Talk:Erotic electrostimulation

message: Is this a how-to, or an encyclopedic entry? --malber 20:46, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Still (or again) reads much like a how-to.--24.85.82.38 (talk) 06:26, 10 September 2011 (UTC)

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  "prostrate massage!" Edison (talk) 20:26, 2 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does electrostimulation specifically do sexually? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Incorrect Safety Information 

message: 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)
thread_title:  History 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Possible damage to the human body 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Lubrication 

message: 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)
thread_title:  ErosTek 312 

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  risks: ozone