Talk:Latex

message: I'm not sure it's fair to say there's no support for other functions. Plants definitely move nutrients through latex. I suspect what the quoted author meant was that there is no evidence for latex outperforming more traditional vasculature in non-defensive roles. -98.114.12.107 (talk) 22:00, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Defense Function

message: Where does the name latex come from?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.126.151.171 (talk) 18:20, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Etymology

message: This article has NOTHING about the mention of latex as a clothing item, which is pretty bloody ridiculous. Needs a lot of improvement.
--Chaosfeary 17:23, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Technical only - Latex as CLOTHING 

message: Hi.  I found out about this because I was talking to User:Mistress Selina Kyle about an unrelated matter and then found her banned for 3RR violations because of this, so I thought to check it out.  I agree that she did break 3RR, and a 24 hour block was appropriate, and she should have discussed it in talk.  However, her version was the correct version, and I would like to explain why.
Latex is a type of clothing and is a material henceforth it is fetishism, not BDSM.  There are fetishes for such things as leather, plastic, shoes, vinyl, velvet, masks and virtually every material in existence (some not sufficiently common to be worthy of a Wikipedia article).  This is the nature of what fetishism is all about.  Fetishism can also be for feet, hair, and other things too.  Fetishism is in effect a sexual obsession with a type of thing. 
Now, BDSM on the other hand often includes fetish elements, but it is not necessarily true.  BDSM in essence is bondage, domination, sadism and masochism and can exist without any materials whatsoever.  When using bondage, there are of course ties that are used, but this does not necessarily indicate a rope fetish or a handcuff fetish or a fetish with regards to the particular tie that is used.  It can quite simply be a desire to be bound, irrespective of the other elements.  Domination and submission etc can exist without any materials at all - they can be done wearing normal everyday clothes, or can be done while totally naked.  
To emphasise BDSM, certain clothing and styles are frequently worn, which are often related to fetishism, hence there is often a confusion that the two are the same thing.  
Fetishism on the other hand does not necessarily indicate BDSM.  For example, in certain British Royal circles, there is a foot fetish, but the people concerned are not remotely interested in BDSM.  Indeed, latex fetishism can, and does, exist with a lot of people who are not interested in BDSM.
This overlap should not be confused.  Latex is always a part of fetishism.  It is not always a part of BDSM.  
I trust that this is explained.  Writing that Latex is a form of BDSM fashion is quite simply wrong.  It can however state that it is a fetishism that is often associated with BDSM fashion as well.  That would be correct, and a suitable compromise.
Anyway, that's my view on it. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 12:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm glad that you agree with us that she was wrong to keep reverting to versions that used 'BDSM' I hope that you can convince her.  User:Noisy | Talk 12:50, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, one amusing thing is that BDSM fashion is a redirect to fetish fashion.  LOL.  Its pretty funny really when you think about it.  So we were reverting something that basically means the same thing.  hehe.  Mind you, I personally think that BDSM fashion is not the same thing as fetish fashion for reasons described above, but hey I guess they overlap so much that its okay.  BDSM fashion is really a part of fetish fashion.  A bit like how apples are a type of fruit. Zordrac  (talk) Wishy Washy  Darwikinian Eventualist 12:53, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latex as [[fetishism]] vs [[BDSM]] 

message: The Paint article points out that Latex is a process and that latex paint is not the same as latex rubber.
Should the article be renamed Latex rubber? --Gbleem 04:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paint 

message: What exactly is the name of the protein people are allergic to? --72.202.150.92 03:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latex allergies 

message: There's a blatant ad for latex mattresses that links straight to a website selling them.  I think it should be removed.  I don't even think that mattresses need to be mentioned at all, really.Snorgle 10:03, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, Snorgle.  It's a meaningless phrase.  Nothing is chemical-free.  Water is a chemical, for crying out loud.  SeanWillard 06:35, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about the phrasing now - "nearly free of synthetic chemicals".  It sounds a bit odd.  I may rephrase it later when I have more time.Snorgle 13:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Blatant advertising

message: I always thought latex was used in the condom revolution, but this article doesn't mention it at all. What is the rubber they use in condoms? JayKeaton 18:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Latex condoms

message: I sincerely doubt the claims made in the section on latex clothing. 
* "latex" in this sense (i.e. rubber latex) is a subset of rubber, it is not different from rubber fabric, merely different from some rubber fabrics.  
* It is also not shinier, the shine is only created by a chemical surface treatment.  Raw natural rubber latex fabric is powdered and quite matte/dull.  
* As far as latex fabric being "thinner" than rubber, this is nonsense.  Latex fabric whatever thickness you order (look at http://mjtrends.com as an example manufacturer).
I'm not even sure if the section is at all appropriate.  This article uses the definition that latex is the particles in an aqueous solution.  It then says that the main use of latex outside of nature is in the production of rubber.  That claim completely covers the concept of rubber fabric, and there's no need to iterate through all uses of rubber in this article.  Personally, I think it merely should be placed in the "see also" section, because the clothing/fabric just happens to commonly be referred to as "latex".  Barring discussion, I may change the article as such in a week or two. -Verdatum (talk) 17:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latex Clothing doubts 

message: What harmful toxins come from Latex??  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.207.63 (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latex... 

message: A lot of the past arguments related to this article appear to actually be related to ambiguities in the English language, and questions of article scope.  I've been working on fixing this, along with other editors, but I am no professional in this field.  I also have an American bias (I know other english speaking countries use "rubber" to refer to a pencil eraser, but I don't know if it progresses far beyond that). I'm mostly interested in organizing the information so there isn't a mass of redundancy between the various articles.
Currently, there are articles on latex, latex (polymer), natural rubber (rubber, gum rubber, and polyisoprene redirect there), synthetic rubber, and elastomer.  In polymer science, latex has an explicit definition, so it makes sense to start there.  Tracing the origin of the word latex (the milk-like sap from the rubber tree), brings us to what polymer science would refer to as "natural latex", being latex that composes the sap of various plants.  This could also cover what is referred to as "liquid latex", used for mold-making, special effects cosmetics, and fetishism.  That's the current focus of this article.  However (this is my doing), the definition in the lead section of this article effectively matches the definition given by latex (polymer), which makes the scope a bit blurry.  As a resolution, I would propose this page be moved to natural latex (it is already a redirect) so that this article may focus on the naturally occurring substance, and the polymer article can stick to the scientific properties of natural and artificial latex.
Unfortunately, the polymer science definition does not match the colloquial definition for the word "latex", which I perceive as 'rubber produced from natural latex, particularly of the rubber tree, particularly sheet-rubber'. Bad wording, I know, but it covers the major products that use the word 'latex' (latex condoms, latex gloves, latex clothing, latex fetishism) as well as the occasional non-sheet-latex terms that contain the word latex (foam-rubber latex).
So for reasons of organization, I'd propose moving those uses to the natural rubber article, and including in this article a brief mention of the confusion of terminology, and to the top of the article, add more explicit disambiguation instructions, "this article is about ... for ... see ..."
to clarify, elastomer covers aspects common to all "rubbery" products, natural and artificial.  That term again has an explicit definition, so it makes scoping simple.  synthetic rubber focuses on elastomers that are not made from natural latex, such as Neoprene, Polyurethane rubber, and silicone rubber.  There is some redundancy between these two articles, but since those articles are short, and the redundancy is mostly in the form of a finite list of types of rubbers, I don't believe it's a major concern.
The disambiguation pages, latex (disambiguation) and rubber (disambiguation) are currently incorrect in terms of how the articles are organized.  I'll fix this.  If the above changes are enacted, they will need to be adjusted a bit more.
I'll link to this section in the talkpages of the other articles mentioned.  Barring comments, I'll make the changes and put up a move request after a few days. -Verdatum (talk) 17:24, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article Scope (latex, rubber, elastomer) 

message: By my understanding, latex is a suspension predominantly of solid rubber particles in a liquid medium (mostly water). According to the colloid article, this would seem to make it a sol.
Is there some technical reason for it to be classified as an emulsion?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.206.63.106 (talk) 17:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Take a look at emulsion dispersion (and my comments there).  I'm confused by the whole thing myself. -Verdatum (talk) 21:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the dispersed polymer is usually not liquid, latex is not an emulsion in most cases. Source: Blackly, Polymer Latices 2nd ed. --194.48.133.8 (talk) 20:50, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why is latex considered an emulsion? 

message: The Biology section seemingly contradicts itself regarding the kind of laticifers that plants of the Euphorbiaceae have.  In the first paragraph it says "members of the family Euphorbiaceae" have articulated laticifers, but in the second para it says "In many euphorbs, the entire structure is made from a single cell – this type of system is known as a non-articulated laticifer".  Since euphorb means member of the family Euphorbiaceae, the latter contradicts the former.  Are they articulated or not, or does it depend on the species within Euphorbiaceae?  Someone with knowledge please update. --R. S. Shaw (talk) 01:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Euphorbiaceae laticifer contradiction 

message: Rubber bands totally belong in the (also see section) 3DPrintingTimPostma (talk) 19:29, 19 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: No, we don't need to list everything that happens to be made of rubber. Meters (talk) 00:43, 25 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  We need to include rubber bands 

message: I am born and bred English. Except for the section 'Industrial and biological applications from synthetic latexes', most of the article is written in what I understand to be the use of the term Latex in British English.
I am only aware of the word Latex in British English being used to refer to rubber from natural sources and the liquid produced from plants often used to make rubber.
It may be in the chemical industry it can mean a milky dispersion, suspension or emulsion of other compounds, but that is not in general use in British English. At school in chemistry in the 1970s and 80s in the UK a milky emulsion would never have been called a latex, but I am not a polymer scientist or engineer so I do not know whether latex is used in the British polymer industry to refer to an emulsion/suspension, etc.
E.g. in the UK protective gloves are available made from Latex, Nitrile rubber, vinyl, etc... Where Latex is the term used to refer to natural latex rubber.
In British English a paint called latex paint would be expected to be a natural rubber based paint producing a flexible finish. Whereas in US English a Latex paint is what in British English is called an emulsion paint and is often not at all flexible when cured.
SBR Styrene-butadiene rubber in British English is not called synthetic latex. It is simply SBR and an SBR emulsion is commonly used in the building industry for various uses. It is never called a synthetic latex in British English.
Searching for latex in most search engines is made difficult by the software called LaTex, so I have nor references to cite. However I suggest the overview can be modified relatively minimally to reflect this. The also suggest the section 'Industrial and biological applications from synthetic latexes' should have some more significant rework to reflect the different uses of the word latex in the different regional variations of English.
Lkingscott (talk) 10:10, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: South Africa and Austria seem to use the word similarly to British English, i.e. emulsion paint, not latex paint, etc.Lkingscott (talk) 10:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Latex - British English use