Talk:Erotic electrostimulation

Is this a how-to, or an encyclopedic entry? --malber 20:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

I have cut down the the "safety" section, which consisted mostly of instructions and advice. This is inappropriate; see Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia_is_not_an_indiscriminate_collection_of_information #8 --G0zer 05:52, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Still (or again) reads much like a how-to.--24.85.82.38 (talk) 06:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

What does electrostimulation specifically do sexually?

Their should be a section that explains what erotic electrostimulation devices do in terms of stimulation and why it is some people like to use them in their sex play. I've heard they cause a man's penis to become erect and eventually can cause ejaculation all by themselves. Also they can cause orgasm in woman too supposedly. --Cab88 19:49, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It would be nice to be able to cite proper sources regarding this, but I have a feeling there's not a whole lot of mainstream coverage of it. --Interiot 19:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

It seems somewhat strange to delete the addition of a link to a large and almost encyclopaedic source,self help and information site that I posted,yet at the same time suggest that prectitioners of electrostimming do their best to find information about safe practises.[see article]I suspect there may be a certain degree of censorship going on from a moderator who maybe disapproves of such things.

Yes, the best articles I have found like http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/561610 are not of the kind that can be quoted on the main page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dan88888 (talk • contribs) 16:50, 31 July 2011 (UTC)

Why people do it is psychological, however, yes to the above. Electric shocks can create an erection(or generate a contraction in any muscle) and can cause ejaculation. In order to get semen from corpses, or from people who are paralyzed, an electric prod is inserted into the rectum which then releases a current causing the erection/ejaculation.(although there are other ways, prostrate massage, etc)AerobicFox (talk) 06:01, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

"prostrate massage!" Edison (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Incorrect Safety Information

In an attempt to be cautious, this statement in the Safety section is too broad and way off base:

"Even at relatively low current and voltage, there is the risk for electrocution resulting in heart failure…"

Having an EE background, I can advise that the statement is almost meaningless. The problem would be amperage, not voltage by itself. A car battery can be used for welding, but its voltage is harmless to humans. In fact, static electricity is extremely high voltage, higher than almost anything else the average person is likely to encounter.

This needs to be reworded and clarified.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by UnicornTapestry (talk • contribs) 17:03, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It says "current and voltage", so not voltage by itself. Would removing the 'and voltage' simply solve the problem? - Zeibura ^(Talk) 18:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a little more complex than that. I'll give this thought and come up with better wording. --UnicornTapestry 10:58, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

It may be that current is what can cause heart failure, but high voltage is far from safe- it can still cause some extremely bad burns. --98.203.233.109 (talk) 21:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

History

I've removed the references to e-stim 'evolving from electric shock as entertainment, which was pioneered by Edison labs related to the invention of the electric chair', and replaced it with less dramatic but more accurate historical information. Electricity was used for entertainment purposes at least as early as the electrical craze of the 1740s, and execution by means of electricity was first proposed in 1887. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metkat (talk • contribs) 18:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Smartstim

I've removed the spamming of this article with multiple links to the smartstim home page. If any material in this article was actually sourced from that site, citations to the actual pages containing the original information are needed - the purpose of a citation is to identify the exact source of information, not to provide a general site link that would then have to be searched by the reader -- Boing! said Zebedee 11:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

To reply to a comment at User_talk:HalJor#Smartstim...

Hi.

The "Official links" guideline is not relevant, as that is referring to cases where the article is about the organization itself. Thus a Smartstim link would be fine (and encouraged) in an article about Smartstim, but that doesn't make it a reliable source for more general articles, like the Erotic electrostimulation article. The claim that Smartstim "invented Electro Stimulation" is, of course, complete nonsense - people have been stimulating themselves (and each other) electrically since electricity was invented. (And it's a forum - forums don't invent anything).

Its being a "Community" site does not make it applicable either. "Community" sites - ie forums, blogs, etc - are not reliable sources for information for Wikipedia articles, as anyone can add anything they like to them. Wikipedia articles need to be written from reliable sources whose information can be checked - see WP:RS. Having said that, as I said above, if material is actually sourced from Smartstim, then citations to the actual information pages themselves are needed, not just multiple links to the site's home page (I removed 21 copies of the link!).

If anyone disagrees and thinks Smarstim satisfies the WP:RS guidelines, please do explain your reasoning here - I'll be happy for it to be included if it meets Wikipedia's requirements -- Boing! said Zebedee 12:02, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Ultra perverse response! In the case, if silly games are to played, please remove the Electro Stimulation page due to extensive copyright infringement of smartstim.com and replace with a smartstim page!95.149.232.170 (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC) It would be much easier all round if you let the link stand. After all, who apart from you is complaining about it. It fulfils WP requirements, but obviously not yours! This is Wikipedia, nor Boingpedia! Why are you making this personal and getting all defensive boing?95.149.232.170 (talk) 12:52, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I'm not making this personal, and I'm certainly not being rude to others by calling their opinions "ultra perverse" or anything at all like that - I am just applying the Wikipedia rules concerning external links (as per WP:EL). As far as I can see (and you have not demonstrated otherwise), spamming the article with Smartstim links and making claims that Smartstim "invented Electro Stimulation" does not satisfy WP requirements - and if you disagree, you need to explain why, rather than just criticize me personally. As for who is complaining about it? It doesn't matter - if it does not satisfy WP standards, it doesn't go in - whether one person or a thousand object to it (and it has clearly been the subject of some edit-warring already, so I am not the first). Is it copyright? I don't know, because nobody has provided any actual source links - but if you have evidence that it is a copyright infringement, please feel free to add {{subst:copyvio|the_source_url}} (where "the_source_url" is the actual source of the copyright material) to the top of the article page to bring it to admin attention. (Hmm, you know - the idea of a "Boingopedia" does have a ring to it ;-) -- Boing! said Zebedee 13:28, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

The link in question clearly violates WP:EL and the user who put it in apparently has an affiliation with the subject so I'm not sure it even needs to be discussed further. Consensus seems to be against inclusion regardless.Falcon8765 (talk) 18:40, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi -- just to make clear, I never changed anything nor put any links anywhere (what the logs clearly show) and the person who did change the site is a member on the site yes. I am as well and nevertheless I won't change the site because as I stated before edit-wars seem rather childish to me. I explained the reason why I think it is really carefree to leave this article with further information to those who search for information here FURTHERMORE one of the members of this wikipedia stated that the rules cited (6;10) don't seem to apply from his point of view as explained here
so I would very kindly ask you to rethink your opinion - for the safety of the readers of this article. As I stated before the picture with the female bust that you show on the site illustrates a really dangerous practice and leaving members with just this information CAN lead to damage for those people who seek advise just on wikipedia and are left alone with just this information -- I think differing opinions about what rules apply should stand back behind safety with dangerous sex practices, don't you think? 95.222.175.61 (talk) 19:29, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

If you can provide another source for safety information, then by all means include it in the article. Falcon8765 (talk) 19:34, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

It was my comment in the change history, referring to "the rules cited (6; 10)" -- specifically, WP:ELNO:

6) "Links to sites that require payment or registration to view the relevant content, unless the site itself is the subject of the article, or the link is a convenience link to a citation." I did visit the site but I couldn't read anything without registering. And the site is not *the* subject of the article -- the site is *about* the subject of the article.

10) "Links to social networking sites (such as MySpace and Facebook), chat or discussion forums/groups (such as Yahoo! Groups), Twitter feeds, USENET newsgroups or e-mail lists." The site is a discussion forum.

The only justification that 95.149.232.170 left on my talk page was that the site is an "official link", although it violates the first point of WP:ELOFFICIAL:

An official link is a link to a website or other Internet service that meets both of the following: 1. The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article. and 2. The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable.

I see no reason to support this site's continued inclusion in the article, and three very specific reasons to exclude it. HalJor (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Since Wiki has ignored advice from several Smartstim users with regard to safety advice, Smartstim users will now quote this discussion forum and Wikipedia's decision in this matter should safety concerns be raised in the media. 88.110.189.0 (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Good luck with that. Falcon8765 (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Possible damage to the human body

There should be a section in here with possible damage to the human body for example: burns, protein coagulation, vascular thrombosis and tissue death and at what voltages these can occur at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.213.115.34 (talk) 00:18, 27 June 2010 (UTC)

Where better to include a lengthy, generalized exposition on the dangers of electrocution than in a highly specific erotic electrostimulation article? Anything written specifically on the dangers associated with this practice is fine, things like "protein coagulation, vascular thrombosis"(which are basically the same thing btw) should be left to general electrocution articles.AerobicFox (talk) 06:07, 1 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm new to wikipedia editing. The part about "Deaths have been reported from using a power strip (with switch) plugged into the mains and connected to the nipples." is beyond ridiculous. I'm an electrical engineer. I know electricity (but I'm not a doctor). From what I understand, if you put 115volts across your chest, that's almost guaranteed death. In fact, it's about as bad of a situation as you can arrange with line voltage. So I added "Deaths [are likely and] have been reported...", to prevent people from thinking it might be safe in some cases. Sorry if that's not proper wiki etiquette, but that was one of the most dangerous things I've read on wp so far. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.116.8.15 (talk) 15:04, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

I understand your position, but the sentence as written stated that deaths have been reported, and that's what the cited references indicate -- those are reports of such deaths. If you can find a verifiable reference that death is likely, that would be good to include, but it is not proper wiki etiquette to alter a cited statement, particularly if the change is not in the cited reference. HalJor (talk) 18:03, 26 October 2013 (UTC)

Electrodes

I'm wondering about the sentence "Electrodes can also be created by modifying medical machinery, telephone electromagnets and other devices that are electrical sources" Surely an electromagnet and "other electrical sources" wouldn't fit into the definition of an electrode. Spiderwebby (talk) 13:33, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

perhaps not in a technical sense, but for its purpose within this context, sure it does. ViniTheHat (talk) 14:24, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Most electromagnets have insulated/isolated casings and batteries/generators would prove somewhat impractical. I think the sentence in question belongs more in the home made power sources section (with the word "electrodes" replaced.)Spiderwebby (talk) 14:36, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Go ahead. Frankly I don't see how a telephone electromagnet, qualifies as an "electrical source" anyway. See what you can make of it. ViniTheHat (talk) 15:10, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Good point actually.. if that's a direct quote then that book's a bit rubbish.

edit: it's a misquote, the book states that telephone magnetos (among other things) can be used as "devices" Spiderwebby (talk) 16:14, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

do telephones actually have magnetos ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.58.212 (talk) 15:56, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

Lubrication

The article calls attention to the fact that the section has no references. I don't believe credible references exist since the electricity theory explains why the use of lubrication is more likely to cause a burn than its absence. Burns are caused by excessive heat. Heat is proportional to current, which is greater when lubrication is used. Its possible someone may have the impression that lubrication or lack thereof is related to a burn, but there's a greater chance the cause is due to an imbalanced AC (or pulsed DC) signal. DC causes burns much more quickly. Since voltage causes tissue to go numb, increasing the voltage will not be felt. Units that don't limit both current and voltage are more likely to cause burns for this reason. Information about safe (and not-so-safe) voltages is available in research about stun guns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.122.92.207 (talk) 03:57, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

This is not completely correct in stating that lubrication must increase burn risk. Burns are more directly related to current density than to current itself. Lubrication enlarges the contact area, so while increasing the current by reducing contact resistance, it may reduce the current density at the boundary layer between electrode and skin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.57.146.244 (talk) 23:09, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

ErosTek 312

Subtle spamming and or commercial advertising seems to have been slipped into this article. Explicit mention of the ErosTek 312 as a representative product and the inclusion of a picture for that product smacks of advertising. Thus, I have removed the textual reference to ErosTek 312. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.49.37.153 (talk) 11:53, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Men vs. women

Don't men use these much more than women? If so, shouldn't it be mentioned? deisenbe (talk) 01:48, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

risks: ozone

These high-voltage sparking devices produce a quite notable amount of ozone. Might be an idea to mention related health risks with this. --Gerlindewurst73 (talk) 22:03, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

I can't find anything supporting this. If you can find a reliable source, it may be worth mentioning if there is reasonable risk. I have to admit I'm skeptical, though. HalJor (talk) 00:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)