorityfigure 01:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Comment
Is the term "Fucking Machine" really acceptable? I mean, the same result could be achieved through the term "Autoerotic-assistance machine" or something. The term "Fucking machine" is rather blunt and harsh. I only clicked because I thought "Wikipedia couldn't possably use something so crass!" So please, I implore you, change the name of the article. 65.96.103.25 00:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

The term "Fucking Machine" is an extremely common search term for this concept. Therefore, the term is appropriate.--Authorityfigure 00:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC


 * I agree with the IP comment. I couldn't believe the title either. Note that the title of this talk page is actually a good one (IMO) and is different from the article title. While it is true that censorship/expurgation is in general a bad idea (because limiting permissable words limits the expression of knowledge; no one is forced to read Wikipedia, which is openly and by policy free of censorship), the use of crude words, jargon, or slang do not belong in an encyclopedia without a very good rationale. Use as a search term would seem to be a weak rationale. And last but not least, I wonder if WP should help numb our children (who use WP to help with schoolwork) to language which their parents and teachers find objectionable or even offensive for a variety of reasons. David Spector (talk) 03:28, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Comment
Wikipedia does not censor for children or people easily offended by language. A title is a title, end of story. --Anthonysenn 02:28, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I disagree. While I know WP isn't censored, one usually uses the proper term for an article, not the most common. For example, poop disambiguates to feces and defecation. --Scienceman123 04:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Moved. --Scienceman123 01:33, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no idea whence this “proper term” was derived. A FA I CT, it’s simply the most pedantic sesquipedalian phrase that could be conjured to describe the thing. In fact, WP:COMMONNAMES does explicitly state that the most common name for the subject is to be used. While sometimes popular-but-erroneous, or confusing common names are rejected to avoid ambiguity or prevent perpetuating misconceptions, this is neither case. A “fucking machine” is not confused with any other kind of sexual device and it is, in fact, a machine that fucks. —Wiki Wikardo 09:47, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It occurs to me that Delta112 wants to somehow take an article about cunt-ramming apparatus and turn them into some sort of respectable hysteria-relieving marital aid suitable for dinner conversation by employing ridiculous, needlessly opaque terminology (sort of like “high velocity lead poisoning.”) I’d be perfectly open to a page name that won’t get you in trouble with the yard duty if the term has any amount of currency—as it is, though, I can find no evidence “automated erotic stimulation device” wasn’t just made up by some editor, and even if it’s not, exactly, I still think WP:COMMONNAMES would mandate the page at a title that contains a naughty word. While we’re at it, why not move fuck to fornication under consent of king or some nonsense like that? (Yes, I’m sure it has a redirect)

On a completely unrelated note, I think I’m going to take this out of BDSM equipment. I mean, sure, you sometimes see it used like that, but I don’t see it any more as BDSM equipment than a dildo, or a feather duster. —Wiki Wikardo 17:52, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Propose to separate from "fucking machine"
I'd argue that fucking machine should not redirect here. It's quite a different device to an automated erotic stimulation device. In fact, as the article is currently named, this could be merged with Vibrator (sex toy). A fucking machine specifically is a machine that has an in and out movement, usually without vibration. It's primary purpose is not erotic stimulation, but to fuck. It doesn't necessarily erotically stimulate the receiver (although it can), but visually it needs to look like fucking. The examples given so far in this article, the Sybian, for example, do not qualify as a fucking machine. --Rebroad (talk) 10:23, 16 January 2010 (UTC)


 * See above. In fact, this article title is a meaningless string of words made up by a prudish editor, and should be moved back to fucking machine (the common name). —Wiki Wikardo 08:46, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Contested deletion
This page should not be speedily deleted because it is clearly not nonsense. A reasonable person can glean understanding about a notable subject and the article is not written in gibberish as originally suggested. Also wikipedia is not censored so deletion due to "adult content" is also not a valid reason to nominate for speedy deletion as suggested. Upon re-reading the CSD none of the article criteria are met in this article. --Nicoli Maege (talk) 13:53, 22 April 2013 (UTC)
 * oops, speedy deletion was already contested by User:Favonian, in that case I ✅ with said user.  Nicoli Maege (talk) 14:01, 22 April 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sex machine. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150123095908/http://gawker.com/5774501/americas-greatest-university-demonstrates-fucksaw-for-captivated-students to http://gawker.com/5774501/americas-greatest-university-demonstrates-fucksaw-for-captivated-students

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 04:15, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Vibrator origins
The article refers to the origins of the vibrator as follows, The vibrator was originally invented for the treatment of hysteria in Victorian women through medical orgasm induced by clitoral massage. The source quoted is the book by Rachel Maines, ''The Technology of Orgasm: "Hysteria," the Vibrator, and Women's Sexual Satisfaction. Johns Hopkins University Press'' Following the publication of a paper in the Journal of Positive Sexuology Failure-of-Academic-Quality-Control-Technology-of-Orgasm, Ms Maines's thesis must be challenged. The paper argues that the authors find no evidence in the sources cited by Ms Maines that support her claims. In the light of this paper I suggest that the above quotation from the page should be qualified to reflect these findings. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 00:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Potential COI
Some of the text in this article appears to have been written by someone associated with the site Fucking Machines (in particular, their site is mentioned several times and competitors are not). Mfillmore76 (talk) 07:17, 12 August 2019 (UTC)