Talk:Artificial vagina

Name change

Suggest article be renamed Artficial orifice (or similar) as it's more neutral, especially for the section describing its use as a sex toy. — AMK1211^talk! 23:54, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately for that suggestion, the correct - and technical- term is "Artificial Vagina", and therefore usage of any other term will not reflect the accuracy of terminology! Equus caballus (talk) 03:29, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Picture

I don't think we really need a picture of a couple sex toys on this page. It's inappropriate for children. -CDClock —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CDClock (talk • contribs) 20:29, 13 January 2007.

I've added the image again. Please read the following policy: WP:NOT#CENSORED. The image in question accurately and plainly depicts the article's subject matter, and I believe it is definitely worth including it. Robotman1974 09:01, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Kid's search for artificial vagina's on wikipedia?!?

Advert for Fleshlight

Fleshlight deserves it's own article or section.

Please view these results returned by Inventory dot overture.

Searches done in August 2005 Count Search Term 18611 fleshlight

Count Search Term 5316 male sex toy

Count Search Term 8676 sex toy for men

Count Search Term 3450 artificial vagina

As you can see, there are more searches for the Fleshlight brand, than the combined suggested category. The Fleshlight is truely a sexual alternative for men and is not sold as a novelty.

This sounds like a sales pitch. -EdgarAllanToe 20:06, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

S/he does make a good point though, Rabbit has it's own article. So should fleshlight. Mathmo ^Talk 15:27, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

The Fleshlight really gets too much text on the page. I'm trimming it way back. I'd prefer to expand the whole article, but I don't know where I'd find information on artifical vaginas.--Prosfilaes 03:29, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I've re-worked this article to talk about sex toys and medical simulations, to hopefully remove the emphasis on a particular product. 150.101.214.82 09:10, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Vaginae???

Is vaginae a real word? What is wrong with vaginas ? It certainly sounds less awkward... what do the rest of you editorae think? 67.49.8.228 07:27, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

image

thats funny, i just noticed it was the small, lips of the vulva, All those porn adds, and i thought it was a mouth XD.--217.112.178.238 (talk) 04:11, 21 December 2008 (UTC)

Interesting

So there are now wanking machines out there? Why would someone need a machine to fap? 192.12.88.7 (talk) 02:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Written by a virgin?

"Though the natural vagina does not include any nubs and ribs inside the tunnel..."

Um. Yes they do. -98.230.53.210 (talk) 03:55, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

"Artificial vagina" not a word used to refer to sex toys.

If "artificial vaginas" are really used in animal breeding, that is an entirely different thing than sex toys for adult humans, Fleshlights and the like. Toys like the Fleshlight and the Tenga are more commonly referred to as "masturbators" or "male masturbators" or "masturbation toys". This article is all wrong. I work in a sex shop and have been trained extensively, I have never, ever, ever heard anybody call and ask for an "artificial vagina". They only ask for fleshlights and masturbators or "toys for men" or "masturbation sleeve".

I suspect that the original point of the article was to describe the device used for breeding animals, then somebody decided that sex toys for men are the same thing. They are not. Male masturbation devices need their own article and should be completely separated from this page. Nobody uses the term artificial vagina for these things, and it would be entirely inaccurate to call them that anyway. Most of them are not vagina-shaped or even intended to look like a vagina. There are some that look like a mouth, some that look like an anus, and some that look like none of the above or don't have any particularly descriptive features, and are just a soft sleeve.

I am not sure how to go about the splitting. The fact that these toys are lumped into this article is inaccurate and somewhat offensive (that they must be imitating vaginas - they are not necessarily. Some are, some are not.)

Also the person who made a comment saying that calling it an "artificial orifice" is inaccurate, was wrong. That would be a better name than this.

I am worried that nobody else who knows anything about sex toys has ever taken a look at this article at all. It needs more attention - men buy these things and I'm sure some look them up on wikipedia to try to understand them. As it is, this article is entirely not-useful and possibly damaging to their knowledge about the topic.

204.191.89.201 (talk) 00:55, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

It has been a year since I asked if someone can deal with this. Is it a lost cause? I am worried that this article itself is harmful, in that it has caused the term "artificial vagina" to become more popular than it is due, since it is on wikipedia and linked into the sex project. For the record "male masturbator" gets more than twice as many hits as "artificial vagina" on google, and this page is the top hit for "artificial vagina". I'm sure it's creating much of that traffic.

It needs to be changed. The title should be "male masturbator" or "masturbation sleeve". I just am not sure how to go about it. A Sexpert (talk) 10:31, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

I think this subject probably doesn't have many experts. You're probably right that human sex toys and animal breeding tools are only tangentially related. If I were you, I'd just go ahead and split it. I've added a split template. 50.195.91.9 (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

I see no valid reason to "split [this article] into multiple articles accessible from a disambiguation page," as suggested by the split tag. Therefore, I removed the split tag.

As for this section's title, I have read and heard "artificial vagina" used to refer to sex toys that resemble vaginas. Flyer22 (talk) 15:09, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Artificial vagina. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20091013165745/http://www.articlesabout.biz:80/society/sexuality/have-a-realistic-pattern-of-your-privates.html to http://www.articlesabout.biz/society/sexuality/have-a-realistic-pattern-of-your-privates.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• 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.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

accommodating any penis size

Mathglot how is most penis sizes not supported but any penis size is supported. You seem to be stalking me too.Marketless (talk) 02:28, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

@Marketless: You are correct that the previous version is also not supported. If you dispute that version, you have every right to tag it {{citation needed}}, to find a source for it and add it, or indeed, to change it, as you did here. However, the original version was there first, and is accorded de facto consensus by WP:SILENCE; so if you alter it, as you did, and are reverted, then you need to follow the recommendations at WP:BRD and discuss your intended change on the talk page. This is what you've started here, so bravo for that. Now, you need to find a consensus for your preferred version, or reliable sources that support your version. You can't simply edit war back and forth, just because you like your version better. At some point, that will end up getting you blocked. Mathglot (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

As far as stalking, I removed various edits of yours that were clearly intended as test edits, or jokes. If you want to make a test edit please use the sandbox instead. Cordially, Mathglot (talk) 02:53, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The previous version of any penis size was incorrect. It does not fit freak penises either micro or massive. Don't need a source to correct something so clearly wrong but you may have another opinion.Marketless (talk) 03:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Going by "something so clearly wrong" is not the way we determine the content of articles at Wikipedia. It has nothing to do with my opinion or your opinion, neither of which count as far as the content of the article, either. Stick to what reliable sources say. If unwilling to find sources that support your version and add citations to them, stick to the consensus version that was in place before you arrived. Mathglot (talk) 04:11, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Allow me to put it a different way. It is an error and has nothing to do with reliable sources in this instance. Same dicks are just ginormous and others are miniscule so it doesn't fit any size like your opinion may think. That is just not possible.Marketless (talk) 04:33, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not interested in your opinion of what you think is possible or impossible. Get a citation to a reliable source, or just give it up and move on to the next thing. Mathglot (talk) 07:56, 17 June 2018 (UTC)