We take it for granted that our hair dryers won't send us to the emergency room and our toothbrushes won't make us go numb. Unfortunately, the same can't be said about sex toys.

It's entirely possible that someone's favorite cyclotron vibrator can shell-shock nerves, penis rings might lead to a grievous case of penile gangrene or those little vibrating beads could slip upstream and become tragicomically lost in bodily cavities while still in the "on" position.

Not only is it possible, it happens. Yet the same manufacturers go on making the same poorly designed sex toys, and people go on using them in the same poorly informed ways. Education and regulatory oversight are in short supply.

Plus, there's the whole "Who, me?" issue.

"If somebody has an unsafe hair dryer, they aren't going to hesitate to call an attorney and sue about it," says Zach Biesanz, a class action litigation attorney in New York City and author of a 2007 paper, "Dildos, Artificial Vaginas and Phthalates: How Toxic Sex Toys Illustrate a Broader Problem for Consumer Protection," published in Law and Inequality: A Journal of Theory and Practice. "Nobody is embarrassed about using a hair dryer."

Not so for sexual-enhancement devices, which in several states are deemed "obscene devices" and banned from sale (although possessing them is perfectly legal).

Embarrassed or not, we're still buying them at unprecedented numbers. Devices that were previously available only from a doctor or shady "adult movie" store can now be found from well-known manufacturers at online retailers, in-home Tupperware-style parties, and in big-box stores. Condom-makers Durex, Trojan and LifeStyles all make personal vibrators. Even Walmart now sells penis rings. In North America alone sex toys are a $500-million-per-year industry—and growing.

But with increased use comes increased mishaps. An estimated 6,800 people showed up in U.S. hospitals between 1995 and 2006 with a sex toy emergency, according to a 2009 study published in the Journal of Sex & Marital Therapy—most often, people in their 30s who needed help retrieving their vibrator or dildo. In 2007 alone about 900 people had injuries severe enough that they were admitted to the hospital to remove a foreign body from their rectums.

These numbers only include people willing to recount to triage nurses their stories of erotic adventures gone awry; actual injury rates are likely much higher. And since 1998 even the published numbers have been steadily rising, the 2009 study found—perhaps not coincidentally after the "Rabbit" vibrator-homage episode of Sex and the City first aired.

In June 2010 two urology residents at University of California, San Francisco, alarmed at the number of preventable sex toy calamities they were treating, published an article in The Journal of Sexual Medicine to call physicians' attention to the issue.

"I don't know that the country is ready to address sex toys in a mature fashion, to make them something that's regulated," says Alan Shindel, co-author of the article and now an assistant professor of urology at the University of California, Davis.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration regulates medical device safety, yet most sex toy manufacturers make no medical claims for their products and often add "for novelty use only" disclaimers to dodge responsibility for erotic mishaps.

Even at the U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, which oversees many everyday products, sex toys are lumped in with acupressure balls and wooden back-scratchers under "massage devices or vibrators," making sex-toy-specific statistics hard to find. There are no CPSC reports on sexual device safety, and specific product information is not publicly released.

Starting March 11, disgruntled sex toy users at least gained access to an empowering new outlet: a searchable public database for all kinds of products at SaferProducts.gov, run by the CPSC. Consumers are able to share tales of harm (or potential harm) from their dangerous sex gadgets. They can browse other consumers' experiences and read manufacturers' rebuttals.

7 Comments

1. 1. CarolQueenPhD 05:43 PM 5/24/11

   Thanks for this fabulous article. It's great to see Good Vibrations's leadership in the question of materials safety acknowledged -- we were also the company that urged the ingredient nonoxynol-9 be removed from lubricants. As Staff Sexologist and a part of the company for over 20 years, I just want to say that one enormous challenge and frustration is the inability of most sources to give clear information about product safety. There is no one stakeholder in charge of determining this, specifically *sexual* health and safety. In a world more comfortable with sexuality, that would likely change; and hopefully our world is moving in that direction.
   
   If I may, a couple of points: a dildo does not need to be "penis-shaped"; it can have no visual comparability to a penis and still be perfectly safe. Call it "rocket-shaped", perhaps. While plenty of women, men (and everyone) would prefer not to use a toy that reminds them of a penis, others want such a toy for exactly that reason -- because they eroticize and identify with it. In toy use as in cuisine preferences, it takes all kinds.
   
   And women who notice any clitoral and vulvar numbness with vibrator use might be conscious of how hard they are pressing the toy against themselves. If you lean on one hand long enough, that pressure will (without any vibration at all!) make your hand go numb.
   
   Really the bottom line with toy use is: How do people get information about safety and pleasure? Surely not from US sex education, which is not inclusive of this kind of detail. That's why Good Vibrations has always made education and knowledge provision a key part of its mission; visitors to our stores will find staff members (we call them SESAs, "sex educators/sales associates") who can speak comfortably about sexuality and sex toys, answer questions, and help customers maximize their knowledge. Website visitors to goodvibes.com, too, will find info pages as well as products.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

2. 2. Daniel35 09:55 PM 5/24/11

   We need to get rid of quite a few double standards so we can talk honestly about such things. For a start, replace "Be fruitful and multiply" with "Make (create) love, not babies, and doublely reduce the causes of war."

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

3. 3. David N'Gog 06:57 AM 5/25/11

   What about the correct use of a hamster?

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

4. 4. markus 08:56 PM 5/25/11

   well, let's see. lawyer zach says nobody is embarrassed to use a hair dryer. or, self-servingly, to call a lawyer in case of defects (vs a sex toy), truly begging the question as to what one should be embarrassed about.
   
   urologist alan synonymizes "maturity" with product regulation - but no word on self-regulation, or even the product regulatory mechanism known as 'the market'. which, btw, does provide gorgeous to the point of artistic sex toys (in materials such as stainless steel and borosilicate glass, jade), as well as more pedestrian, but safe, medical grade silicone. there are also some amazing, in terms of effect, examples of sex toys intersecting the industrial revolution (like hitachi's handheld vibe, or the sybian, which might be the result of exposing a typical vibe to gamma rays...). paternalists and their attempts to corner the market on "maturity". tsk, tsk, tsk.....
   
   the lady from 'good vibrations' has the right idea.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

5. 5. ashindel 12:01 PM 5/28/11

   Thank you to Dr. Nuzzo for bringing more widespread attention to this important topic. Thank you also to Dr. Carol Queen (a personal friend of mine) for her comments on safe and responsible use of sexual enhancement devices/toys. Dr. Queen, the staff at Good Vibrations, and employees of many other responsible vendors of sexual enhancement products have been educating customers on safe and effective use of these devices for decades. I applaud their work, and there is no doubt in my mind that their efforts have limited the number of injuries suffered by sex toy users.
   
   The myriad of devices and objects that we use in our daily lives grow increasing complex year by year. Personal responsibility is of course paramount and no one should rely on regulatory standards alone if they are to use any object safely and effectively…I am quoted as saying as much in this article. However, I don’t believe it is unreasonable to suggest that some minimum level of safety standards for devices used in and on the human body is warranted. This already applies to cell phones, hair dryers, personal hygiene products, kitchen appliances…should devices that are used on the most sensitive parts of our anatomy not be held to a similar high standard of quality/safety?
   
   Editorial restrictions invariably limit what an author is able to accommodate in any written material; Dr. Nuzzo did an outstanding job highlighting the thoughts Dr. Aaronson (my co-author on the Journal of Sexual Medicine editorial) and I articulated in our manuscript. Readers interested in perusing the original editorial may contact my office at the University of California, Davis Department of Urology for a PDF copy of the document.
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

6. 6. clerik 04:43 PM 5/31/11

   The author writes:
   'It's entirely possible that someone's favorite cyclotron vibrator can shell-shock nerves, penis rings might lead to a grievous case of penile gangrene or those little vibrating beads could slip upstream and become tragicomically lost in bodily cavities while still in the "on" position'.
   Hmm - the author does not even have any evidence that this IS a problem. There are many real problems in this world SciAm should concentrate on those.

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this

7. 7. rwstutler in reply to markus 10:55 PM 6/4/11

   " ... no word on self-regulation, or even the product regulatory mechanism known as 'the market'."
   
   tanstaafm, or, there aint no such thing as a free market. the only safe or fair (or safe) market is a well regulated market.
   
   there is a name which best describes believers in a free market - suckers.
   
   

   Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this