99p Next Day delivery! Hurry ends in ...
  1. Doc Johnson lying about materials - PHTALATES and Dildology

    1373567335
    S&S [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: General
    • Posts: 402
    • Joined: 13 Feb 2011

    Despina Rose wrote:

    S&S wrote:

    Call me sceptical, but I'll wait on some real research to come out on this before completely discrediting Doc Johnson. This site looks like it's just set up by a bunch of mates with an idea, and there's absolutely no concrete scientific information on the site at all.

    So for now, I don't think people need to lose their minds with this - and I'm not entirely sure the Lovehoney staff will leave a thread which slanders a large enough company based on some dodgy information open for too long.

    The more I think about it and look at the site, the more it looks like a simple money-grabbing scheme. That's just my opinion though.

    http://wiki.dildology.org/w/images/0/03/2013-06-12-eca-13254.png Real place, real testing. Not just 'mates with an idea'. Evidence enough for you??

    This is part of the problem, that even with chemical testing people still say oh no people wouldn't do that. Dodgy information? Chemical testing!!

    Nope, not at all evidence enough for me I'm afraid! The signature just says 'Jim Polanksy, Scientist' which I'm actually finding hilarious. So yeah, I'm gonna remain in the sceptic's camp at this stage.

    Such a test is also incredibly easy to do, if you happen to know someone doing a PhD in chemistry, or some other such equivalent. They're asking for a little too much money for this, and too often, and so I'm just being a bit wary of someone trying to earn some extra money over the internet.

    1373567373
    ghostgirl [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Major General
    • Posts: 522
    • Joined: 26 Sep 2010

    S&S wrote:

    Call me sceptical, but I'll wait on some real research to come out on this before completely discrediting Doc Johnson. This site looks like it's just set up by a bunch of mates with an idea, and there's absolutely no concrete scientific information on the site at all.

    So for now, I don't think people need to lose their minds with this - and I'm not entirely sure the Lovehoney staff will leave a thread which slanders a large enough company based on some dodgy information open for too long.

    The more I think about it and look at the site, the more it looks like a simple money-grabbing scheme. That's just my opinion though.

    The site was set up by a group of sex toy reviewers and bloggers, it is independant of the industry and uses a reputable lab to perform the tests.. The lab report is visable on the site.

    I was horrified and will also be sending a parcel to the amnesty, if a company is unethical enough to lie about one product can they be trusted not to lie about others.

    Can someone at Lh comment on this one, particularly regarding the descriptions and materials part of your product pages?

    xGGx

    1373569131
    kittencub [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 2072
    • Joined: 11 May 2013

    Sorry not been around much, depression was thinking of getting the boss by Dr Johnson forfun not so sure now.

    1373570210

    [suspended user]

    suspended user
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 2403
    • Joined: 25 Apr 2013

    All looks pretty real to me!

    1373571804
    Cheeky Chica [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Brigadier
    • Posts: 270
    • Joined: 19 Mar 2013

    This was posted on twitter by Doc Johnson 5 minutes ago:

    http://www.docjohnson.com/blog/responsetodildology/

    1373572366
    Fluffbags [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 2018
    • Joined: 18 Oct 2011

    Dildology is a real group, run by quite a few sex toy reviewers and bloggers and if I am correct in my thinking, lovehoney SUPPORT dildology. (I seem to remember them offering something like a % off sales if people donated to the cause. Maybe I am wrong but I really do remember Lovehoney were involved in some way when Dildology launched. The girls who set up dildology are very passionate about the truth of what is inside our sex toys and they launched dildology quite recently. The problem is, lab testing costs money and so Dildology is run on kind donations from people who want to know what is inside sex toys.

    I suspect a lot of the big...big....BIG manufacturers (Doc Johnson, Cal ex etc) Do not use pure pure silicone materials. Its kinda obvious when you have tried some of the most high quality toys out there and then try one of theirs. I haven't received one yet without a lingering odour. Pure silicone is odourless. All of my pure silicone toys had a very slight odour when unpackaging them, which I believe is normal, comes from the packaging and such, but after an airing, they should not have an odour at all, I am talking a day or two, most cheaper toys stink for months, even years. They are not pure. The thing is though, they are cheap. Your looking at £40/£50 for a pure silicone dildo. Only stocking purest dildos means you are being conscious of safety (and there are smaller boutique companies that do this) but the reason Doc Johnson etc is so big is because they can mass produce lower grade products uber cheap and sadly, there is a huge demand for that.

    Even some of the founders of dildology point out that if we went down the route of pressing for FDA approval on sex toys, it will dramatically increase the price of the good toys to the point that they will be luxury items. I believe I even read that this is why Dildology was formed, to "Self regulate" to give people the information and let them make informed choices. This way, prices do not inflate but word of mouth gets round and people can decide what to do with that info.

    1373572547
    Despina Rose [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 2581
    • Joined: 18 Apr 2010

    Even if it doesn't contain phtalates they say the material is PVC with Antibacterial Sil-A-Gel. There is only 39% PVC in there. That is not being honest about materials to start with. I still don't trust them at all.

    I appreciate that companies need to make a profit, however there is a huge huge profit for crap materials. For example, Cal Exotics vibes usually only cost around £5 each to make, usually less. They sell those to distruibtors for say £15. They then get sold for say £25. That is how it works with those companies. They aren't even that cheap really, just crappy.

    None of the sex toys I have have any kind of odour, I don't feel sick when using them, I don't have a reaction. They are mostly pure silicone, glass, metal, wood or at the very least silicone from reputable companies. I appreciate that not everyone can afford expensive materials.

    1373572988
    Fluffbags [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 2018
    • Joined: 18 Oct 2011

    Same Despina. I only go for pure silicone, glass, wood, ceramic or metal xx

    1373573017
    Despina Rose [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 2581
    • Joined: 18 Apr 2010

    However after trying and testing everything from jelly (before I knew about the risks) to pure silicone I would never recommend jelly, skin safe rubber, pvc etc to anyone. People get chemical reactions off of these, they melt into each other, they are oily, they stink. I don't want that in my house let alone in my body.

    I will always say that a decent material sex toy is much better than a cheaper one. They have better functions, more powerful and are often rechargeable. Also some really great deals are to be had on good quality ones so you don't have to pay the rrp.

    1373573073
    MandiVonSweiss [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Brigadier
    • Posts: 81
    • Joined: 24 Jun 2009

    I found this quite odd on the DJ blog post in regards to this:

    In the identification fields, the sample material is incorrectly named and identified – it is listed as “DocJohnsonUR3”, when in fact it is R5®. The lab used, Expert Chemical Analysis (ECA), has misidentified the sample they tested. The James Deen dildo is not manufactured in UR3®. Our UR3® formula contains no PVC or plasticizer.

    And then on a blog post about the James Deen dildo, it says this

    He’s America’s sexiest boy next door, the hottest male porn star around…and we’ve got his cock, just for you guys! For all those wondering what the official James Deen Cock will look like, we at Doc are proud to announce that James Deen’s cock will be available in both our best-selling ultra-realistic UR3 material, as well as our Platinum Silicone with vibrations! Fucking sweet, right?!

    1373573128
    Despina Rose [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 2581
    • Joined: 18 Apr 2010

    Fluffbags wrote:

    Same Despina. I only go for pure silicone, glass, wood, ceramic or metal xx

    I should say that when I say metal I mean stainless steel or aliminum. None of these steel coated stuff that scratches off. All of these companies make a huge turnaround by manufacturering them super cheaply and then selling them on for many times higher than they cost to make.

    1373573140
    S&S [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: General
    • Posts: 402
    • Joined: 13 Feb 2011

    Cheeky Chica wrote:

    This was posted on twitter by Doc Johnson 5 minutes ago:

    http://www.docjohnson.com/blog/responsetodildology/

    Thanks for linking this. Doc Johnson's thoughts on the testing:

    "The Dildology website is in error. It is a common mistake made by non-scientists who do not have a working knowledge of polymer chemistry. The ECA testing lab used by the website found bis(2-ethylhexylhexahydrophthalate) which could, to the layman, appear to be DEHP. This misinterpretation and lack of deeper analysis speaks to the competency of the laboratory used."

    I'm still not convinced by Dildology's scientific merit, as opposed to the testing that a rather large and public company would perform to comply with, at the very least, selling a product that matches it's desscription.

    Anyways, it looks like the damage may have been done already. There's conflicting information out there and it's just up to the individual to make their own decisions. Personally, I've lost no faith in Doc Johnson because of Dildology's individual report.

    1373573408
    Fluffbags [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 2018
    • Joined: 18 Oct 2011

    S&S wrote:

    Cheeky Chica wrote:

    This was posted on twitter by Doc Johnson 5 minutes ago:

    http://www.docjohnson.com/blog/responsetodildology/

    Thanks for linking this. Doc Johnson's thoughts on the testing:

    "The Dildology website is in error. It is a common mistake made by non-scientists who do not have a working knowledge of polymer chemistry. The ECA testing lab used by the website found bis(2-ethylhexylhexahydrophthalate) which could, to the layman, appear to be DEHP. This misinterpretation and lack of deeper analysis speaks to the competency of the laboratory used."

    I'm still not convinced by Dildology's scientific merit, as opposed to the testing that a rather large and public company would perform to comply with, at the very least, selling a product that matches it's desscription.

    Anyways, it looks like the damage may have been done already. There's conflicting information out there and it's just up to the individual to make their own decisions. Personally, I've lost no faith in Doc Johnson because of Dildology's individual report.

    There is no regulation to comply with. I am not trying to change your mind, it is already made and thats cool everyone has a right to an opinion. Just saying, there is no regulations to comply with. A company can legally write "100% pure premium silicone" on a box if they wanted to, and the product could contain no silicone and they are not breaking any laws. :D

    1373573509
    MandiVonSweiss [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Brigadier
    • Posts: 81
    • Joined: 24 Jun 2009

    Fluffbags wrote:

    There is no regulation to comply with. I am not trying to change your mind, it is already made and thats cool everyone has a right to an opinion. Just saying, there is no regulations to comply with. A company can legally write "100% pure premium silicone" on a box if they wanted to, and the product could contain no silicone and they are not breaking any laws. :D

    False advertising possibly?

    1373573548
    Despina Rose [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 2581
    • Joined: 18 Apr 2010

    Fluffbags wrote:

    S&S wrote:

    Cheeky Chica wrote:

    This was posted on twitter by Doc Johnson 5 minutes ago:

    http://www.docjohnson.com/blog/responsetodildology/

    Thanks for linking this. Doc Johnson's thoughts on the testing:

    "The Dildology website is in error. It is a common mistake made by non-scientists who do not have a working knowledge of polymer chemistry. The ECA testing lab used by the website found bis(2-ethylhexylhexahydrophthalate) which could, to the layman, appear to be DEHP. This misinterpretation and lack of deeper analysis speaks to the competency of the laboratory used."

    I'm still not convinced by Dildology's scientific merit, as opposed to the testing that a rather large and public company would perform to comply with, at the very least, selling a product that matches it's desscription.

    Anyways, it looks like the damage may have been done already. There's conflicting information out there and it's just up to the individual to make their own decisions. Personally, I've lost no faith in Doc Johnson because of Dildology's individual report.

    There is no regulation to comply with. I am not trying to change your mind, it is already made and thats cool everyone has a right to an opinion. Just saying, there is no regulations to comply with. A company can legally write "100% pure premium silicone" on a box if they wanted to, and the product could contain no silicone and they are not breaking any laws. :D

    I did say this earlier. There are no regulations at all. They can say whatever they want and it is still legal because it is labelled as 'novelty'.

    1373573989
    repliquant [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Lieutenant Colonel
    • Posts: 359
    • Joined: 16 May 2013

    S&S wrote:

    Anyways, it looks like the damage may have been done already. There's conflicting information out there and it's just up to the individual to make their own decisions. Personally, I've lost no faith in Doc Johnson because of Dildology's individual report.

    Same here.

    1373574080
    Fluffbags [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 2018
    • Joined: 18 Oct 2011

    MandiVonSweiss wrote:

    Fluffbags wrote:

    There is no regulation to comply with. I am not trying to change your mind, it is already made and thats cool everyone has a right to an opinion. Just saying, there is no regulations to comply with. A company can legally write "100% pure premium silicone" on a box if they wanted to, and the product could contain no silicone and they are not breaking any laws. :D

    False advertising possibly?

    Maybe, but how many peeps are willing to outcry that their 12 inch dong isnt silicone and back that up by proving it (getting an expensive lab test run on it) get proof of HOW it damaged you, then taking the company to court and going public. They still might not win either, as the regulation is lacking and so could the company argue that it is a novelty item not a medical item and that you shouldn't have been doing that with it. I dunno. I am the wrong person to ask. I follow other girls blogs with interest on this subject but I don't know the half of it. Only what I read.

    1373574733
    SophieM [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: General
    • Posts: 908
    • Joined: 16 Dec 2012

    Well this is a bit of an eye opener!

    You can't really argue that these companies should have to put info specifying ALL materials and substances used to make the products in questions as they do say 'novelty use' on the packaging. I know they are selling products that we put inside our bodies but that is OUR personal choice to do that, and if we have a reaction then the company are fully covered with those two little words: 'novelty use'. Yes I get that it would be absolutely fantastic to know exactly what is going into our sex toys, but a lot of companies don't think the same as some of us do. at the end of the day it's more than likely their biggest priorety is the money making factor, not the safety of others.

    What I will say though is that, by reading all of this I'm taking no sides. As other member's have mentioned, there's conflicting information and in the end people will make their own decisions as to whether or not they want to continue using Doc Johnson products.

    Personally, I wouldn't use DJ products anyway as they just don't appeal to me in the way that other products do.

    1373574916
    S&S [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: General
    • Posts: 402
    • Joined: 13 Feb 2011

    Fluffbags wrote:

    S&S wrote:

    Cheeky Chica wrote:

    This was posted on twitter by Doc Johnson 5 minutes ago:

    http://www.docjohnson.com/blog/responsetodildology/

    Thanks for linking this. Doc Johnson's thoughts on the testing:

    "The Dildology website is in error. It is a common mistake made by non-scientists who do not have a working knowledge of polymer chemistry. The ECA testing lab used by the website found bis(2-ethylhexylhexahydrophthalate) which could, to the layman, appear to be DEHP. This misinterpretation and lack of deeper analysis speaks to the competency of the laboratory used."

    I'm still not convinced by Dildology's scientific merit, as opposed to the testing that a rather large and public company would perform to comply with, at the very least, selling a product that matches it's desscription.

    Anyways, it looks like the damage may have been done already. There's conflicting information out there and it's just up to the individual to make their own decisions. Personally, I've lost no faith in Doc Johnson because of Dildology's individual report.

    There is no regulation to comply with. I am not trying to change your mind, it is already made and thats cool everyone has a right to an opinion. Just saying, there is no regulations to comply with. A company can legally write "100% pure premium silicone" on a box if they wanted to, and the product could contain no silicone and they are not breaking any laws. :D

    Yeah, I was just talking about false advertising, as I said here. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind either, just asking that people read around and don't take every bit of information at face value. The original post and the topic title is quite aggressive in its stance - I just wanted to draw things back and have a proper look at the information.

    1373575433
    Fluffbags [sign in to see picture]
    • Rank: Field Marshall
    • Posts: 2018
    • Joined: 18 Oct 2011

    S&S wrote:

    Fluffbags wrote:

    S&S wrote:

    Cheeky Chica wrote:

    This was posted on twitter by Doc Johnson 5 minutes ago:

    http://www.docjohnson.com/blog/responsetodildology/

    Thanks for linking this. Doc Johnson's thoughts on the testing:

    "The Dildology website is in error. It is a common mistake made by non-scientists who do not have a working knowledge of polymer chemistry. The ECA testing lab used by the website found bis(2-ethylhexylhexahydrophthalate) which could, to the layman, appear to be DEHP. This misinterpretation and lack of deeper analysis speaks to the competency of the laboratory used."

    I'm still not convinced by Dildology's scientific merit, as opposed to the testing that a rather large and public company would perform to comply with, at the very least, selling a product that matches it's desscription.

    Anyways, it looks like the damage may have been done already. There's conflicting information out there and it's just up to the individual to make their own decisions. Personally, I've lost no faith in Doc Johnson because of Dildology's individual report.

    There is no regulation to comply with. I am not trying to change your mind, it is already made and thats cool everyone has a right to an opinion. Just saying, there is no regulations to comply with. A company can legally write "100% pure premium silicone" on a box if they wanted to, and the product could contain no silicone and they are not breaking any laws. :D

    Yeah, I was just talking about false advertising, as I said here. I'm not trying to change anyone's mind either, just asking that people read around and don't take every bit of information at face value. The original post and the topic title is quite aggressive in its stance - I just wanted to draw things back and have a proper look at the information.

    I agree 100% that everyone should look into it. That is why I stated "I don't know everything" I don't know all the laws and loopholes and whats "true" because there is a lot of conflicting information. Simply because of the conflicting info and the fact I was once left burning in the nether regions from a cheap toy, I choose to stick to products I know are safe/high quality. If in doubt...I leave it out....of my vagina lol (I like to call it "Fussy Pussy" lol)

    By the way, some other info I read and just passing along (True or not, who knows I did not do the research): The "For novelty use only" tag is not really used so much to avoid getting sued (First because...no regulation anyway, and second because its up to a judge to decide to go ahead with a case if he chooses and "disclaimers" won't stop the judge deciding to go ahead or prosecute) rather, the disclaimer is used to avoid international shipping issues with the FDA. Something about it being a truckload cheaper to internationally ship novelty products.

    Post a reply to this thread

    Please sign in to post messages to the forum.