Carolyn Bennett & Federal Regulation of Adult Sex Toys

[August1991]

When you're the young owners of a Toronto sex shop specializing in eco-friendly vibrators and other adult toys, getting the ear of a Member of Parliament can be a challenge.

So, entrepreneurs Kim and Amy Sedgwick started off slow. The self-branded eco-sisters wrote a letter outlining their concerns of a dangerous problem hidden away in Canadian bedrooms everywhere chemicals used in the majority of Canadian sex toys that pose a potential health risk for women.

I can't say I'd ever thought I'd be calling Parliament, shrugs Kim, 25. But there ya go.

They sent the letter to Carolyn Bennett, a Liberal MP and physician who they knew once cared for one of the sisters' relatives. It impressed the MP.

...

Her staff weren't convinced it was a smart political move.

You can imagine the conversation in our office, saying Carolyn, are you sure you want to do this?'

But Dr. Bennett's the boss. On Tuesday, she wrote Minister of Health Leona Aglukkaq about the urgent need for responsible regulation in the adult toy industry in Canada.

G&M

In a whacky way, I applaud Carolyn Bennett for this letter. To make this plain, if I were an MP, I can think of myriad other issues that would take my time before I got to federal regulation of adult sex toys but then, I'm not an MP earning the big bucks. Carolyn Bennett is, and she happened to choose this issue among the myriad issues on the federal table. As an MP, that's her right - subject of course to the approval of her constituents.

Here's where I see a problem. Her constituents may share Bennett's concern for this particular issue but voters elsewhere may not. As they say in marketing circles, Bennett's action may affect the "Liberal Brand". In the same way that Accenture has dropped Tiger Woods, Ignatieff may think about dropping Bennett. And I think that that would be wrong. What good is a caucus of trained seals?

Edited December 18, 2009 by August1991

[Michael Hardner]

G&M

In a whacky way, I applaud Carolyn Bennett for this letter. To make this plain, if I were an MP, I can think of myriad other issues that would take my time before I got to federal regulation of adult sex toys but then, I'm not an MP earning the big bucks. Carolyn Bennett is, and she happened to choose this issue among the myriad issues on the federal table. As an MP, that's her right - subject of course to the approval of her constituents.

Here's where I see a problem. Her constituents may share Bennett's concern for this particular issue but voters elsewhere may not. As they say in marketing circles, Bennett's action may affect the "Liberal Brand". In the same way that Accenture has dropped Tiger Woods, Ignatieff may think about dropping Bennett. And I think that that would be wrong. What good is a caucus of trained seals?

I'm her constituent and this issue doesn't make any difference to me either way. Let's hope the giggle factor stays low on this one.

[eyeball]

G&M

In a whacky way, I applaud Carolyn Bennett for this letter. To make this plain, if I were an MP, I can think of myriad other issues that would take my time before I got to federal regulation of adult sex toys but then, I'm not an MP earning the big bucks. Carolyn Bennett is, and she happened to choose this issue among the myriad issues on the federal table. As an MP, that's her right - subject of course to the approval of her constituents.

Here's where I see a problem. Her constituents may share Bennett's concern for this particular issue but voters elsewhere may not. As they say in marketing circles, Bennett's action may affect the "Liberal Brand". In the same way that Accenture has dropped Tiger Woods, Ignatieff may think about dropping Bennett. And I think that that would be wrong. What good is a caucus of trained seals?

No good at all.

Now can anyone imagine Harper risking his own brand to both do something positive about the issue AND point out the lack of political courage Ignatieff showed by deciding to ignore it? I suppose in this scenario we could expect to see Ignatieff attacking Harper's obvious amorality and lack of family values.

[M.Dancer]

Let's hope the giggle factor stays low on this one.

Lets not and have fun. After all, what good are toys if you can't have fun with them?

[August1991]

Lets not and have fun. After all, what good are toys if you can't have fun with them?

Toys? Imagine a caucus of trained seals.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm not thinking that these toys will bring fun to the girls and boys of parliament, but instead just stale awkwardness.

Watch this:

Ignatieff, Harper, Layton, Duceppe... vibrators.

Are you laughing ? If so, you would enjoy the films of Eastern Europe - possibly even without subtitles.

Now if it were Mel Lastman, McGuinty I would welcome the sex toys...

[ToadBrother]

No good at all.

Now can anyone imagine Harper risking his own brand to both do something positive about the issue AND point out the lack of political courage Ignatieff showed by deciding to ignore it? I suppose in this scenario we could expect to see Ignatieff attacking Harper's obvious amorality and lack of family values.

I'm just trying to picture Harper or Iggy having sex. Brrrr....

[robert_viera]

I'm her constituent and this issue doesn't make any difference to me either way. Let's hope the giggle factor stays low on this one.

Could you imagine the comic potential if this issue went before the health committee and the meetings were televised? I can just imagine the squirming of the puritanical MPs as they examine the, ummm ... 'evidence'. I do not mean to make light of the health issue, of course.

Edited December 18, 2009 by robert_viera

[M.Dancer]

can you imagine the lab rats?

[ToadBrother]

Could you imagine the comic potential if this issue went before the health committee and the meetings were televised? I can just imagine the squirming of the puritanical MPs as they examine the, ummm ... 'evidence'. I do not mean to make light of the health issue, of course.

God-fearing Conservatives do NOT have sex. And if they do, they do not enjoy it.

[August1991]

God-fearing Conservatives do NOT have sex. And if they do, they do not enjoy it.

In fact, the issue is not about sex, or sex toys.

At question is the independence of MPs, party whips and caucus. Consider Glenda Jackson.

[Shakeyhands]

What good is a caucus of trained seals?

Interesting post, I'm struck by the above line though, and suggest to you that you can ask Mr Harper that exact question to get the correct answer :-).

[Shakeyhands]

can you imagine the lab rats?

I'm picturing a wee mouse with a strap on.... lord...

[Argus]

God-fearing Conservatives do NOT have sex. And if they do, they do not enjoy it.

And yet they apparently have a lot of kids, whereas the more liberated left don't seem to have very many at all.

[Argus]

I can't quite figure out what the problem is here. She's complaining about the BPA's in the plastics of sex toys. Okayyy. Yes, they were banned from baby bottles, etc. But as I recall that was because prolonged exposure of the food within allowed the BPA's to kind of seep into the food. Now I don't have an awful lot of familiarity with sex toys, but my understanding is they're used for a few minutes and then tucked away in the night drawer. I don't see the same problem as there is with baby bottles and water jugs here. I mean, people aren't eating dildos are they? (and yes, I can imagine the levity that question might bring)

[cybercoma]

How can anyone have the audacity to say this is a non-issue? There's harmful chemicals that are known to cause health issues in a product, but you don't care whether or not it's regulated? Shameful. It effects mainly women in this country though, so is that why it's not an issue? Sexism is alive and well. Believe it.

[M.Dancer]

How can anyone have the audacity to say this is a non-issue? There's harmful chemicals that are known to cause health issues in a product, but you don't care whether or not it's regulated? Shameful. It effects mainly women in this country though, so is that why it's not an issue? Sexism is alive and well. Believe it.

1) There is no evidence to say that the sex toys affect anyone, let alone effecting woman.

2) Men are LARGE users of sex toys...it is sexist to assume only women use them.

[cybercoma]

Aside from picking on an obvious typo, since believe it or not I do understand the difference between effect and affect, what have you shown here? Firstly, there is evidence that it negatively affects people that use them, so you're wrong there; otherwise, it would be a non-issue. Furthermore, I didn't say ONLY women use them. Learn how to read what people say. I said it affects mainly women because they are larger consumers of those products than men. You're right though, men do use them as well, so what does that prove? That even more people are affected by the problem. Yet, here we have people claiming that it's a non-issue. That's appalling. If there was a chemical in kids toys that was causing health issues with children, everyone would be up in arms about it. But, no. Not for sex toys. They're only used by degenerates, so they don't deserve protection. Is that the thinking? Tell me.

Edited December 21, 2009 by cybercoma

[M.Dancer]

Firstly, there is evidence that it negatively affects people that use them, so you're wrong there;

Could you please effect a link that shows the materials in sex toys are proven to adversely affect the users.

I didn't say ONLY women use them. Learn how to read what people say. I said it affects mainly women because they are larger consumers of those products than men.

In my mind, mainly means a proportionately large majority. Such as 75 out of 100 toys are used only by women. Maybe that is the case...

Please effect a link that shows the majority of toys are used by women only...

That even more people are affected by the problem. Yet, here we have people claiming that it's a non-issue. That's appalling. If there was a chemical in kids toys that was causing health issues with children, everyone would be up in arms about it. But, no. Not for sex toys. They're only used by degenerates, so they don't deserve protection. Is that the thinking? Tell me.

Maybe because they are putting the outrage before the horse. They claim that it might affect users but there is no evidence that it does and the effect is simply confusion.

[GostHacked]

I'd say it is an issue that needs to be looked at. You are talking about your personal reproductive organs. It would be a shame to play with it and with plastic tyoys only to find out down the road that you have been slowly poisioning yourself. Effects might not be immediate, but long term it could.

Cybercoma is right in the fact that tainted kids toys get pulled from the market when trace amounts of lead are found (for example) We should take this approach to all plastics and items that we think are contaminated.

[M.Dancer]

Aside from the obvious irony of recalling dildoes...I'm sure this has more to do with raising Bennett's profile for Failed Leadership Bid '10, than anything to do with toys.

[cybercoma]

Aside from the obvious irony of recalling dildoes...I'm sure this has more to do with raising Bennett's profile for Failed Leadership Bid '10, than anything to do with toys.

That's a rather cynical outlook.

And let's be honest. Do you REALLY need me to provide a link to you showing that more women use plastic sex toys then men? Also, is it really necessary to type 'BPA' into google and find you the health risks after everything that happened last year?

I'm truly shocked that anyone would use partisan tactics to drag their feet on a health issue such as this. At the very least it should be investigated. There is absolutely no reason for anyone to claim it is a "non-issue" or some sort of ploy by a politician, so we should ignore it.

If your kids were sucking on teething rings with BPA in them, do you think it would be right for people to call it a non-issue because some politician only brought it up to raise her profile?

Your treatment of this issue is seriously shameful. You clearly have no concern for the safety of others, be it men or women. That's truly disappointing and really changes my opinion of you.

[M.Dancer]

Your treatment of this issue is seriously shameful. You clearly have no concern for the safety of others, be it men or women. That's truly disappointing and really changes my opinion of you.

Save the mock dissappointment for something important and use your noggin instead.

What we have are two interested parties promoting themselves over an issue which may or may not be valid.

Firstly there are two women who have a shop selling "green" products who want free publicity for their own non-bpa toys...

The Sedgwicks have a store in Toronto that sells ecofriendly vibrators and other adult toys made of silicone, metal or wood instead of squishy plastic

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/12/18/sex-toys-hazardous.html

Secondly we have Carolyn Bennett who for her own reasons wants publicity

And thirldly most toys these days are made of silicone.

Do you REALLY need me to provide a link to you showing that more women use plastic sex toys then men?

I will do it for you.

Results of two new studies reveal that 53 percent of women, and 45 percent of men, use a vibrator.

http://www.examiner.com/x-14041-Charlotte-Health-and-Happiness-Examiner~y2009m6d30-Survey-shows-vibrator-use-common-among-women-and-men

I'm really surprised at your lack of critical thinking..even the timing if a story whose main thrust is really a promotion of a store should be a clue. Santa comes but once a year, these women sell products that could change that.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Save the mock dissappointment for something important and use your noggin instead.

What we have are two interested parties promoting themselves over an issue which may or may not be valid.

Firstly there are two women who have a shop selling "green" products who want free publicity for their own non-bpa toys...

http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2009/12/18/sex-toys-hazardous.html

Secondly we have Carolyn Bennett who for her own reasons wants publicity

And thirldly most toys these days are made of silicone.

I will do it for you.

http://www.examiner.com/x-14041-Charlotte-Health-and-Happiness-Examiner~y2009m6d30-Survey-shows-vibrator-use-common-among-women-and-men

I'm really surprised at your lack of critical thinking..even the timing if a story whose main thrust is really a promotion of a store should be a clue. Santa comes but once a year, these women sell products that could change that.

Sex toys legislation......is that all that important....

[cybercoma]

You're cynical. That's it. If BPA is in sex toys and it's unhealthy, why wouldn't you want government legislation in place for that?

Secondly, your article about men's use of vibrators does not indicate whether the question was posed that they were using it on themselves. It says straight men used them during foreplay and intercourse, which does not necessarily mean they were applying the vibrator to themselves.

Regardless, vibrators with BPA in them are unsafe for anyone that uses them, which is why those women don't sell them. Sure, this is good exposure for their business, but why can't it also be an important issue as well? Obviously if they recognize a problem, which you haven't done anything to show doesn't exist, why wouldn't they be trying to do something about it?

There can be a genuine problem here and a business opportunity together. That you would completely ignore the problem because you're cynical about the motives of the politician involved and the businesswomen that brought up the issue is ridiculous. All you're doing is taking attention away from the actual problem so you can sling mud. It doesn't matter who uses the products, it doesn't matter that the women make money off BPA-free products, and it doesn't matter that the politician is looking to raise her exposure. There's a real problem that exists and ignoring that because you're too cynical to see past the business-savvy and political-savvy of those women is truly disappointing. There's no need for mockery. It pains me to know that people would ignore health and safety issues because they're too tied up in partisan bull.