Talk:Personal lubricant

	Human sexuality portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Brands

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Brands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of brands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BrandsWikipedia:WikiProject BrandsTemplate:WikiProject BrandsBrands articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Masturbation cream was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 26 November 2022 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Personal lubricant. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Archives

1

Edit request from X kittymeow x, 19 June 2010

{{editsemiprotected}} I would like to suggest that you remove "KY lubricant" from your list of "some personal lubricants." I work in an adult store and cringe everytime someone mentions KY. It is a medical lubricant that should not be used vaginally. Although all water-based lubricant's contain glycerine as the second or third ingredient, it is listed as KY's main ingredient. This leaves the product ridiculously sticky and tacky. Also, because of the amount of glycerin in the product, it gives MOST women irritations, if not yeast infections. It is by FAR the worst lubricant on the market and it's use should not be encouraged!!! There are many excellent lubricants on the market such as: JO (our store's top seller); Liquid Silk; Hydra (for women who are sensitive to glycerine); and Intimate Organics.

X kittymeow x (talk) 05:59, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Until we have a source for this, there is not a need to change the article. Please let us know when you have a good source, and we will make the change.

Not done ^Avicenna_sis @ 06:39, 19 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.articlesbase.com/sexuality-articles/ky-jelly-personal-lubricant-in-review-better-sex-or-just-a-bigger-mess-1023262.html

--Ericjs (talk) 02:59, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Mentrox, 29 June 2010

Information for section "Oil Based Lubricants"

{{editsemiprotected}} Hello, this is my first request, as i feel this information may be important to someone reading about personal lubricant. The section on Oil based lubricant could be appended with the (referenced) information on the condom page, that says that oil based lubricant can break latex based condoms, e.g. adding the paragraph;

"Care should be taken as oil-based lubricants such as petroleum jelly can increase the likelyhood of breakage and slipping of Latex condoms due to loss of elasticity caused by the oils"

Source; Spruyt, Alan B (1998). "Chapter 3: User Behaviors and Characteristics Related to Condom Failure". The Latex Condom: Recent Advances, Future Directions (Family Health International). http://www.fhi.org/en/RH/Pubs/booksReports/latexcondom/behavcharac.htm. Retrieved 2007-04-08.
As used here; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoms#cite_note-fhi3-24
Thanks

Mentrox (talk) 21:04, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much for that suggestion; I've done it, here.

I didn't put the care should be taken part, because that would fall foul of WP:NOTGUIDE.

Thanks again, Chzz ► 23:12, 29 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done

"personal lubricant"

"Personal lubricant" is a ridiculous euphemism; does that really need to be the title of this article? I would suggest the more straight-forward and accurate "sexual lubricant".--Ericjs (talk) 02:46, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They are called "personal lubricants" because they are used for more than sex. See the "medical" section. 71.71.23.238 (talk) 02:10, 17 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Written like an advertisement

Without independent sources to indicate the significance of this product, it will not be included in the article. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:46, 21 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Sounds like another shitty PR company has started vandalizing for cash.

"

In 2012, a company called Simply Solutions released a new formulated oil-based lubricant called Simply Slick that was tested through FDA approved clinics and confirmed to be the world's only oil-based lubricant safe for use with condoms.[5] The data obtained during the analysis of Simply Slick Personal Lubricant did not reveal any evidence of deterioration to latex-based or non-latex based condoms. Simply Slick was also clinically confirmed to be the world's only lubricant that contains antimicrobial properties. The oil-based antimicrobial lubricant is made from organic ingredients and was confirmed to kill yeast, bacteria, and fungus.[6]

"

Good catch. It has been removed. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 14:23, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If documentation is supplied that back the claims of it being oil-based but safe for use with latex and non-latex condoms, i feel that information is important to list so that oil-based personal lubricant users know that Simply Slick was confirmed (per the studies that were cited in the original post) to be 100% safe. The current definition "Oil-based lubricants, for example petroleum-based lubricants (such as petroleum jelly), can increase the likelihood of breakage and slipping of latex condoms due to loss of elasticity caused by these lubricants.[4]" is a bit misleading. Simply Slick is confirmed to be safe for use with them. Any help on how to properly word the edit would be greatly appreciated as this is my first time adding to Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.114.187.67 (talk) 21:23, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Ohnoitsjamie. I was wondering if you could lend a hand regarding my request above. I left a message asking how the text can be re-worded so as not to sound like "another shitty PR company". We backed every single claim with clinical results performed by FDA laboratories and would like your help in revising the post I created. Thanks in advance for any help you can provide on getting the truth out. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.114.187.67 (talk) 20:40, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

To avoid sounding like "another shitty PR company", we'd need citations from published third-party reliable sources, rather than from material hosted on Simply Slick's website (though the links don't seem to work anyway). And given the claims being made, the sources would almost certainly have to comply with WP:MEDRS guidelines. And even then, inclusion would be dependent on sourcing establishing that this lubricant is indeed of the significance claimed - we aren't going to repeat claims of this being the 'worlds only' anything without darned good independent sourcing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for responding AndyTheGrump. The sources we supplied were the actual test results from the laboratories doing the studies. These tests were performed by laboratories approved by the FDA. I would hope that those sources would be deemed as creditable and would comply with any of Wikipedia's guidelines. As far as the "world's only" claim, no need to add that if you do not deem it worthy to add. Would you recommend that we edit the Personal Lubricants page again, the same way we did when we originally made the edit including sources and then have you guys review it? I want to make sure we conform to your guidelines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.114.187.67 (talk) 21:35, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines - rather than editing the article yourselves, you should make any proposals here. Firstly though, you'll need to provide working links to the necessary sources - and as I've already explained, to indicate the significance of the lubricant, we'd need third-party sources. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:29, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AndyTheGrump. We will make sure to review the Wikipedia:Conflict of Interest guidelines rather than edit ourselves. In regards to the working links from third-party sources, we would hope that the actual clinical tests showing the positive results, which come from FDA approved laboratories, would suffice. We will have those added to a server that's accessible online so that you and your staff can review our test results that back our claims. Thanks again for your help. AndyTheGrump - here are the links pertaining to our clinical studies. Condom Compatibility for Latex Condoms - http://www.simplyslick.com/pdf/Condom_Compatibility_All_Male_Latex_Contraceptives.pdf and http://www.simplyslick.com/pdf/Condom_Compatibility_Latex.pdf and http://www.simplyslick.com/pdf/Condom_Compatibility_Latex_3_Brands.pdf and http://www.simplyslick.com/pdf/Condom_Compatibility_Non_Latex.pdf. We would like to remove the statement "Simply Slick was also clinically confirmed to be the world's only lubricant that contains antimicrobial properties". We would like to change the statement "The oil-based antimicrobial lubricant is made from organic ingredients and was confirmed to kill yeast, bacteria, and fungus." to "The oil-based lubricant is made from organic ingredients and was confirmed to kill yeast, bacteria, and fungus." and here is our clinical test showing we kill yeast, bacteria, and fungus. http://www.simplyslick.com/pdf/Antimicrobial_Endurance_Test.pdf and http://www.simplyslick.com/pdf/Microbial_Assays_Test_for_Candida_albicans.pdf. We would also like to include the statement "Simply Slick is the first natural lubricant to receive an FDA 510(k) under the new test protocols. Link to our 510(k) clearance from the fda - http://www.simplyslick.com/pdf/K140304_Clearance_Letter.pdf Thanks again for the help AndyTheGrump — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.114.187.67 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 20 November 2014‎

What part of the phrase 'third-party sources' do you have difficulty understanding? AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you mean. Each of the tests I listed above are performed by a third party FDA approved laboratory, not us. They do not make our tests public, which is why we host the documents on our server - so we can make them public for people to review and check our claims. So even though the tests come from FDA approved laboratories, we can't use them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.114.187.67 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 20 November 2014‎

If you are incapable of understanding what 'third-party sources' means, I suggest that you find someone who does, and let them continue this discussion. I'm not going to waste any more time repeating myself. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Your post above states "we'd need third-party sources". I supplied tests in the links above from third-party sources. Why can't you use them? The tests I linked have the name of the company that performed the tests for us on the first page of each test I linked.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Personal lubricant. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080516092406/http://www.ccof.org/press060204.php to http://www.ccof.org/press060204.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:57, 7 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Surgical lubricants

108.201.29.108 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), regarding this, why do you think that "surgical lubricants" should be mentioned in the lead? It is not WP:Lead material. And do stop stating that things you add should not be removed without WP:Consensus; that is not true. Furthermore, you have been warned enough about overtagging. You are reminding me of User:Leprof 7272. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:46, 29 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Surgical lubricants are drastically different than "Personal Lubricants", in that surgical lubricants are FDA regulated medical devices that have to meet rigorous standards, where products which are marketed as "Personal lubricants" are not regulated by the FDA as strictly, indeed if they are regulated at all. As for "over-tagging", as you should be well aware, each and every fact stated needs to have is own verifiable reference(s). Therefore, I could start outright removing non-sourced material, if you'd like me to approach things that way, which could mean half an article or better, in some cases. If I have to address this again, it will be in the form of a ticket at WP:ANI. 108.201.29.108 (talk) 04:59, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I asked you a simple question. Why do you think that "surgical lubricants" should be mentioned in the lead? The WP:Lead is for summarizing the article's most important points. It is not for material not covered lower in the article or for the article's less important points. If you want that changed, you can make your case at the WP:Lead talk page. WP:Overtagging is disruptive, as you have been told by more than one editor. And per WP:Preserve, any content that should be in this article should be preserved. Your threats bore me. I would not get reprimanded whatsoever at WP:ANI, but you can try. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:45, 11 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Astroglide?

Astroglide redirects here now, but there is virtually nothing about the product line. Expand or not?--Surv1v4l1st ^{╠Talk║Contribs╣} 03:21, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cornstarch needs mention

cornstarch needs mention, it has backing studies 2600:1700:CDA0:1060:319E:F846:6405:AF86 (talk) 00:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Flavour aquafield gel

Can we use aquafield lubricant gel to lick pussy 37.121.198.2 (talk) 10:52, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]