Sounds like a niche market, but I am sure that there is a market.
I am sure that wooden items have been used as impromptu dildos from time to time.
Ok. Not to be antagonistic. But I credit you for your peer review linked article about E. Coli and Salmonella questionable rates of transmission via wood/plastic. I clicked the next peer review linked article though on the same page though and It was a study proving woods importance due to bacterial retention in cheese fermentation of 7 different strands of bacteria. So.
Peer reviewed article results? 50/50 - out of exactly two peer reviewed articles. Because they are both being cited grossly out of context or relevance to safety of anal use of wooden objects unless specially treated or used with precautions.
Unless we’re considering two bacterial strains only, cited in the article linked to show peer reviewed uncertainty of E. Coli and Salmonella transmission re wood vs. “plastic.” Which literally couldn’t possibly be any more vague of a definition of material composition in a scientific peer reviewed abstract. And then those two strains take on a particular relevance when reading the next paragraph.
- I think most anyone would agree though, that anyone who is inserting raw meat (or porous wooden objects that have been around raw meat), anally kind of deserves to get both of those bacterial contaminations. As well as a Darwin Award and a resurrection of 1,000 Dumbest Ways to Die on Spike TV just for that episode alone… That’s basically the definition of natural selection and selective evolution in a very crude, yet fitting way (and contextual way).
So, logically I would like to say we can conclude that those two bacterial strains aren’t going to be the two strains of bacteria in contention when inserting wooden objects anally. Out of the hundreds of thousands that are in existence. Well, I mean, maybe logically, because wooden spoons were referenced and they’re used with food…
So, let’s use common sense here. Body safe sex toys with No pores, that are completely smooth can have bacteria (and mold), grow on them over time with repeated use. That’s the exact reason antibacterial toy cleaners exist. Wood is inherently porous. Period. Regardless of the rare antibacterial woods being used, or probably not.
So. Do you feel comfortable inserting a wooden porous sex toy into your lower intestinal tract? Which is the highest bioavailability absorbency part of your entire body others than your upper intestine (possibly)? Under the assumption that it won’t retain bacteria, (due to its inherently porous property of being…wood)? Versus a non porous body safe sex toy that can still have bacterial retention and mold grow on them?
Well. If that’s how you feel. That’s your choice. It’s definitely not a hygienic practice to pursue though. Doesn’t mean it’ll definitely end in harm, but it’s definitely much more likely to than body safe non porous sex toys, unless you never anti-bacterialize them anyway. And any medical expert would and has said the exact same thing.
I understand that this is how you feel if that’s how you feel. And you’re entitled to feel that way as is anyone else. I’m aware that there are others who feel the same way. However, I’m willing to bet they take at least some precautions to reduce the bacterial retention of…porous wooden objects.
I think it should be noted in a non antagonistic way for someone casually reading, ”There is no peer reviewed link to wood and bacterial retention,” taken grossly out of context. Who then decides to try a wooden spoon as their first “homemade” anal sex toy experience. Or anything wooden for that matter unless it’s been specifically designed to counteract the inherent dangers of woods properties in the highest absorption part of the human body? As referenced by @Peitho ‘s post about competitor wooden dildos biggest obstacle being?
- Is taking a very un/mis-informed chance of permanent internal harm, with no awareness if all they’ve read are “no correlation,” references stated here in this thread. And is unintentionally putting themselves in an unnecessary level of categorically agreed “unsafe sexual practices,” for those very few reasons I’ve mentioned in this post.
And it’s negligent not to make that clear, if they aren’t taking precautions.
I hope the intention of this post is understood not to be a personal attack even though it’s easily understandable to see it that way, because of responses to direct comments, just without the intention to offend or come across as attacking. .
But is read, more as a warning to anyone reading the non contextual comments made. That they should probably do a little bit more research or their own. From a qualified medical source, to understand the chances they are taking before they take a wooden spoon (or anything else wooden) and use it as their first home made anal sex toy after pulling it out of the sink.
You’ve completely misunderstood what I was saying.
I cook with wooden utensils most days. If I can keep those wooden utensils clean enough for food use by washing them with soap and water, it seems reasonable to think that it would be possible to do the same with a wooden dildo.
Obviously, people should do their own research and come to their own conclusions, but that research should be based on actual experimental evidence and not just the assertion that wood is unhygienic. Admittedly the available evidence is limited, but what I’ve found seems to suggest that wood is actually less prone to growing bacteria on its surface than food-grade plastic alternatives.
If you see the 2/2 on bacterial retention comment on wood and its importance in the peer reviewed study for cheese fermentation. Then I don’t think I misunderstood. It proves the opposite of the peer reviewed link you cited on the same page as the link you cited. And that means both are equally unreliable with regard to bacterial retention since in neither case do either of those two studies have anything to do with bacterial retention of bacteria likely to be present on wooden toys inserted in the body.
As for wooden utensils that are clean enough to eat off of. There’s no dispute there. I and most people with any experience of having watched nasty stuff grow on wood utensil’s probably wouldn’t choose to do so, but that’s an individual choice. However since your intestines are the highest bioavailable organs in your body (meaning everything is amplified in your body’s ability to absorb from your intestines.). I think that’s also kind of irrelevant. Google how many people have died from alcohol poisoning from soaking tampons in vodka and inserting them anally if you want an easily findable search of proof of this concept.
Wood treated with the right medical grade coatings (not just lacquer slathered on it), as if you’ve ever smelled lacquer you will know exactly why I’m saying that without even looking at ingredients…would be safe. With zero question. Apparently though, according to @Peitho s link with the competitor site that specializes in those toys, stating that formulating a *medical grade coating for internal usage.” A medical patented coating that “was their biggest hurdle to over come,” for the safety of internal usage, kind of corroborates the inherent dangers of wooden objects inserted internally concept by and of itself.
I think maybe there was a bit of miscommunication both ways. But the bottom line is simple; any wood not coated in a material specifically designed for anal use. Isn’t safe due to the porous nature of wood and the intestines extremely amplified method of absorption without stomach acid having diluted and de-natured harmful contaminants before getting to the intestines.
Meaning companies that have already come up with this coating. Spent a lot to do so, and the profit margin would likely be low for an individual crafting wooden dildos for commercial sale as compared to anything else made out of wood that isn’t inserted internally in a very short concise abstract paragraph.
1 Like
With respect, the second paragraph of the paper you mention (I assume it’s this one Characterizing the microbiota of wooden boards used for cheese ripening - PMC) starts Although cheese aged on wood [has] not been incriminated in any foodborne disease outbreaks…
This supports my point, which is that there’s little or no evidence that suggests that wood is unhygienic. Obviously anything that you insert into your vagina, anus or any other orifice needs to be kept clean, but as far as I can tell there’s no evidence that bacteria grow any more readily on wood than on other materials, nor that regular washing with hot, soapy water is insufficient, something that was examined in this paper for instance (Decontamination of Plastic and Wooden Cutting Boards for Kitchen Use - ScienceDirect).
Well. Again. And for the last time in this thread.
From the article you linked, (that was not the article I was referencing actually, it was just another irrelevant article due to context, but it was one of the 5 that you can find in the article you linked that reference aging of cheese in your last post.)
In the summary at the end:
- “We also found Staphylococcus in relatively high abundance on all 5 wooden boards. Comparison of a 253-bp sequence for this OTU against NCBI’s GenBank revealed 100% sequence identity with the reference genome for Staphylococcus equorum….”
Establishes the opposite of the statement you’ve used to….substantiate your statement.
As such It’s both common sense and scientifically proven… that…
Wood. Harbors. Bacterial. Retention. Of different strains in different circumstances. That is a a fact that isn’t debatable.
However. Again though, all of those quotes, both yours and mine in response to yours, are unlikely to be bacterial strains found on a wooden dildo used in the anus or vagina. As such, they are quotes or attempted proofs to substantiate a point that is out of context and which have and or has nothing to do with the original statement that sparked this…conversation.
-
Which was simply that woods have bacterial retention and require a special coating to ensure safe usage as insertable sex toys.
-
Bottom line. Everything quoted out of context. Can refute any point. Therefore, I won’t be posting any more “proofs”in response to your validations of statements, or quotes to discredit my statement that woods harbor bacterial retention. If I were the OP…I would probably (repeated again), Focus on making non-insertable wooden sex toys to avoid lawsuits and or maximize profits by manufacturing any number of the other non-insertable sex toys/furniture etc.
I hope you understand no offense was implied at any point, it’s just pointless to continue arguing this side/off-topic point as it can continue literally forever and isn’t helpful to the OPs intent of the thread for either of us to continue to do so. Which is why I won’t be responding again.