Talk:Vibrator (sex toy)

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) 12:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)


 * ok 128.92.218.250 (talk) 12:35, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I think we need a separate article for personal/back/electric massagers as apposed to strictly for sex toy vibrators
Some facts to incorporate into this article article and a separate article on electric muscle massagers: 1. The terms vibrator (as used in this article) and electric massager, while technically referring to the same thing, in common usage refer to two different type of products. The word vibrator in common usage tends to refer only to a type of sex toy that vibrates for the purpose of sexual stimulation. The term electric massager tends to be usage more for devices sold as personal messagers or back massagers and ostensibly designed to be used primarily for electric massaging of muscles. Yes, many personal/back massagers also serves a duel purpose of sexual stimulation but that the purpose they are sold for. Electric messagers sold for muscle messaging can be found in drug stores and department stores where you don't find sex toy vibrators. 2. Since some electric massagers are not that suitable for sexual stimulation, I think a separate article is warranted for true muscle/back electric messagers. 3. Since many personal/back messagers do also work a sexual stimulator and in some cases are primarily used of that purpose despite being solved as muscle messagers, we should include a section on them in this article that summarize how they are also used for sexual stimulation though not sold that purpose. 4. Some sexual electric messagers are really manufactured primarily for sexual purposes but sold as "personal messagers" for legal reasons to avoid the restrictions or ban on sex toys in some jurisdictions. In the same token, some "personal messagers" really are intended primarily for muscle messaging even they can also provide sexual stimulation. 4. Personal messagers, since they are not sold as sex toys but rather medical/health devices, in many jurisdictions they do not have the same restrictions on sales placed on them such minimum age for purchase. Does anyone see any reasons why we shouldn't have a separate article on personal/back/muscle messagers, as distinct from vibrators as sex toys and if so why?. --Notcharliechaplin (talk) 12:28, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

Though its a complicated issue, but I agree that some really are designed for muscle massage, and there ought to be an article for that. Sometimes "personal massagers" really are intended to be sex toys and are sold without being explicitly labeled as such so it can be sold in drug stores, etc, and yet ones designed for muscle massage really are sold and bought for that purpose also, and this article seems to deny or downplay their existence, for example implying that vibrating back massagers are just clitoral vibrators in disguise and no one actually uses them for muscle massage, I don't think that's accurate. I think vibrating massagers actually intended primarily for nongenital massage should have their own article. Of course it would probably link here in the "see also" part and would probably need to bring up the fact that pretty much anything that vibrates will be subject to some degree of off-label use as a sex toy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.198.130.29 (talk) 03:17, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

As of 2020 Walgreens pharmacy sell sexual vibrators... some of which are labelled personal massager on the box. So some are definitely intended as sex toys and not just upcycled as such by users. Dakinijones (talk) 21:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Remove the pornographic image link
I have no desire to see a gigantic picture of a splay legged woman with a vibrator in her vagina when all I'm trying to do is have a laugh. What sort of an idiot puts a massive nude picture up unnecessarily anyway? Kids could click this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7d:adbd:de00:464:1c9b:8bf7:6dcd (talk) 18:45, 2 May 2016‎ (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This sort of exposure to normal human sexuality never hurt anyone—child or otherwise. There are plenty of things here far more disturbing than a non-pornographic photograph of someone masturbating, something many children do. (I sure did.) As for encountering this image when you came here for amusement, I believe that's called a "dead dove" moment. Anyway, Wikipedia is not censored, so your request is respectfully declined.   Rebb  ing   19:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

Rebbing’s right about wiki policy AFAIK... and yet the image has disappeared without being replaced by something similar. Apparently vibrator use by a woman is more threatening than images of pegging etc elsewhere on wiki. Strange that. Dakinijones (talk) 21:14, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Reliable?
is centerforfemalesexuality.com a reliable source? The domain is redirecting to another website that provides paid consultation services so isn't this a violation of WP:LINKSTOAVOID#5? Thank you. GSS  &#128172; 12:26, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I don't know anything about the source. Is it a concern? - Bilby (talk) 12:48, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, as per WP:LINKSTOAVOID#5 Individual web pages that primarily exist to "sell products or services", or to web pages with objectionable amounts of advertising. we can't include such sources so we either need to remove the entire source or replace with something reliable. GSS &#x202F;&#128172; 13:12, 10 December 2020 (UTC)
 * If you like, I guess. I don't see any reason not to replace it if there is something better. - Bilby (talk) 13:17, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

Maines Conjecture
There is almost no good support for Maine's conjecture. When there is an argument that most historians have pointed out that there are serious flaws with that make it impossible, and its supporters, to the extent that there are any, have not even embraced her full hypothesis, I doubt it warrants this much space. I'm removing most of it.

For a good recap:

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20181107-the-history-of-the-vibrator DenverCoder19 (talk) 00:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)