We have your bests interests at heart.
Where does the line get drawn? At what point does it become my bloody responsibility to keep people from misfortune? When people desire to buy an oil-based lubricant, I advise them that it's not a good product for use with latex products. I do it because I want my customers to come back happy. Perhaps they were in a hurry and it slipped their mind that they needed something condom compatible. Sometimes they pick out something else. Sometimes they don't. Either way, I generally don't care which option they choose. If a customer likes what they picked out, it's not for me to tell them anything different. I would not presume to dictate to an adult what they should buy with their own money. If they want options or advice, I can do that. I am not going to make their choice for them.
Consequently, if a customer comes back in brandishing a half-empty bottle of that oil-based lube and gesturing to a newly pregnant belly because they decided to combine it with his favorite latex condom, I have no sympathy. I habitually mention the interaction when they make the purchase and even if I didn't, they have a responsibility to understand their sexual choices.
We carry some lubricants that also contain nonoxidol-9. We don't carry more than a couple brands and don't maintain more than a couple bottles of each at that. The reason is that it doesn't sell much anymore given the studies suggesting the spermicide increases the chance of viral transmission via micro-tears in tissues. Nevertheless, I will still get people who want nonoxidol-9 dosed lube anyway. I will provide that information when they ask for one of these lubricants, but it's their choice whether to purchase it or not.
We carry Anal-Eze and numbing sprays/gels/creams. Again, we have customers that ask for them by name, even though some people will have reactions. We carry "enhancing pills" because people ask for them by name even though not a one has been evaluated by the FDA, thereby providing no assurance whatsoever for the quality and condition of the ingredients in them. Alum, menthol, we have those too.
And now a large distributor of adult toys is cutting out toys containing phthalates. On one hand, that's very good news. Phthalates are nasty chemicals, I can well understand why people would like to keep them from their delicate bits. I have no problem in the slightest with manufacturers moving to less toxic materials, preferably non-toxic.
On the other hand, where do you draw the line? There is always going to be a level of personal politics involved in what a given adult store will stock. It's a given that certain biases will be reflected from the top down. This is neither a good nor bad thing of itself. There are more than a few stores that have capitalized on a feminine bias to positive effect, for example. At the same time, there are more than a few stores that have a bias that is pretty bleak. I am hardly implying that stores do not have the right to phase out whatever products they wish, for they do.
What makes me quite apprehensive is where the leverage seems to be coming from. For the sake of example, if every adult store in the world ceased to buy any rubber-based novelties from the manufacturers, you had better believe that the factories would be re-tooling at a phenomenal rate. The eruption of rubber-free novelties would be staggering in short order. Distributors and retail stores hold a phenomenal amount of power in aggregate. Some companies enjoy more personal power than others, but the choke point still exists.
There are going to be a lot of people thrilled by anything that reduces the number of phthalate containing toys on the market. Their focus is on making people safer. A great many would even characterize this as noble. I wouldn't. Choosing safety is one thing, having it chosen for me is quite another.
My problem is that this change is not coming from the customer base. The phasing out of phthalates does not seem to be rising from people choosing not to buy them, but from the corporate level. That bothers me. I don't care how good the motives are, when the wholesale level is dictating the entire market, the customer has lost a greater or lesser measure of choice. In essence, they are being told what they can buy. Many would argue that a similar monopoly is what makes mainstream pornography so repellant.
Let's face it, pretty much anything in an adult store can be used for evil. It's not just this particular industry either. I'd challenge you to find anything anywhere that can't. My point is that if a customer doesn't care about phthalates in their toys, then they should be able to buy it. I personally dislike jelly latex. I don't like its chemical properties. The inclusion of phthalates is only a small facet of that. However, if someone wants to buy a jelly toy knowing its drawbacks, it's their choice. They are adults, the consequences are their's. I have a serious problem with companies assuming responsibility for consumer choices.
Should we cease to sell electro-stim toys because some people with heart conditions can die from their use? Should we pull all our anal toys off the shelves because of the risk of fissures, incontinence and/or prolapse? Should we yank all the latex products here because some people have allergies potentially severe enough to be lethal?
I refuse to accept the rationale that items containing phthalates are inherently harmful as the basis. Alcohol is an inherent toxin, and yet adults are considered rational enough to weigh whether the enjoyment is worth the consequences. Tobacco is widely known to have some serious toxic effects including marked addictive qualities, but adults can choose whether or not tobacco is something they wish to enjoy. No one would appreciate distributors dictating which, if any, of those will reach the public.
The industry is there to meet the needs of the consumer, once it starts dictating those needs, the system breaks down.
People have the right to be stupid. People have the right to be self-destructive. It's too easy as it is to shift personal responsibility to someone else in this day and age. Shielding adults from those two rights only further erodes the concept of what adulthood is. If the populace wants safer sexual novelties, they'll demand the change. It is not our place to decide for them.
4 Comments:
I think it's illegal to cause harm to yourself or to others. That complicates things too.
From Wikipedia: Phthalates are also frequently used in PVC, nail polish, adhesives, caulk, and paint pigments... Hmmm - apparently we aren't to use superglue, have sealed bathtubs or sinks, have windows that work properly, have pipes or PVC clothing, and women will no longer be able to paint their nails...
According to a study at the U-MI, an undisclosed number of women from 4 states had urine samples that indicated a high amount of Phthalates, and the male offspring of said women ended up having a shorter penile size and showed possible complications occurring when their testes would finally drop - but who is to say that the Phthalates they had in their body were from SEX toys - it could just as easily have been from handling calk, paint, plastic pipes / clothing, or having their nails polished... Or all 4 during the 9 mo's they were preggers.
The study did NOT say how they were exposed, did NOT specify the exact number of women, and is the ONLY study currently recognized in the US as having humans in them *at all*...
Personally, if I were to avoid each and every creation which may harm me, I would live in a little bubble made of something apparently OTHER than plastic, and never see anyone ever again.
Yes - it's illegal to knowingly harm yourself or others - but that hasn't stopped tobacco companies from continuing to sell their products. The loophool is to provide a caveat with each sale for the public consumer to read and made an informed decision as to whether the risk is great enough to consider it to be of personal harm.
You have a good point! Unfortunately, the legal system does not seem to equate adulthood with responsibility: the supposed adult consumer is likely to deny any knowledge of possible harmful effects of a product (because he has not read the labels, or did not care at the time) and sue the company if worse comes to worse.
And the supposedly responsible adult will win, thus proving the point that in the legal system's view, we are all missing a brain -- and don't even need one, for that matter.
Darn that pisses me off.
Anon - Context makes the difference. It would be illegal to drown someone in silicone-based lubricant. That would be causing harm. It would not be illegal to discover in during sex that your partner is allergic.
Merr - In most of those cases, the phthalates do not come in lasting contact with humans. The chemical is volatile which means it evaporates. It would be one of the reasons you're instructed to use the products in a well ventilated area. In the case of the sex toys, the phthalates are present as a softening agent and will be released over the life of the toy as it degrades. Additionally, if a sexual novelty is not in contact with a human, it's not being used. However, I agree it's interesting how there is no hard data on transmission of phthalates from toy to tissue.
Stup - Ah, yes indeed, the legal system does make it rather easy to prosecute for one's own mistakes. However, should you examine a dildo or vibrator, you will find a specific word printed on the package; novelty. It's damn near impossible to base a suit upon a novelty in any circumstances. Coincidence? Not in the least.
Post a Comment
<< Home