Talk:Violet wand

From wipipedia.org
(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search


Line 27: Line 27:
  
 
I was thinking about this in bed last night, and it's true to say, i think, that both statements are true: the BDSM world generally sees VW play as less risky as it's perceived as static electricity going across the skin. A medical opinion will always have a very negative view of any risk of an electric current crossing the heart. VW-fans may choose to go ahead, in the spirit of [[RACK]]
 
I was thinking about this in bed last night, and it's true to say, i think, that both statements are true: the BDSM world generally sees VW play as less risky as it's perceived as static electricity going across the skin. A medical opinion will always have a very negative view of any risk of an electric current crossing the heart. VW-fans may choose to go ahead, in the spirit of [[RACK]]
 +
 +
By the way, here is the Uncle Abdul info:
 +
 +
[http://www.uncleabdul.com/UAweb122.htm The Balloon Experiment — A Definitive Demonstration That Violet Wand Currents Go Through the Body
 +
]
 +
 +
  
 
Fuschia
 
Fuschia

Revision as of 05:57, 3 April 2005

The article was copied from Wikipedia, ideally this should be edited to make it more releevant to the UK scene and to the BDSM community as a whole.

Yup, I've done that, adding a bit more about the safety questions people often ask.

Tanos says: I think if any one is going to argue that the article must include a blanket statement that VWs should not be used above the waist, then we should discuss this with the people on the violetray yahoogroup. I've also corrected the WikiPedia's original and misleading comments about RCDs: people are playing with these things in clubs and RCDs seem a pretty good idea in that context to me (a lot of venues have RCDs built-in to the wall sockets now, just for speakers even.)

Hmmm, ta for that Tanos. The reason I spent quite a bit of my precious time adding some very relevant information for VW users regarding safety and the "below the waist rule" is because as a doctor I am in a position to know. If you're going to go around removing anything I post when I'm trying to be helpful then I will not feel very willing to help out in future. I rather feel most users would appreciate the informed opinion of a doctor rather than gossip from a yahoo group. sluttylatexboy.

The nature of a Wiki means that debate may well take place about an issue in this way, I don't think it's a lack of apprevciation fo the time someone has spent putting info in, as much as someone else's right to have a different view... I think the idea is that in the end a concensus is reached. There has been some debate on LFS about this issue too. Use of VW's above the waist is rife, but Uncle Abdul's book, Juice, is cautious on the issue.

I'll try to find some more info

Fuschia

x

Thanks Fuschia. I appreciate that this is a dynamic resource and have absolutely no problem with my posts, or anyone elses, being edited. Many things in medicine are controversial, but there are certain things that are agreed upon. What galls here is the summary deletion of what was a well intentioned explanation of the physiology behind the "below the waist" argument, intended to arm readers with facts they could use to weigh up the pros and cons for themselves. It would have been possible for Tanos to leave my explanation, but reframed it as "one point of view" rather than dismissing it as a "blanket statement." The very notion that physiological facts should be passed by some yahoo committee before publication is laughable. Tanos' assertion that glass VWs are safe to use internally was dangerous and irresponsible- whilst not wanting to engage in tit-for-tat deletions, in the interests of safety I have therefore corrected this one issue. Summary deletions like this risk discrediting what is an admirable and potentially very useful resource, and making others very reluctant to contribute. sluttylatexboy

Tanos says: "The point is that this is a WIKIPEDIA. That means nothing is ever deleted: it's all there in the previous revisions - just a cut and paste away. I'm also suprised that sluttylatexboy hasn't come across the violetray and violetray_play Yahoo groups. Given the people who are posting there, they are hardly "some yahoo group." Furthermore, the word "never" takes a lot of justifying: it's easy to come up with set-ups involving restrained legs and plastic speculums that make it very hard to see how a limited amount of insertion with a glass electrode is dangerous. Finally, the assertion that the words "great care should be taken" is a statement saying "this is safe" is hardly an example of evidence-based practice, is it? There are quite a few professionals in various disciplines around here."


Slutty replies: Without wanting to go round and round in circles on this one, I refer you to the above reply to Fuschia regarding presentation of the facts so that others may make up their own minds. Deprive them of this information and you deprive them of the opportunity to make informed decisions. No, I have not come across the yahoo groups you mention. This does not detract in any way from my professional experience. In the context of placing delicate glass objects in the anus or rectum the use of the word "never" needs no justification. I am well aware that you said "great care should be taken," but given the degree of damage this could cause, this is insufficient warning and I stand by my use of "never." As to evidence-based medicine: I have had to clear up the "evidence" far too often, and do not want anyone else to injure themselves. Lastly, yes there are many professionals round here. Many of them will now think twice about contributing to this resource when it is obvious that the time and help they can give is not appreciated. sluttylatexboy

Balzac Says: I have had a look at the posts and I would like to edit the article to include both points of view. I think sluttylatexboy has documented some important risks which I think the reader should be made aware of. However I acceopt that Tanos's view represents a broad base of opinion of experienced users of VW. I think by having both views we can help people make informed choices. An analogy would be the drug ecstasy, the medical profession (I assume) would advise that it is never taken recreationally, but a large number of people take it without adverse effects (except the very few that drop dead!). What people need to be able to do is assess the risks themselves and then make a decsion on how they want to use VWs. Would the contributers be happy for me to do the edit? Can we hold off on any more edits until we have agreement (for the sake of all our tempers :-) ) Balzac 10:17, 3 Apr 2005 (BST)

A bit of a test of the Wipi-concept, really!

I was thinking about this in bed last night, and it's true to say, i think, that both statements are true: the BDSM world generally sees VW play as less risky as it's perceived as static electricity going across the skin. A medical opinion will always have a very negative view of any risk of an electric current crossing the heart. VW-fans may choose to go ahead, in the spirit of RACK

By the way, here is the Uncle Abdul info:

[http://www.uncleabdul.com/UAweb122.htm The Balloon Experiment — A Definitive Demonstration That Violet Wand Currents Go Through the Body ]


Fuschia

Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Tools