Test my definitions! [elanya]

You're viewing

elanya's journal
Create a Dreamwidth Account Learn More

Reload page in style: site light

←

→

I am going to post up here some definitions that I am using in my paper, and I would like for people to tell me where they see problems. Thanks!

1. Vibrator: an electrically powered device designed to create vibrations for sexual stimulation through physical contact. (edited)

2. Internal vibrators are designed primarily to stimulate erogenous zones inside the human body, including the the anal lining, the prostate, and the interior of the vagina.

3. External vibrators are designed primarily to stimulate erogenous zones outside the human body, including the clitoris, the labia, rim of the anus, and the penis.

4. Internal AND External vibrators are designed to simultaneously stimulate internal and external erogenous zones.

5. Internal OR External vibrators are designed to stimulate both internal and external erogenous zones, but not simultaneously.

location: College Station - home

Music:: Nick Cave & The Bad Seeds - Do You Love Me

Mood::

busy

←

→

There are 26 comments on this entry. (Reply.)

"electrically powered motorized" seems redundant, or at least awkward. Wouldn't "motorized" be sufficient? I think one can imply that it doesn't run on steam or gasoline.

it is redundant, but I think I'll go with steve and drop the motorized rather than the electrical bit.

[link] [parent] [reply]

- Are you including devices that may or may not have also been designed with other functions in mind (such as 'personal massagers') where the function is not explicit?

- Has there ever been a hand-cranked vibrator?

- 'though' should be 'through'

- 'sexual stimulation through the creation of and contact with vibrations' sounds odd (specifically the 'creation of' part). Presumably no vibrator is actually designed to stimulate simply by creating vibrations, but only through contact.

I would perhaps rephrase as 'a device designed to create vibrations for the purpose of sexual stimulation through physical contact'. You could add back 'electrically powered' in there if there are no non-electrical devices worth considering.

There are no non-electrical ones in there that I have come across - I'm only dealing with contemporary ones.

Thanks :)

[link] [parent] [reply]

Also - only using ones specifically designed for sex - no novelties, no "personal massagers".

[link] [parent] [reply]

But in the south, they're all "novelties." Otherwise it's against the law. Yay for prudish southern laws!

[link] [parent] [reply]

Yeah, I know - I went to Austin for some 'field research', and had a fun conversation with one of the ladies at Forbidden Fruit :D

But they are still *designed* explicitly for sex, even if you can't *say* that they are!

And it isn't all of the south - Just Texas and Georgia. I think there are two other states, one might be Colorado.... I don't remember the other one(s).

[link] [parent] [reply]

I think Arkansas and Tennessee.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Alabama!

[link] [parent] [reply]

Sure, uh-huh ... 'field research' ... tart!

[link] [parent] [reply]

So the one with solar panels to power it (to help save the enviroment) and the Hello Kitty ones are out?

And you can't forget Howard Sterns 'speaker technique'.
Technically that falls into your 'definition' ;)

[link] [parent] [reply]

Solar panels still convert energy to electricity. Hello Kitty wasn't designed as a sex aid *and* is not currently commercially available so it is out twice. The speakers are not likewise designed for sex, so again - out.

[link] [parent] [reply]

There we go, I'm all about tightning up loopholes, which you just did for yourself.

Might want to add the word 'specifically' in there to clear up any misconceptions.

Years ago on campus I remember a few girls who put the washer on spin cycle just for some 'satisfaction' but used the one at mom's to clean the clothes ;)

"1. Vibrator: an electrically powered device specifically designed to create vibrations for sexual stimulation through physical contact."

[link] [parent] [reply]

I dunno, I think that with the "designed for....sexual stimulation" it is clear enough.

[link] [parent] [reply]

Just offering some advice, depends on how techincal the people you're presenting to are with the wording.

I mean some women specifically make an unbalanced load in the washer ;)

Good debate tho :)

[link] [parent] [reply]

Oh Texas Annie had a big fat fanny and she drove a black sedan
She had ben-wa balls in her overalls and a trunk full of contraband
When the night was thick she'd pack her dicks and cross the county line
'Cause in Texas any tool for masturbation is a crime

:V

Also, it's prostate, not prostrate.

It is the gland that makes people lay down!

[link] [parent] [reply]

In number two, the wording makes me think internal vibrators are used on the interior of the anal lining and the interior of the prostate.

(And it's prostate, not prostrate. That's something very different.)

Damn, I thought I fixed that. I think I did in the actual *paper* anway :o

[link] [parent] [reply]

So now, looking at the internal/external aspects, I am wondering whether you can distinguish design from potential use (i.e. the intentions of the maker vs. the intentions of the user). The Internal AND External type seems pretty clearcut (needs two distinct thingies*), and the External only, I'm relatively convinced due to their smaller size (presumably?). But Internal, and Internal OR External, seem to me to raise the issue of design vs. use ... or perhaps you would care to expand?

*Note: 'Thingy' is a technical term. I have defined it in my own mind.

Mostly it is pretty clear form the form, but since we didn't have to limit our definitions purely to information inherent in the objects themselves, I also based my classification on the descriptions from the sites I took them from. I also have them defined according to primary design function. So, yeah sure you can use a regular vibrator for external use, but that isn't really it's *primary* function...

[link] [parent] [reply]

But really, don't you think some ethnoarchaeological research would be needed to complement your text-aided approach? ;-P

[link] [parent] [reply]

Can we do some participant observation? ^-^

[link] [parent] [reply]

I'm in! ^-^

[link] [parent] [reply]

Yeah, me too, but only if we can redefine participant observation as 'the observation of participants' ^-^

[link] [parent] [reply]

[url=http://www.3gsunlock.co.uk]iPhone Unlock[/url]

May