Talk:Fleshlight/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

I agree with comment below, I think affiliate links are bullshit, this guy whores his link around the forum he moderates, he'll be fine.

Do not allow people to link to thier personal affiliation site, it's unfair advertising, why do they get thier commercial site listed but when I want to add a non commercial information link, it dets deleted?

I think this is an interesting article that i've created, simply because of the implications for male sexuality and male sexual empowerement. However, i can see how some people might object to it as being a promotion of fleshlight.com. For this reason, i have neglected to include that external link.

I'm curious to know if another editor feels differently.

I don't think it merits a separate article - it's just, as you wrote, a slight variation (if any) on the artificial vagina. As for the speculation on empowerment, etc., I think that belongs in a more general discussion of masturbation or sex toys, rather than specific products. I'm going to suggest that the article be deleted or merged - no offense. —Hob←Talk 10:09, 2004 Aug 8 (UTC) (p.s. it's good practice to sign your comments.)

Yeah, I agree that the article should be merged with 'artificial vagina,' but keeping the empowerment stuff intact. User: deadbarnacle (i don't feel like bothering with wikipedia markup).

Off topic, but just use ~~~~ (thats 4 tildes) to automatically sign your messages like this: Reid 01:31, Aug 17, 2004 (UTC)

why don't you do the merging? i no longer care about anything, which includes wikipedia. thanks for the signing tip, tho Deadbarnacle 17:10, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I am against merging, but I find it difficult to explain exactly why. Suggesting that they merge is almost like suggesting the Mac shouldn't have a separate page - after all, it is 'only' one of a series of personal computers from Apple... Yes, the Fleshlight is an artificial vagina toy and it's not the only one, but it was a breakthrough design, much imitated since (see the host of 'cyberflesh' toys). I am vaguely tempted to make the AV page better (for example, including a history of such toys), but having done so, I would have even more separate pages for notable individual examples. Lovingboth 15:14, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for adding the proper link to the patent. I do love the name of it... Lovingboth 10:40, September 7, 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the ~~~~ thing :D Deltro 06:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Orifice names

I noticed that in the article, the "Lady" orifice was listed as "pussy". I changed the label to "Lady" and linked it to the "Vagina" page.

Fleshlight external links

Hello guys, My name is Manca...and I am the owner of www.fleshlightlive.com blog. The blog is great resource for anyone interested in fleshlight. And it provides very good information about this product. Unfortunately, when I add my site to external links list of Fleshlight article it's being removed all the time...why's that?

Please don't delete my link anymore, coz it is not spam! I just want to contribute to this community and help people to find fresh, new and quality information.

Thanks a lot, Manca.

I think its time to ban this Bozo from IP address 87.197.134.45 who is constantly spamming this page and adding his affiliate referral ID to the fleshlight.com URL.

By the way Manca's blog provides NO NEW information that you cant find on the fleshlight.com site or the other two resources that precede it. Manca's blog is simply another spammy affiliate site trying to sell FleshLight.

EVERYONE please stop adding spam links. We allow three links, the main site and the two premier informational sites. THATS IT. If we allow e.g. fleshlight.co.uk then pretty soon we'll have a list an arm long of all the knock off fleshlight sites in Bellarus and Montenegro and China. STOP ALREADY. Enough is enough. Find some other way to get your site noticed by google (yes we know EXACTLY what this is about).

Bolt_Head: I only added a link to a short article I wrote about ILF, the company behind this product, please leave it alone as it doesnt affect anyone/thing.

Stop deleting the addition of Legends Gym and the FAQ, they're both OFFICIAL and informative additions of Fleshlight (ILF)! If you continue to delete those links, the the others will continue to get deleted. And what's this 'we allow 3 links'.... dude this is a public site for information don't try to go pushing people around! People that want to learn about the Fleshlight come here and would prefer legit links versus sales links.

• The links added are one click away once you get to the main site. The official site is where to get links in their site, not here. Also, this is a private site with its own rules. It is publically available and editable, but only within the rules laid out. Please click the "help" link on the left side of your screen. Thanks!--Mboverload 22:49, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• And your entire page information can EASILY be copied and pasted INTO this page where it should have been from the start. The idea of this site is to give users information, so why give them nothing and then tell them to visit your site? As per the external link rules set out by Wikipedia, "As a general rule of thumb: if you wish to place the link in Wikipedia in order to drive traffic to a site, it probably doesn't belong here." *cough *cough.

05/07/2006: As a general rule does the "external links" section have to come at the end of the file?

Colors

I tightened up the colors, no need to devote a whole display line to to each color that has been discontinued. I want to tighten up the space use of this page so it all fits inside a single page display on a regula 800x600 screen.

Deletion of Criticism

I posted several items of criticism for this product, which were then removed.

If anything, wikipedia should be a forum for all opinions. Deleting criticisms would just make this a cheap form of advertisement.

I will be reporting this to Wikipedia.

• It's kind of hard to evaluate your claims if you don't even provide a name. --Mboverload 02:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

• Does anyone know a source of critical information about fleshlight on the net? That would be interesting.

<off-topic> Or is it just like the Mac users? (I am one of them! ;) — Those who criticize usually neither know nor use the Mac… ;) And those who use, normally love them, so it's really hard-pressed to find someone bragging and complaining like all those Windows people — you don't talk bad about beloved ones… ;))) </off-topic>

Then again: Isn't it possible to review all the changes? So, Mr(s?). Anonymous, please tell us when… ;))) Fx46 21:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Male Sex “Toys” in general vs. Fleshlight

I am really not sure if this is the right place to talk about personal experiences with such stuff (which I had!—and mostly negative…), since I suppose forums are more expected to contain such subjective matter with no research other than self-experience, and some of them are already linked at the bottom of the page (or should be).

But aside from such objection or concern, I think (or suspect) that sex toys (or tools as I would describe them, since—if constructed right—they provide a real useful service as opposed to “just” game) for men are far more difficult to construct due to some implications (or should I say limits?) of the male body compared to the female body:

1. Vibrator for men/women:
   • Most men have only rel. small erogeneous zones (right?) on their penis; so an arousal device will have to stay focused on those parts or be “broad-band” enough to cover them (it?) all.
   • The erection of the penis makes it difficult for such tools to stay in place, either fixed manually—difficult, depending on the vibrator's shape—or by some elastic, maybe condom-like measure. I'm not sure how well these work; though not really expensive, I've not yet tried one myself. A (medical!) massaging device with an excellent, strong, fast vibration was good, only it was difficult to be kept on the “sweet spot”, the glans, that is.

   In fact, the existing vibrators for men aren't even remotely covered by what I've yet seen in articles here—and on the net; the last link on the vibrator page for instance is a very biased view of someone appearently condemming (amongst many others) most (or rather all!) non-coital sex practice! What good can be expected from such a person? It looks like it is the same kind of born-again-christian type as e.g. G.W. Bush, who damns certain behavior, like someone giving up an addiction and developing an anti-engagement thereafter... In my opinion, it's becoming the new drug! ;)

2. Simulation of real sex organs for men and women:

   If women really need/want/benifit from a simulation of a penis, that can't be that hard to do, if they provide the movement themselves. And since the shape, rigidity etc. of it is pretty obvious, a dildo can be chosen quite easily, quasi by hand selection…

   But:

   • an artificial vagina? — Hard to do. What must it be shaped like? How must the structure look like? What materials make it a similar consistency? It can only be guessed by most people, since it's inside the woman's body… So, a good deal of research must be made, before even trying to get next to such a thing…

I did not care too much myself about that before, since I was amongst the (rare?) men actually preferring vibrator or even manual stimulus to intercourse; but with my current ex-partner, after separation, I enjoyed most of our intercourses for the first time.

So now I think, if a vagina sim-ulation could be an as good Stim-ulation as an acurately-shaped (sort of "good-tasting") real vagina, it can be a good help for someone who has a family and a job, but not the urge and the time to look for some partner just for “that thing called” — no, not love, but — “sex” … !

And this might be the case with Fleshlight, since I think it's not the usual artificial vagina crap offered by others… I've yet to verify this, since I did not try one myself. But good intercourse simulators are rare, that's why good, non-biased information about that subject is worthy!

I suggest that any non-crap or even superbe male toy should get it's page here, no matter what!

Fx46 14:46, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

It's probably not the place, but... :) yep, there are problems in making a good sex toy for men, which is one of the reasons so many of them are crap. (Another being that even crap sells in this market, sigh.) In the interests of research - oh, alright, because I enjoy sexual pleasure - I have tried a variety of them. I've no experience with one of the hyper-expensive sex dolls (if anyone has one and wants to share it, do get in touch) but I have played with an expensive latex one. And it was fun: the physical sensation is of intercourse using a condom. What makes the Fleshlight better (for me) is the heat-retaining properties of the material used: warming it up by passing hot water through it means the physical sensation is of intercourse without using a condom, down to the grip being firmr at the entrance. When I masturbate, I don't always use it, but it is a womderful masturbation enhancer. Lovingboth 15:19, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

How: Translation of this page?

Hi!

I want to translate this page to German.

But I don't see how; I mean, do I have to start from scratch? This page does not yet exist in German, so I'd have to set it up via Copy/Paste otherwise...

TIA!

Ciao

F/x Fx46 08:17, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi there, there's already a German site dedicated to FleshLight: http://fuermaenner.net/

Thanks for that addition, my anonymous friend! I threw a glance at the site, and it seemed to me the owner is not using the site just as a promotion tool to gain money (tho it's definitely not at all free from such… well… marketing… — but it looks like a lot of honest information to me nevertheless!) So I think I will include this in the upcoming German linklist (IIRC, there's at least one more German site, but not as much limited to the Fleshlight).
But I was talking about A German Translation of this Fleshlight article and how to ease up the setup. Well, I guess, I'll just have to go the a bit uneasy “copy'n'paste” way… At least, the translation will be in good hands: I am a Native German speaker, and my English is good as well as my German! (That's to those of you who doubted my self-confidence… ;)
Fx Greetz Y'all Fx46 21:23, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep your English is as good as your German, so I'm sure we're in good hands :)

(blush) Thank you! ;) But in the first run, the translated page was rejected ;( — only one (anonymous) person voted against deletion, as you can read on this discussion page (in German).--Fx46 05:54, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Heterosexism

I changed the description for the 'Lady' from 'designed to emulate sexual intercourse' to 'designed to emulate vaginal sex'. It doesn't simulate every form of sexual intercourse.Stearnsbrian 22:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Categories

I tried to add Category: Human Sexual Behavior since this page is linked from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sexual_behavior but was unabel to get that to work... I must be doing something wrong?

The Video

I have a question about the video: was it always there, or did someone add it later on?

24.251.20.115 02:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)CS.

Edits To This Page

Whats going on with this page? I'm seeing links appear and disappear at a dizzy pace... Maybe its time to lock this page? 209.233.24.218 02:52, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

There was an edit war. A variety of users were adding spam links and information to the page; myself and several others were reverting them to previous versions. It stabilized recently after the spammer(s) left. Héous 03:49, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks MichaelBillington for allowing my link back on the page. Michael recognized that this is the concensus and status quo. I dont think we need any other links in the links section. Maybe one more but thats *IT*. 209.233.24.218 05:12, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm confused here - sorry, but the fleshlight reviews and videos link has no business being in Wikipedia. It is a link to sexually explicit videos that in no way add to the article or provide further information. External links are for sites that provide additional information to an article, not for sex videos. It is an advertisement - can you point me to any consensus declaring that it should remain? Of course wikipedia is not censored, but that only applies to when non censored images actually add to the content in some way. Cowman109^Talk 23:32, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

As an addendum, Wikipedia:External links specifically states that we should avoid using external links that: [do] not provide a unique resource beyond what the article here would have once it becomes a Wikipedia:Featured article., and also Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming. From what I've seen, that external site is just promoting fleshlites and does not offer anything additional to the article. A good rule of thumb, in my opinion, is that if it's not usable as a source, then it's probably not usable as an external link. Cowman109^Talk 23:38, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Cowman109, The concensus I'm referring to is described in the page-deletion discussion (sorry, I dont know how to link to that, please feel free to edit this comment) which ended with a KEEP decision *and* with a decision to allow up to three links in the external links section, including FleshJoe's site. Whether the videos add information is a matter of opinion; they are certainly *not* ads for Fleshlight and are produced by amateurs on their own volition and initiative. The site itself does not contain any pornographic material, it simply lists videos that you can watch or decide not to watch. The site also has many reviews, an extensive FAQ, advice on various aspects, etc., all of which is easily reachable from the list of videos and all other pages. If I'll be allowed to do so, I can exchange the videos link with a link to the reviews page (here: http://fleshjoe.com/fleshlight/fleshlightreviews.html) or add that link in addition to the videos link. I definitely do not see any problem with citing this site as a source on the subject matter, and it contains many many pages of unique information that is only available there and nowhere else. 192.18.43.10 00:20, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

(Edit conflicted) There's a fairly long thread on my talk page about this. [1], and after that, and some e-mails, I determined that at the time of the discussion near the top of this page, that there was a link to that site in the article and that the consensus was to "not add any more, and to keep it to three". Although one thing I must admit is that I was unaware of the content of the site, as I was at work at the time. (note that I am not involved with the article, I just happened to be RC patrolling and removed a link, I will be making no further edits to the article) Michael Billington (talk • contribs) 00:24, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The purpose in the external link seems to be just to promote fleshlights, however, which is where my concern lies. Perhaps if a site offered criticism to the nature of the object instead of just saying which ones the author of the website likes, then I feel it may be more proper of an external link. It looks like the AFD debate is at Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Fleshlight, which is all the way from November of 2004. AFD debates are never binding, either, so a new AFD could theoretically have a different outcome (though this article seems to have enough notability to remain anyway). Perhaps some further opinions to guage some sort of consensus might be best. Cowman109^Talk 00:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Well certainly the link to http://fleshlight.com/ adds nothing. Its simply a way to buy the product. At least the http://fleshjoe.com/fleshlight/index.html site adds reviews, a FAQ, product guides, etc. Just my $0.02 of course. Also note there were two attempts to delete this article, both failed. The concensus Michael is referring to developed during the second attempt, which, if memory serves, happened early 2006. 192.18.43.10 00:39, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Hm, you have a good point. I want to say that both are inappropriate, but I guess technically that site is the main site of fleshlights.. which is why I'll see if I can get some extra opinions, heh. Cowman109^Talk 00:40, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Cowman please add '::' so your comments stay indented on the discussion. And we disagree about whether http://fleshjoe.com/fleshlight/index.html is appropriate. Have you actually perused the site? Its a labor of love and not a sales brochure. If you want to see some sales brochures, I will be happy to show you. They all look like http://fleshlight.com/ or more explicit and in-your-face even. Contrast that with fleshjoe.com, and I can't possibly see what offends about that site :) 192.18.43.10 00:44, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the indentation - for some reason my brain wants the text to be varying indent-wise ;D. I see your point that both sites serve their purpose - I guess if someone is interested in enough to buy a fleshlight, they'll go to the official site to buy one, and to... understand more about it I guess, they could go to the third party site. I suppose that for an article of this nature, websites like those are inevitable, so I'm turning more neutral on this now and I'm just going to leave the page alone, I think. Cowman109^Talk 01:03, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Look guys Please don't remove our link to www.fleshjoe.com because this site is Like a manual to the fleshlight. It gives us good info on how to use, take care, and clean your fleshlight. If this goes away then we the surfers will have a harder time finding information on our fleshlights. I'm just a anonymous fleshlight user who was looking at this page.

Photo

Updated photo according to the request on this page. Noisejunky 23:04, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Article to be kept

Please note that this article survived 3 attempts to delete, and each time the decision was STRONG KEEP, so if you want to try and delete this article, I'd appreciate if you initiated a discussion instead of arbitrarily deleting. Arbitrary deletions will just cause me to recreate the article. If a decision by concensus is made to delete the article I will respect that.FleshJoe 04:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Here are some other articles that should be deleted if the Fleshlight article is deleted because it describes a product:

• Coca Cola
• Ipod
• Sybian
• Toyota Prius
• Mazda MX5 Miata
• Ford Escort
• Canon Powershot
• Dell XPS
• Thinkpad
• Kleenex

I'll stop at ten, I'm sure I could easily get 100s of product names to bolster my case. In fact I have not encountered one case where I was thinking up a product name, typed it in the search box, and did not hit a Wikipedia page for that product. About notability, please use Google to determine that: there are 2.4 million pages about Fleshlight and 275000 about Mazda Miata, 2.2 million about Dell XPS. FleshJoe 05:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Due to the controversy on this article, I have added a Advertisment link. Regardless of the number of for and agaist votes in the last request for deletion, there was also a number of clean-up requests. Percz 23:08, 3 October 2006 (BST)

Alan I'm committed to making this article conform to the style guidelines. Please point out exactly what would help it conform. Would it help to point to some competitors? If yes, which ones? What other information would you like to see? I also have a comment about those requests for cleanup: as you know, Wikipedia is open to anyone. So whoever wants things cleaned up should do it themselves. I'm going beyond the call of duty and cooperation in agreeing to do the work myself. In the meantime, because I agree to clean it up, I'm removing your Advert tag. FleshJoe 22:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

For reference of previous deletion vote - [2] FleshJoe, the Wikipedia Advert tag needs to stay until the cleanup has been completed even though you are kindly agreeing to edit the article. Untill the edit is done there still needs to be a warning as the problem remains - this is Wikipedia policy. Percz 00:34, 4 October 2006 (BST)

A simple solution

If a company for any product claims they want sole editing power to a Wikipedia page then don't grant it to them and if they apply more pressure to do so then remove the page. Wikipedia for the most part is meant for education and is built using openly-edited policies, as such, any company trying to harass Wiki users into giving this up is breaking the rules. They can either choose to have a page here or not, but they can't distort info about their products on Wikipedia for promotional reasons (or at all, Wikipedia is for education not private company promotions). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.236.198.220 (talk) 22:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments on new Fleshlight page

IMHO the article sourced from the Village Voice has no business there because it points at a lot of affiliate sites (e.g. babeland.com). Its just a crass attempt to get traffic to flow from wikipedia to an affiliate business. 192.18.43.11 19:13, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's actually an attempt to demonstrate the notability of the Fleshlight product. As we're not endorsing or advertising any specific product, it's not a crass attempt at anything other than a neutral, sourced article. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:34, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

The objection to URLs such as http://fleshjoe.com/fleshlight/videos/ was that its an affiliate site. What's different here, if anything? The Village Voice is an affiliate of babeland and is getting paid for the article. I fail to see any distinction at all. 192.18.43.11 20:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

It's a failed attempt to demonstrate the notability of the Fleshlight product. At best, even if the Village Voice and babeland.com were not associated, the article might be used as evidence that babeland was notable, and Fleshlight was notable at babeland. It doesn't not rationally imply that Fleshlight is notable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:22, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

New FL article

how come this article doesn't look like this anymore? [3]? the current page looks like a sales guide that mainly consists of reviews. --Philo 15:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Removals

A few points for the editor who is repeatedly removing entire paragraphs from the article. Sourced material is usually not cut from articles without an explanation. An edit summary of "copyedit" is deceptive when removing blocks of material. It is standard practice to include an extensive description of product usage and criticism for articles on products. For examples, see diaphragm, dildo or even lawn mower. Please do not do this again without seeking consensus here. --JJay 20:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

One does not need consensus to edit an article. I like to get consensus when I can. I this case it seemed pretty clear cut. We aren't trying to write an instruction manual for a product. Also, the article isn't about masturbation, there is another article about that. Trying to push the book "illustrated guide to the usage of the Fleshlight" is not why the article is here. It is here to describe a notable product. What does it do? Why is it notable? Some detail about the nature of the product is acceptable. A guide on using the product, where to buy it, and advertising from people who like it has no place in the article. The second paragraph I deleted (shortcomings) was put there to give a faux NPOV to the previous paragraph.

What SHOULD be there instead of these two paragraphs are references to news stories about the product. Controversial aspects of the product (such as a recall, or injury, or lawsuit) might be appropriate if cited and referenced.

As to your comment about using "copyedit" when removing mnaterial, I agree with you. My apologies. Atom 21:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• In this case it is not clear cut at all. An understanding of how a product is used is essential information. It explains "what the product does" to use your terminology. Without that information I would have only a very hazy idea of what the fleshlight is, particularly without a picture. This is all comparable to the Sybian article. Your remarks about "advertising" or where to buy the product or "faux NPOV" are completely off base; I would suggest you review the references. For example, both books are from major publishers and established writers in this field. They go a long way to proving the "notability" of this product (although "notability" is not an editing topic. If you are concerned about "notability" review the AfD discussion). I can see no justification for your removal of those references. Otherwise, if you have news stories regarding injuries or lawsuits, please add them to the article. --JJay 22:11, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your view. As I said earlier, information to explain why it is notable is the purpose of the article, so I don't disagree with that. The AfD discussion is in the past. I wasn't suggesting that I had information about injuries or lawsuits, I was giving an example of the types of information that would be valid for a product article. Product usage, in my opinion belongs in the users guide. I took it out as a simple edit to improve the quality of ther article. It seems obvious that we disagree on that. Other editors can make their own opinions. Atom 22:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• You also removed: "one of the best-known male sex toys" from the opening line - even though that is confirmed by multiple sources (which you also removed). Frankly, it's a tad bit difficult to meet your stated concerns regarding notability when you remove evidence to that effect throughout the article. The article exists to explain the product in all its facets. That means usage as well as the points you focus on. I have searched the references, though, and have found no evidence of either injuries or lawsuits. The negatives I managed to find from the em & lo book are in the article. Please add more. But let's not lose sight of the fact that we are talking about two short paragraphs in what is still a fairly short discussion of the fleshlight. The article needs expansion, not the constant slash & burn approach that some editors have been taking. --JJay 23:18, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

"one of the best-known male sex toys" sounds like a sales pitch, and several other users complained that it sounded like advertising. As it is subjective opinion, not citeable fact, it is easier to make the article stick to the point of describing the product, rather than a subjective characterization.

As for notability, no one is requiring a proof of notability. The AfD has establisged that it is notable. My comments are that the article should explain the notable aspects of the product, not "claim" it is notable.

As for expansion, I made several ghood suggestions as to ways to expand it. Expansion should be facts related to the product, not more claims, opinions or reviews about how great it is. Have there every been any laws suits? Is STI transfer a possiblity with the product? What characteristics of the product make it more popular than its competitors? All good material for adding meat to the article. Atom 23:43, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It may sound like a sales pitch, but it is the reason why we have the article. If this wasn't one of the best known sex toys it wouldn't qualify for inclusion. That needs to be made explicit in the article. The statement is also fully sourcable and thus not our "claim" or "subjective opinion". It is the subjective opinion of leading experts in the field based on their research and publications. One of the other lines you removed was from Anne Semans where she called the product "the most popular sleeve on the market today". Hence, the statement was fully verifiable per WP:V standards. I'll add back a section on the product's popularity with footnotes. Regarding the "advertising" issue, complaints have been voiced by you and a user with 15 edits who suddenly appeared here after a three month "absence" from wikipedia. That is not exactly "several" users. I rewrote this article from scratch without even consulting the fleshlight website. I don't want to "advertise" the product. I want a comprehensive overview of its use and any related issues including popularity - not a a sanitized stub that fails to explain the fleshlight because of puritanism or fears that somehow wikipedia "advertising" is going to boost fleshlight sales (which is entirely laughable). Besides that, I have no problem whatsoever with your questions. They are all good. Responses require research and I can only encourage you to seek the answers and add material to the article. --JJay 02:07, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, let me reassure you that I am about as far from a puritan as it is possible to get. I edit many, sexology and sexuality articles, and so supressing sexuality is not my nature at all. Footnotes are always nice. But, really, my goal is readabilty and quality of the article. "The most popular sleeve on the market", how does that tell us what it does, or how it works? If it were a TV program, and it ran for 20 years (Gunsmoke) then popularity would be a key. This product is new, and its competitors are new. Even if we could correctly source and and cite sales figures compared to its competitors, that wouldn't be useful. If the product was heavily used in a clinical setting, and the effectiveness of the product was the subject of research studies showing how it did what it does well, that kind of information would be good to show.

I respect your efforts to build a good article. You have to open to letting others do their part as well. Part of trhat is writing, and part of it is editing. Having a huge paragraph about something usually nets a yawn from your reader who wants the highlights of the product quickly.

We aren't here to laud the product, we should be objectively giving information to describe how it works and what it is. Atom 03:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Advertisement

I think this page is too much like a tesimonial page for Fleshlight, what do you all think? DanMonkey 22:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. It describes the product and its use. Don't confuse information with advertising. --JJay 22:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I also disagree; why would an advertisement include shortcomings? --NE2 22:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

See my comments above. The para on usage, and the book is advertising. The para after that is made to try and make it look "balanced" with a weak attempt at "shortcomings". I've tried to remove both para's and I've got reverted. See comments above. Atom 22:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

• There is no para on "the book". The books are sources. Why not just remove the name of the books in the text if that is what's bothering you. Furthermore, if you believe the "shortcomings" part is weak, then add more sourced negative material. --JJay 23:01, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I should mention that Fleshlight has had a very aggressive Internet campaign where the product is promoted from a supposedly neutral source. This includes myspace (And here in Norway, the corresponding service Blink) accounts promoting the product. I'd also like to mention that I brought up this page on #wikipedia @ freenode when it was in a much more blatant state of shameless advertising than it is now (Now it's just messy and non-notable) and it seemed several people there thought such advertisements were ok on wikipedia so I didn't take any actions on it. Debolaz 18:53, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Photo of this product

This page leaves a lot to the imagination, it would be good if there were a photo of this product and it's attachments JayKeaton 11:13, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

With a photo, this page would look like an advertisement. Anyone can search for Fleshlight on http://images.google.com, perhaps with no SafeSearch Filtering in preferences. 9,380 hits. --JULEBRYG 00:47, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

-Maybe a sketch would describe the product better, without looking like an advertisement? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.217.74.33 (talk) 09:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC).

I ordered it and can possibly take some pictures when it comes in the mail. SakotGrimshine 13:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

External links

• the official website is listed double in the link section

I am aware that EL "allows" listing the official web site for a notable article. In some cases it is valuable, in some cases it is not. That leaves it to editorial oversight. In this case it is a product for sale and various users have complained that the article seems like an advertisement. No one argues whether inclusion is possible, or whether it is allowed by policy. WP:EL allows it, but does not require it. As such, it is my opinion that it offers no value other than directing people to a commercial web site. The article contains content about the product. If there is other information that would improve the article, it should be added here, in the article, and not through an external link. Since other editors differ with my opinion as to whether the link should be here or not, I think we should discuss the pros and cons, and then take a straw poll in order to get a consensus as to whether inclusion of the external link has merit. Atom 13:53, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

I concur with User:Badlydrawnjeff and his reasoning in including the link; see point 1 of WP:EL#What_should_be_linked. It's still subject to editorial oversight, but the guidelines say that it should generally be included. If you want to discuss arguments further, go ahead, but it should remain until concensus is obtained that it be removed. (Note that I voted delete in one or more of the AfDs, but the link should remain if the article is here.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:47, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

After a discussion on the wp:EL page, apparently it IS up to editor consensus whether the link is included or not. The policy reads, the "official" site for a "organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any". I clarified that this does not require it to be listed. I note that also the policy is written intentionally to cover organizations and people, but not specifically commercial products, nor is the policy intended to promote commercial products.

So, I contend that we aren't required to list the official web site, and in this case, there is no desirable reason to do so. Atom 12:49, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

• People who read this short article (which needs expansion) are most probably interested in the fleshlight. The place to get more information on the fleshlight is the official site. That's why it's linked. The link is more than desirable. It is essential if we intend to do a proper article on the product. --JJay 02:46, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

So what's the actual argument for not having it? --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:08, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

First, this is a commercial product. The guidelines are written for the general case, not the specific case. The purpose of the Wikipedia article is encyclopedic, not business oriented. The history of this article includes development of the article by people from the company itself as a marketing source. The AfD's discussed some of this, but the overall opinion was that regardless, it was a notable product. As part of the attempt to commercialize, various people from that company did their best to introduce the product into other articles, including the masturbation article, ad also did their best to remove any citations to competitive products, such as the onacup, using a variety of rationale.

So, I agree that the product is notable, and we should give encylopedic information that informs the average reader. I think, in general, we should minimize or eliminiate the possibility for commercialization of Wikipedia, including giving companies free advertising. Especially in a case like this where employees of the company have worked to push their product, and to eliminate competitive products. Trying to prevent them from doing that again, and a general approach that reduces commercialization in general by other companies is desirable.

Wikipedia EL does allow for a link to the "official" web site, but I have clarified there that an external link is not required, but up to editor discretion. I advocate, in this specific case, based on the history and attempt at commercialization, to make the article informed, correct and encylopedic, but quash attempts to use it for improving sales. Atom 12:50, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

"Free advertising" does not depend on a link to the company's website. If someone reads the article and wants to buy one, they will find the site, whether or not we link it. Any reader, whether or not he wants to buy one, can find more information on the official site that is too "crufty" for the article. It's a matter of being useful, not of "free advertising". --NE2 13:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

We all have our opinions on the matter. My point is the same as yours. If someone is interested they can find the site just fine. No need to put a link here. We aren't required to put a link, it is up to editorial discretion. Atom 03:04, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

It is standard and not controversial to put a link to the website of the subject of an article. Please don't go around deleting things randomly. You do not have consensus on this. Georgewilliamherbert 03:12, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am aware that a link to an official site is very common. That doesn't make it required. In most cases it is not controversial. In this case people at the company that manufacturers the product placed it in Wikipedia, and helped it to survive the AfD's. They also worked to limit competitive products, such as onacup from having visibility. So, we do need to have the article, since it is notable, we don't need to point to the web site for them. Thanks, Atom 03:28, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

So far, you're the only person arguing that we should remove it. We have an external link guideline backing our argument, what's yours? --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:46, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

The external link guideline, as I have said if you had read any of the comments, does not require the link. I discussed this in detail on the talk pages of the external link to confirm that it is optional. You are right that I have been the only one so far advocating not putting it in. If you read the above section, and several other parts of the discussion, you woldn;t need to ask. Atom 04:21, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not saying it does require the link. I do not see anyone else saying that the link should be removed, however - you've been warring over this for a week and no one else seems to want to back you up. The consensus is apparent that the link should stay. --badlydrawnjeff talk 04:36, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

We're rejecting your reason. Please stop. --NE2 04:35, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

As one of the people who fought to get the article back during the multifarious debates, and who is NOT associated with the company, I find the assertion that "only the company" wants the link in offensive. Please stop doing this. It's perfectly normal to have the link. There's no specific reason here not to have it. You're out-consensused on whether having it is a good idea or not. Please accept that and move on. Georgewilliamherbert 05:02, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to agree with GWH here. I have great respect for your opinion, Atom, but it really does make sense to link to the official site here. ^L_Wizard @ 10:22, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback. My position, and the history of this article are unusual. I've already suggested why there *is* a specific reason to not have the external link here. I'm not an advocate of censoring any article, especially if it is about sexuality. I don't advocate censoring this article. I objected to the way that the people who are associated with the company bullied others into keeping the article, and tried to shut down competitors on Wikipedia. I didn't suggest in saying that now, or previously, that *all* people for putting the article back worked for the company, or had anything to do with what I perceive as the kind of competitive self-interest that the people who introduced the article used. I think that they acted in good faith, based on the product being notable. I think that they are still acting in good faith in trying to keep the external link too. But, by doing so they are unwittingly supporting the commercial competitive tactics originated by the people who work for the company to sell their product. I can understand how people not seeing the whole picture would see my position as counter to the conventional way we do things on other commercial articles. But, who says we have to do things the same way in every article? Just because we suggest putting the link to an "official site" as the general case for all articles (most of which are not commercial) in the EL policy doesn't mean that we have to for *all* articles, or *all* commercial articles. Especially in the case where the company that sells this product has been unfriendly and abused Wikipedia, we could choose to be unfriendly and not support there attempts to use Wikepeida to sell their product. Those who say: "People interested will find the product anyway", may be correct, but, where do we draw the line. Should we just commercialize all of Wikipedia, because people will buy the products anyway whether we prohibit or allow commericial interests? Even if you don't agree, as apparently quite a few here have indicated. I think most do see attempts by commercial interests to use Wikipedia as a growing threat.

Anyway, I'm not suggesting boycotting this or any other commercial product, but merely pointing out that we don't have to help commercial interests. Atom 15:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

We should (this is a moral "should", not specifically relating to guidelines) ignore commercial interests in our editing. Although I don't think this product is notable, I've been out-argued in that matter, so I consider that matter closed for the moment. If the article is to be here, then the official link should be here in the article (unless, possibly, it's a banned link). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

In my opinion, this product is notable but only because of the way it has been marketed, something which ironically isn't mentioned on the page. Debolaz 04:52, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

Color options

I have to agree that I don't think that the color options adds anything valuable to the article, or its quality. The product itself and how it works is well described. Atom 16:28, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Shape of holes and colors are information. I think it's strange with a blue color, or the transparent one. It's the job of an encyclopedia to inform its readers, also about odd things. What is the issue here: fear of advertising, Christian morals or are the colors of Fleshlight common knowledge?--JULEBRYG 01:02, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

If we already got the colors in it. Shouldn't we also list the discontinued colors? Mocha, Golden, Purple and such? --95.89.180.211 (talk) 01:43, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Material?

Some information on the used material should be added. Does it contain harmful chemical compounds, like phthalates or polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 212.144.128.16 (talk) 22:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

• If you have information on the Fledhlight's chemical composition please add it to the article. --JJay 00:50, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Unless there are documented medical problems with the product related to its chemical composition, I don't think it is neccesary to include it. Debolaz 01:36, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm just wondering, having read Dildo#Materials and the possible problems with jelly-rubber. 212.144.130.176 23:55, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

• What is the fleshlight made of? --JJay 01:52, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

they won't say. it's a trade secret I suppose. --Philo 08:15, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Paraphrasing from US patents numbers 5,782,818 and 5,807,360: The elastomeric gel is formed from a mixture of plasticizing oil and a block copolymer selected from styrene ethylene butylene styrene block copolymers ( SEBS) and styrene ethylene propylene styrene block copolymers ( SEPS) . The gel is formed from a mixture of 5-9% by weight of the block copolymer and 90-94% by weight of the plasticizing oil, and trace amounts of pigments and fillers. 193.229.159.16 14:27, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Headline text

Flesh Light Helpful hint:

Where the gent states: "Another review called the Fleshlight the "king of boy toys," but also observed that it took awhile to get used to cleaning it." it is much easier to just put it in the dishwasher. Just my 2 cents worth. Hey! It works for me! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.1.59.67 (talk) 07:50, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

The manufacturer advises NOT to put it in the dishwasher as it will degrade the material. --Philo 15:40, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

ILF backstory

At some point the design went from one policeman to a company called ILF and the article is missing the whole backstory on this. Just a note for the future. SakotGrimshine 12:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

And what is ILF, and for what does the acronym stand? All of a sudden it just appears in the article with no explanation.24.165.188.30 01:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Interactive Life Forms. I'll add that now. — Northgrove 04:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Notability

Perhaps it should be described why this artificial vagina is notable on the page? I mean, there are plenty of other ones as far as I know and they do not have their own dedicated wikipedia page. As far as I can tell, the only thing notable about this product is how aggressively (And often deceptively, previous versions of this article being a good example) it has been marketed on the Internet, but this is not mentioned in the article. Debolaz 13:44, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

• Check the references. Entire sections of books have been devoted to this product. That means it is notable per guidelines. --JJay 13:18, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

But there's a reason why these books exist. There's a reason why seemingly arbitrary people try to market it. Namely the company's admittedly very creative marketing. They've paid people to make blogs, to write books, to modify this wikipedia article, etc. So you've really missed most of my point. Debolaz 16:08, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Current references include 1) Semans, Anne (2004). The Many Joys of Sex Toys: The Ultimate How-to Handbook for Couples and Singles. Broadway Books, 62-4. 2) or 2) Em & Lo (2006). Em & Lo's Sex Toy: An A–Z Guide to Bedside Accessories. Chronicle Books. The reason why the books exist is because they were published by major publishers. The rest of your allegations strike me as absurd or irrelevant, not the least because I wrote most of the article and have never seen a fleshlight let alone used or "marketed" one. --JJay 16:17, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

...and with that note, this article remains in the list of examples of why wikipedia could be better. Debolaz 16:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

• Every article at wikipedia is in that list. --JJay 16:43, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Reviews section

Okay, the reviews and criticisms section is starting to read like a trivia section (see: WP:trivia). --Philip Laurence (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Material description

...the material is an elastomeric gel being formed from a mixture of 90–94% by weight of plasticizing oil and of 5–9% by weight of a block copolymer comprising an admixture of a styrene ethylene butylene styrene block copolymer and a styrene ethylene propylene styrene block copolymer combined in a ratio of 1:5 to 5:1.

I'm not a chemist, and I'm willing to bet that many people reading this page aren't either. Now, I'm not going to touch this description, because I don't know enough about this and I wouldn't want to screw something up. However, if there is any way to elaborate on it so that it's not as esoteric, that would probably be of benefit. 24.15.197.87 (talk) 07:24, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Tag

From what I can tell after reviewing the edit history of this page and these discussions on the talk page, there's been disagreement on a few things: notability, the page endorsing the product, and, by extension, bias, neutrality, etc. I haven't been involved in this enough to give an accurate opinion of what's true and who's right in all this mess. However, the reader (and potential editor) needs to know before he begins that some information may be biased and that there has been (and probably will be) many revisions to and discussions about this article. I added this template to serve as a warning. I chose it specifically for its neutrality; it merely states that the article is still in a stage of composition and warns them that what they're seeing is under debate. That way, until this article improves, nobody reads it assuming something they shouldn't. This tag should not be removed until these discussions have been settled and things begin to feel a little less controversial. 24.15.197.87 (talk) 08:03, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

I appreciate your good intentions here, but those debates stretch out over the last three years... There is no significant current debate about large parts of the article by any means. I am removing the tag. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 08:22, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

In the interest of preventing an edit war, let's not revert each other every time we make a point. Time does not settle arguments, it merely prolongs them. Simply because there is no present debate does not mean the information has been agreed upon. The project is 'mothballed', so to speak, until further interest arises. Until then, lay people will still read this article, and must be advised that its content is still disagreed upon. Furthermore, the tag, if anything, would only encourage more editors to contribute. I see no reason to delete the tag. 24.15.197.87 (talk) 03:23, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

The tag implies to readers that there's some sort of active dispute or debate, not that we'd like to improve it in the future. The latter is true - even the best articles could use an improvement in the future. But we certainly don't have an active disagreement or debate on the topic at this time...

If you can point to some specific topics or issues that you have with the current article, that's different. Feel free to list your issues with it here and we can see whether those need to be improved, and whether they merit putting in a tag again...

Thanks. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I do believe there is an active disagreement. That's what I've been saying. None of the issues from before have ever been resolved; they're all still present. I don't need to restate them all. They're all listed above on the talk page. At the moment, the current solution to the problems seems to be just removing them from the article entirely, leaving us with something short and incomplete. I personally am not interested enough in the Fleshlight to actually do research and improve the article. My only intention of placing the tag was to warn that the issues (again, mentioned in the sections above) have not yet been resolved, and that the article should not be read as anything close to completely accurate, in addition to encouraging other users who are interested to try and resolve them. If that intention does not merit a tag, then I rest my case. (That first IP and I are the same, by the way. The stupid thing just switched again.) 68.228.200.98 (talk) 09:15, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Images

Wikipedia is not a "how to" guide. I don't really see any other (even quasi-encyclopedic) benefit to the images of the product in use. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 19:55, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Although Wikipedia is not a "how to" guide, there is only 1 picture showing the Fleshlights, and no indication of how the product is used. Darren2502 (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I can't find the policy, and I have to head out for the moment, but there is a policy interpretation that pornographic pictures should not be used if there is a possible alternative. I still don't see potential value in the pictures, but I agree adding them is not vandalism, although probably inapropriate. That being said, you are clearly the IP, so let me add a 3RR warning:

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Fleshlight. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions on a single page within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform several reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. When in dispute with another editor you should first try to discuss controversial changes to work towards wording and content that gains a consensus among editors. Should that prove unsuccessful, you are encouraged to seek dispute resolution, and in some cases it may be appropriate to request page protection. Please stop the disruption, otherwise you may be blocked from editing.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:21, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes I am the IP. I apologise as I thought that I was logged in when I was not. I disagree that these images are pornographic. Their purpose is not to depict sexual acts or create sexual arousal, but merely to show a product being used. Perhaps a compromise can be reached where just one of the images is displayed until such times as an alternative (diagram/illustration) can be found? Darren2502 (talk) 20:30, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Relevant guidelines, although some are disputed, include:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines#Applicable Law (seems to state that you need to provide the appropriate certification that you are over 18 or 21 to Wikipedia legal)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines#Artwork is preferred over photographs (disputed)
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality/WIP-image-guidelines#No vanity images and WP:COI.

— Arthur Rubin (talk) 22:07, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

Need other people's opinions on this matter Darren2502 (talk) 22:54, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Opinion: Get consensus here before reinserting the images. See WP:BRD. I also am not sure if these images should be included. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:29, 24 October 2009 (UTC)

Morality of sex toys

A whole section on the morality of this particular sex toy -- should be added either to here, or to the article on religion and masturbation, and a specific section on religion and masturbation should include the discussion with sex toys being also immoral if masturbation is immoral. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.234.163.51 (talk) 21:39, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

I personally don't think it deserves a place in this articles : there is not even mention of it on Dildo, although it might be good in an other article. You can't add such a section on all sex toy article : but it might have a place somewhere. On the other side, when doing such an edit, don't do WP:POV. Also, add tons of sources, again for WP:POV. The way you first wrote it, it look as if you had a point of view(and it shouldn't) and you didn't add any source, making it look like an original research(WP:NOT#OR). This is how I look at it. Make sure that you present your edit on the talk page of the article to be sure that it is correct, without POV and that consensus is made if needed. --Stroppolo^talk 21:49, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

The article for a particular sex toy is not the right place to address Christian Morality on masturbation. If you have reliable sources, please add those to an article on christian sexual morality, such as Religious views on masturbation or Religion and sexuality. If no suitable article exists, Catholic teachings on sexual morality would be a good model on which to base the new article.

(Before creating a new article, please give both Wikipedia:Your first article and Wikipedia:No original research a careful read, especially if you are new to editing Wikipedia.) / edg ☺ ☭ 23:17, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Bacterial Infections from using Fleshlight

I've heard stories of men who got infections in their urethra from using the Fleshlight. If there is documented proof of this somewhere, should it be posted in this article? I'm guessing those who had the problem did not properly clean the Fleshlight, and perhaps may have even shared it with other sex partners, it doesn't seem like you could get an infection from using a clean Fleshlight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.8.92.114 (talk) 09:10, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

verisons

Could we list the different stars/types of fleshlights on here?--Cooly123 14:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

Accidentally the fleshlight?

I heard people could accidentally them... is this a problem?--Malleus Felonius (talk) 16:27, 6 December 2010 (UTC)

Hilarious. 82.33.185.149 (talk) 06:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Accidentally what? __meco (talk) 12:50, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

They're 4chan kids. --Phil1988 (talk) 19:53, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

Accidentally use it as a torch? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.200.208.244 (talk) 09:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

It's possible to accidentally the whole fleshlight on purpose, but it's not really accidental. 79.223.191.187 (talk) 16:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Dude, the other day I accidentally SO hard! This needs to be mentioned!DETHREAPER (talk) 08:01, 8 February 2014 (UTC)

I have been trying to keep the exact recipe for the flashlight off wiki

i was told to take it up with this part of the forum could I have a little administrative help, keeping 100 foreign companies from beginning a patent today in a country with cheap labor and the ability to easily market globally. I will not protect this anymore, if you want to tell everyone how to do it fine.... Good luck competing with a 60 cent fuck light!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.103.180.16 (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:OWN, you'll need a better reason, especially if this information is already available in a public patent (as claimed in the article). Wikipedia:List of policies and guidelines#Content standards lists what rules might apply.

Also, the comment or this page will be banned could be considered a legal threat. Per Wikipedia:No legal threats, this sort of behavior may backfire, so I recommend you avoid making such threats. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:03, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

Cleaning and Hyygenics

It would be nice to have a rough idea in the article how the inner side of the tool can be cleaned. As I undesrtand the use of the tool it seems to be very likely that it could contain some sort of liquid after use... Obrigado, grazie --84.73.123.149 (talk) 13:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Let's just say the official cleaning instructions are rather simple. Either way, these things clean easily. Take the sleeve out, run water throught it, squeeze it a bit, this will get rid of all major deposits. There might be a slight residue of lube coating the surface, but since you're supposed to use only water based lubricants with it this can be cleaned by just, uh, fingering the fleshlight a bit and applying some water. In general it is not recommended to turn the sleeve inside out. Ultimately, it's a very rubbery material, you'll 'feel' if it's clean or still soiled, so you just keep rinsing it until it feels clean, the either leave it to dry by itself or use a cold hair dryer on it. 79.223.191.187 (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

'See also' section

It's not the only one of it's kind so this section is mandatory to correspond with neutral point of view. As of now the article looks like a copy of the manufcaturer booklet and has no point in existence. At least one link is definitely needed, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_vagina -- BTW, it links to this article.

Song

There is a song about this article. It is new and it has featured in Pitch Perfect 2. it is sung by Jessie J. If it deserves a mention and keeps the article neutral I will be happy to add it on. --XELO 01:54, 29 May 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xelophate (talk • contribs)

Citation?

Hi, Can anyone look at this citation: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleshlight#cite_note-2 which is not showing any title? Thanks.--Zhivka09 (talk) 07:13, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

Article sections

I do not believe that this article needs to be further divided into sections. Its text is very short, and adding additional sections makes it needlessly more complicated. As The Gnome mentions WP:STYLE, I note that the guideline states, "The remainder of the article may be divided into sections, each with a section heading (see below) that can be nested in a hierarchy." Note the use of may, rather than must. I thank The Gnome for some of his additions, but the multiple sections should be removed, in my view. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Separating the text into sections makes the text more complicated? How is this possible? -The Gnome (talk) 23:44, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Separating the text into sections makes the article more complicated - quite needlessly, I think. There would be a stronger case for subdividing the article into more sections if a larger amount of text had been added. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 00:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

There are many Wikipedia articles containing the same number of words, or fewer, whose text is contained in sections. This is a non-issue. As to the potential motives of raising it, one could speculate that the aim is to have an article that needs an all-clarifying and illuminating image. But I will assume good faith! :-) -The Gnome (talk) 11:35, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Summing up

Now that the RFC is concluded, I think the situation can be summarized as follows: there is presently no consensus for including any image of a fleshlight in use, a consensus that the image I originally added (File:Fleshlight_4.jpg) should not be in the article, but no consensus against adding a different image at some point in the future. Would that be a reasonable summary? My view at present is that a cropped version of (File:Gay_man_using_a_clear_Fleshjack.JPG) would be the best image to use in future. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:44, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

There's been one objection to the image itself as being "pornographic" (ViperFace) and one about it giving undue emphasis on the penis (BMK). The Oppose consensus seems to be that No image needs to be added for the following reasons: An image would be "entirely superfluous" (Superbeecat, The Gnome); plus, an image would overwhelm the current image-to-text ratio (Tutelary, 128.84.125.234). And there was another opinion (John, AF4JM), outside the scope of the RfC, suggesting that the whole article is in violation of the rule about product advertisement. -The Gnome (talk) 08:13, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't believe that's fair. There is consensus against adding the image I originally added, but that's all. I think most of the opposes were effectively opposes against that particular image, not necessarily opposes to any image. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I gave a user-by-user recap that refutes your claim. Nonetheless, and without providing any kind of counter evidence you persist in that claim. Fine, let's get more details in on the arguments:

• Image-specific objections: BMK ("the image is primarily of a man's scrotum and his curved, erect penis"); John, AF4JM ("image...should not be one that could in any way, shape, or form be interpreted as pornographic"); and ViperFace ("The image focus is on the penis").
• Rejection of any and all images at least as the article currently stands: John, AF4JM, again ("the argument for any image is weak, given that the text leaves no doubt what the device looks like or how it works"); Superbeecat ("the image is entirely superfluous...the method of use is IMMEDIATELY apparent to anyone, ever"); Hullaballoo Wolfowitz ("there's no plausible justification for including such an image in the article on an individual brand"); The Gnome ("strongly superfluous..teaches nothing we do not readily understand...Wikipedia is not a how-to style owner's manual"); Tutelary ("too much of an image to text ratio and as a result...images garner my support in the future, when there is more content to the article at hand...right now, it would be superfluous to add an image"); and 128.84.125.234 ("the article is very short, and the image would dominate...I don't think [an image] improves the article...I truly doubt anyone would be confused as to what a "masturbatory aid" is, does, or how it is used").

Hope this settles it. But, of course, you are always free, as is anyone else, to start a new RfC, about a different image, and see how that goes. -The Gnome (talk) 10:07, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

You forgot mine, I'm very much in this camp [Edit: of Rejection of any and all images], see lengthy discussion of why above. I'd go as far to say that there IS a consensus, and it's in this camp. - superβεεcat  21:03, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you and apologies for the omission. I edited in your contribution. -The Gnome (talk) 05:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

additional source(s)

• "How to Market Plastic Vaginas: Don’t Call Them Vaginas" — fourthords | =Λ= | 17:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)