Talk:Zeta Paws

From WikiFur, the furry encyclopedia.
(Redirected from Talk:Zeta Creations)
Jump to: navigation, search has asserted that it is widely believed that Zeta Creations' products are of a lower quality than those of Furrystyle. I have to admit to having zero knowledge of this area. Can anyone else offer proof for or against this view? --GreenReaper(talk) 15:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

some forum-posts and images to support this assertion[edit]

If you speak german you could just search for "zetacreations" of and find a large list of postings supporting this view. would be a prominent example
translated: (Zeta used PVC instead of silicone wich affects organs, causes allergies, is cancerous and developes a strong smell)
Mostly the smell is widely known and often mentioned. has a few of their products
Thanks. I tried joining those forums but I was unable to read those topics. Do I need to post an introduction first? --GreenReaper(talk) 08:19, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
It's in the adult-section, you need to be registred as a non-minor. There are very strict laws regulating access of adult-content to minors in germany. --Suran
Just to state my opinion, all the people I know (including me) are happy with ZetaCreations objects. I think it is unfair to judge quality and colors because it is subjective. --Ozone Griffox
I don't think smelling, discoloations, toys coloring other objects in contact with them and the general idea of making hygienic articles out of PVC with lots of diluents if everyone else uses platin-hardening silicone or latex is subjective.--Suran
You are not talking about quality of the objects, but about general hygiene. The new article seems fine to me. --Ozone Griffox
At least I was not talking about hygiene but about what happens with the toys when they are clean and not in use. The new article is fine with me. --Suran
There is no reason to suggest health risks from the toys. Though the phthalates used as PVC plasticizers have been shown to cause negative health effects (kidney/liver enlargment, cancer), these negative health effects were seen only when test animals were given daily dosages of the chemical at far higher concentrations than any user of these products would receive.
The phthalate most commonly used to soften PVC for "personal" use, DINP, is commonly used in children's teethers, pacifiers, rattles, and toys. US and EU health safety organizations have thoroughly researched the health effects of these chemicals and have found them safe for use in these applications.
Quoting a CPSC report: "Animal studies show that DINP causes chronic toxic effects to the liver and other organs. In order to determine the level at which humans are at risk CPSC staff calculated an acceptable daily intake (ADI) for humans. The ADI is a level that is not expected to cause harmful health effects in humans. Using data from the animal studies, staff calculated an acceptable daily intake (ADI) for humans to be 150 micrograms per kilogram of body weight per day. This value is derived by taking the highest level of exposure that did not result in an adverse health effect to animals and applying a 100-fold safety factor to account for possible differences between animals and humans and for differences in the sensitivity among individuals."
Let me explain that in a bit more detail--they found the NOEL (No Observed Effect Level) dosage for test animals, which is the highest dose administered every day of their life to the animals that causes no adverse reaction. They then divided that by 100 to get an acceptable daily intake for humans, which you must admit is a pretty conservative safety margin.
They found that children aged 3-12 months averaged an intake of 5.7 micrograms per kilogram of body weigh per day. It bears repeating, so I'll repeat it: laboratory mice were shown to have no ill effects after a daily exposure of 15,000 micrograms per kilogram of body weight; children who gnaw, chew, and suckle on toys made from this material average 5.7 micrograms per kilogram of body weight per day.
The cancer-causing doses were largely the same story; and there's doubt that DINP's carcinogenic mechanism in rats even works the same way in humans.
For a much more detailed report, see: and
PVC sex toys do not cause cancer or organ problems.
Other complaints about PVC sex toys are that they are porous and "can't be sterilized" because you "can't boil them"--but you can indeed boil ZetaCreations toys. Try it at home if you don't believe me.
Silicone is a nicer toy material, but so-called "jelly rubber" is not a health hazard. Smelly, sure. Discolors, maybe. Lower quality overall, okay. But "safety considerations," as listed on this page? There aren't any, beyond the safety considerations common to every sex toy, including silicone and latex.
Furthermore, the link on the page to Womyn's Ware is broken, and I think the suggestion that ZC's proprietors are "cagey" is subjective and unnecessary. Thus, I'm altering the paragraph about toy material on this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talkcontribs) .
I don't know much about this, but this is probably the kind of information that should be on the article. We want to cover all the different points of view(with citations). --Rat 09:07, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
I attempted to make the article fairer to ZC and better-written while not dodging the valid criticisms that have been made. The article as it's written now is even MORE unbalanced than it was previously, because it takes essentially the same information that was in one paragraph before and expands it into an entire "controversy" subsection.
The controversy is a tempest in a teapot. It's not real. The FDA, the CPSC, the EU, and numerous other well-respected institutions maintain that there is no risk of health problems from the use of toys made from jelly rubber, even oral use (which causes much more chemical absorption than vaginal/anal use).
Even mentioning this 'controversy' over health effects on the page is unfair to ZC when it can be categorically proved to be a non-issue.
Is there a specific reason why the wording I added was insufficient? --- 16:01, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Rewording of section[edit]

Hmmm, "Controversy" was indeed not the right word for the section (Sounded like they were exploding in contact or something,...) More neutral paragraph added Spirou 22:33, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

But it still includes a warning about "safety considerations" with a link to Womyn's Ware (working this time) which claims "Jelly is toxic and in a constant state of off gassing, absorbing every thing it comes in contact with, and impossible to clean."
These claims are patently and provably false, which makes mentioning them in this article about ZetaCreations very close to outright slander. It could make people who use ZC toys panic and think they've been poisoned, unless they're willing to roll up their sleeves and do the research like I did.
The section as it exists now is still stacked against ZC, and poorly written I might add; and I have yet to understand why the paragraph I wrote for it was considered "too POV" and reverted. For reference, that paragraph was:
There have been criticisms over Zeta Creations' use of PVC-based "jelly rubber" in their products, rather than more durable and hygenic silicone. The Zeta Creations website is unspecific on the actual material of the dildos, claiming they are made from "a material similar to the 'Jel' dildos you can buy at adult stores, though ... a more durable material similar to vinyl." -Zeta Creations information page
Can someone point to what in there, specifically, is biased or non-neutral POV?
-- 23:31, 25 December 2006 (UTC)
These claims are patently and provably false
In that case, can't we just put links in the article to articles which claim that jelly is not toxic? --Douglas Muth 00:36, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
In my opinion: because the claim is demonstrably untrue and not encyclopedically relevant, and displaying the claim (even if it's summarily debunked) may still do damage to ZetaCreations' business and may cause fear or uncertainty among those who already use the products.
If the claim is untrue--and, according to the US Consumer Product Safety Commission, the European Commission's European Chemical Bureau, the World Health Organization's International Agency for Research on Cancer, the Dutch Consensus Group, the American Council on Science and Health, and plenty of other governmental health organizations, it is--why is there any need or relevance to mention it at all?
If there is any presentation of "both sides of the story" on this issue, then to be fair it needs to be made perfectly clear that the vast majority of clinical evidence falls on the side that PVC plasticizers are safe for use. -- 02:48, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

"it needs to be made perfectly clear that the vast majority of clinical evidence falls on the side that PVC plasticizers are safe for use." Well, then present the evidence, please,... It's a group effort, and so far, we have being more than accommodating on the issue. As for the "Can someone point to what in there, specifically, is biased or non-neutral POV?" in your original editing, you obliterated the original information which had a valid point/argument, to one that supported "your" view, that is, a POV point Spirou 04:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Spirou. provided 5 links from government scientific and health agencies that say precisely the opposite of the non-scientifically based link provided. Science is not POV, nor is empirical research. It is reality., while providing evidence that illustrates that the previous assertion is bunk, is not in any way expressing a point of view, unless you wish to suggest that believing in peer-reviewed studies and government health panels over random unsupported ramblings is a point of view. There is absolutely no reason that the article should contain information suggesting that there are health risks involved (except those of sanitation and sharing of toys, naturally). None. If you wish to include such, it should do so while strongly pointing out that there exists no strong peer-reviewed research suggesting that PVC is (outside of sanitation issues) dangerous.UnityEqualsOne 04:35, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
"Spirou. provided 5 links from government scientific and health agencies...." *Sigh* Yes, I understand, but this is not the Zeta Creations entry, but its talk page, I.e. If you want to make a point/counterpoint, do it on the main entry page,... In other words, work with us, don't make us do your own work, or simpler still, do participate personally in the editing of this entry,...
Ironically, right known the talk page's amount of data necessary to make both your points is almost twice as long as the paragraph that initiate it Spirou 05:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
As per Wikipedia, I feel it's better to use the Talk page to talk about edits, before instituting them. I didn't realize that this wiki utilized a different etiquette.UnityEqualsOne 05:09, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Just to clarify. You would rather me edit the main article without explaining why, then talk to other people viewing the talk page and seek consensus before instituting a huge edit of that page? In any case, I was merely supporting 70's view, as it was at that point his/her edit to make -UnityEqualsOne 05:12, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
He means we would rather you be bold and add your modifications and references directly to the article if you believe they make the article better. We tend to be bolder than Wikipedia, because we have fewer controversial topics, although sometimes the ratio seems pretty much the same. :-) The edit box is sufficient for explanation, most of the time - if not, a short comment here would be sufficient to leave a place for any further discussion about your edits. If there's already a discussion, try making the changes and comment at the same time. --GreenReaper(talk) 06:59, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

What are they made of?[edit]

I would suggest we quote Zeta Creation's own answer to "What are they made of?" and leave it there; people can do their own research about the material if they feel that is appropriate.

All <a href="">their information page</a> states is "These Dildos are made of a material similar to the "Jel" dildos you can buy at adult stores, though ours are made of a more durable material similar to vinyl." That is vague, all the more so if the reader isn't familiar with Jel dildos. Is Jel a brand name? A more general description? I see the article right now has a footnote that the Jell dildos are "Also known under the "Jelly", "Jellee", or "Jel-lee" name brands". Where is that information from?

Why not sidestep the whole issue, quote the statement from Zeta Creation's information page, plus some clarification if Zeta Creations has additional information. (Is is stated somewhere that the Zeta Creations dildos are made out of PVC?) I feel Zeta Creation's statement on their information page is unclear, but that isn't WikiFur's problem to solve. -- Sine 05:03, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

I like Sine's idea. If we don't acutally know what they are made of, then it limits what we can do with the article. It would be unfair of us to jump to conclusions and speculate about what they are really made of, unless we can get a reference for that.
If we do eventually find out what the dildos are made from, we can then have the article link to the scientific studies that were mentioned above. --Douglas Muth 05:05, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
It's pretty clear, by the fact it's said to be "similar to Jel dildos" and a "material similar to vinyl" that it's referring to PVC. It has all the properties of plasticized PVC, and no other sex-toy material fits the description given.
I don't think it'd be unfair to mention the practical and real drawbacks of this material, as compared to silicone, which I tried to do in my edit...
I'll be satisfied so long as the vaguely forboding "safety warning" is removed from the page, though. -- 05:16, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Reasonable suggestion, Sine,... As for the "Also known under the "Jelly", "Jellee", or "Jel-lee" name brands" data, I googled that out yesterday, where thought, I would need to retrace my browser's history cache, and actually... I'm out on the editing on this article, chaps,... Too much of "making a Mountain out of a Molehill" going on for such a simple entry =/ Spirou 05:23, 26 December 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've made the edit I suggested, simply quoting Zeta Creation's own information page. That is sufficient, I feel. Zeta Creations does not state the material, speculation on what they mean is more than WikiFur needs to include. -- Sine 05:50, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Appropriate tag[edit]

Added the tag just to emphasize, that, as it stands right now, (A) there's still no connecting factor to furry on the article, (B) on first view, a non-knowledge reader may think "furry<=>zoophilia" (yes, I know there is some furries who are zoophiles, not denying that,) and (C) without a "Zeta and furry" section, still reads like an ad page =P Spirou 23:09, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Status update (July 28th 2007)[edit]

Updating the entry's appropriateness status. Keep? Delete? Cleanup? Spirou 18:10, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm for keeping this. In terms of furry relevance to add to the article text, I believe at least one dildo is described as representing the equipment of an anthro. -- Sine 00:14, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep. In addition to Sine's reference, I'd like to refute Spirou's "B" comment above by comparing this article with the one for Plushophilia - not all furries are plushophiles, but there's an obvious connotation, and as long as there is a sizable overlap between something (paraphilia or otherwise) and the furry community, the article should be kept. Granted, this isn't zoophilia we're debating, but it's a subset of that paraphilia and warrants its own article. Spaz Kitty 00:23, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
Concur, removed {{appropriate}}. --GreenReaper(talk) 23:30, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Product line Discontinuation[edit]

See the zeta creations forums for more information, or just click on the gel toys page off their home page and read carefully. -- 09:56, 19 February 2010 (UTC)--~~