Journalist finds sex toys undesirable

From the South African Mail and Guardian:

Take me for a spin by Mil Millington

They can be cute and fluffy or coldly minimalist--some even display the odd facial feature. So how come sex toys are so naff?
I’m irritated partly on aesthetic grounds. Have you seen these things? More often than not, they’re an emetic purple and bring to mind nothing so much as a deformed limb. And that’s if you’re lucky.

Increasingly, sex-toy production seems to be under the influence of some kind of paraphiliac dadaism. Take the Mr. Craby (sic) Strap-On. Never mind that it’s bright orange, looks like a cross between a cartoon crustacean and a Space Invader, and has a “cute pincer design’’. The really chilling thing is, IT’S GOT EYES. Listen to me -- THEY’VE DRAWN EYES ON IT. Why would you feel compelled to paint eyes on something you’re going to attach to your genitals?

These sex toys are the grotesque, misshapen offspring of the most repellently cutesy instincts of a seven-year-old girl and impatient porno consumerism. I spurn the “Wittle Wabbit’’ as I would the merciless head of a multinational corporation who’s got a bedroom full of fluffy toys and dots her “i’’s with tiny hearts.

Fair enough, there are other kinds of toy available: the expensive ones, such as the jade wand ($330), target a design-led ideal of class and elegance ... but in some ways this type is even weirder. For one thing, they are curiously asexual. Cool and minimalist -- as though Bang & Olufsen had decided to move into butt plugs. I can only imagine that these self-consciously upmarket toys appeal to the woman who is aroused by the combination of expense and smooth, flowing lines alone: the woman who looks at an Audi and thinks, “Phwoar -- I know where I’d like to stick that.’’

Moving beyond form and on to function, I find yet more irk. It’s not that I have anything against orgasms, but vibrating devices are not required to achieve them. No, their main benefit is to serve up quicker orgasms. Well, call me an old hippie, but I reckon that the traditional methods of reaching climax have an awful lot to be said for them. Is speed that significant a concern?

“Fancy a climax, dear?” “OK. But I’ve got yoga in 10 minutes, can you pop it in the microwave?”

Is a sexual experience enhanced by being quick and easy? The whole mindset is depressingly indicative of a society that’s too idle to masturbate.

Yes, I’m aware men sometimes buy vibrators for their partners. It’s the gift that says, I’d like you to reach sexual ecstasy -- but I’d prefer it if I didn’t have to get too involved. “I’ll use this, dear, it’s less faffing ... Or you use it -- I’ll watch ... Actually ... I’m just going on eBay while you get started. I’ll keep my phone on, though — text me when you’re getting close.”

A further extraordinary thing is that the majority of toys are for women. This isn’t a cause of envy: it’s simply odd. Sex and gadgetry. You’d think the area would be overwhelmingly male-focused: myriad pulsating orifices on offer, compared with only a few devices for women. For the situation to make sense, we must conclude that men need a subtle and sensitive sexual experience, while women are happy with a mechanical, perfunctory one.

So, here and now, I make a call for sex toys to end. Let’s stop producing these ugly, soulless things. And divert the money saved into developing hot robot women like the Sean Young character in Blade Runner. Man -- that’d be ace.