Guide to unsafe sex products

"Open Source Sex-Ed" author/blogger/podcaster/edumacator Violet Blue has just posted an extensive piece about unsafe sex products. Regular BoingBoing junkies may remember

In this info-rant, Violet also talks about the notoriously unsafe product Anal Eze, a numbing lube marketed for anal sex. The problem: if you can't feel what's going on in your nether-regions, how will you know if you're injured or your skin has been torn? And that means higher risk of bacterial infection or HIV exposure.

Snip:

[N]ot everything mass-marketed for sex is safe to use. Plainly put, there are "novelties" and there are toys made for sex. Confused? Most sex toys (and products) that you'll find in garden-variety retail sex toys stores are created, marketed and sold "for novelty use only", meaning that while the toy companies explicitly know that people are using their toys for sexual use, they sell them categorized as "novelties". Why they do this is anyone's guess; perhaps it's so they can avoid responsibility for faulty merchandise, as many sex toys are made poorly (almost all novelty sex toys are made cheaply in Chinese factories), or perhaps it's so they can make outrageous claims on the packaging and marketing materials.

The short of it is that because sex toy companies label their products "for novelty use only", they can get away with anything -- even though they explicitly know their products are for sexual use (genital application). It's clear that they just don't give a shit if anyone gets hurt using their products.

Link to the text version, or listen to the audio version:
Open Source Sex 29: Unsafe Sex Products (MP3)

Image: despite its menacing appearance, this duckie from Big Teaze Toys means you no harm. Spotted in a Grist magazine article about sex toy safety issues.

Previously on Boing Boing:
Sex toys made from synthetic materials: are they toxic?

Reader comment: Leslie Cohen says,

There is one legit reason that companies market sex toys as "novelties" -- it is illegal to sell items for the intent of genital stimulation in some places, like the state of Georgia. The courts have challenged the 1968 Georgia statute but that hasn't stopped Tennessee from proposing a similar law. Another example of laws set up to protect "family values" ends up endangering consumers.

Reader comment:Cory of sexuality.about.com says,

The "novelty only" text on packaging doesn't actually work to limit liability for manufacturers, distributors, and retailers (although it may work to deal with the anti-sex toy laws). Over the past 19 years I've been told about three lawsuits regarding sex toys by the retailers named in them.

All had been initiated because of mechanical malfunction not adverse material reactions (e.g. people falling asleep with a vibrator on them and being burned, vibrators "sparking"). Having worked in sex stores for almost ever, I've talked to enough people who have reacted to toys, but they never seem to want to sue.

I talked to an insurance company that covers retailers, and to one insurance adjuster who was involved in a sex toy complaint case, and they all say that the "novelty only" text doesn't mean anything. If a product seems like its being sold for sexual purposes, and during sexual use a person is harmed, they'll likely have a case, regardless of the attempts to minimize liability with "novelty only". If the customer can't track down the manufacturer they can go after the retailer (which is what has happened in the cases I know about, except one, where the manufacturer is US based).

I've compiled a lot of the information and research links on phthalates here.

posted by Xeni Jardin at 09:49:06 AM permalink | Other blogs' comments