Talk:Wax play

Melting point of wax & safety

I removed the huge information about melting points of wax and safety precautions. [[User:Poccil|Peter O. (Talk)]] 18:06, Sep 22, 2004 (UTC)

Why did you do so? I've restored it. - Montréalais 23:56, 23 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, it is kinda scattershot and poorly written. I've tried to tighten it up a bit, but it reads like a very generic CYA disclaimer, making it sound like wax play is as dangerous as bungee jumping---which, honestly, it's not. A modicum of caution is enough to prevent all but the mildest of burns. Yes, you can splatter wax in your eyes, but it's not very likely. It's like having a notice at the trousers page declaring that "genitals may become entangled in zipper. always use caution when fastening pants". It's techincally right, but it's insulting. There's important safety information to be had, but including an inventory of possible unlikely disasters dilutes the import of the truly important information. grendel|khan 09:59, 2004 Dec 25 (UTC)

Hey dude, a notice like that on my jeans would help. because that kind of thing only happens to people when they aren't paying attention to their trouser zipping, so a reminder liek that would ensure that you were paying careful attention. just saying... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.244.123.223 (talk) 05:26, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Lacking information

Things I was hoping to read about in this article but found no mention of: What sort of people indulge in wax play; how many people are known to partake; the history of wax play; Examples from literature, film etc; what the enjoyment is; is it legal; and so on. As it is the article is all warning and no substance. Nice picture though. --Monk Bretton 17:08, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

- Then add it quixZAS

I doubt that statistical information would be anything more than a pulled-from-one's-ass guess. It's better than it once was, but there's still a significant stigma against perverts in most places. I'd suggest looking at the s.s.b-b archives for some anecdotal evidence. The web, I think, will be less helpful. (As of right now, this page is the third result on Google for "wax play".)

From personal experience, I can tell you that wax play, at least when I've done it on someone, is a slow, meditative process. A whole bunch of candles are lit, the sub gets a warm baby-oil massage (so as to facilitate the removal of the wax, that is.) The wax is slowly layered on, starting with lighter (cooler) colors. It makes a sort of warm, cuddled sensation. Eventually, the wax is taken off with a (hopefully expired) credit card. (For extra fun, you wave a knife at the sub and sound all mean, then use the card.)

As BDSM play goes, it tends to be on the tamer, cuter end of things. No sudden motions, and it's not even particularly violent-seeming. It's a sort of sensation play. grendel|khan 00:01, 2005 Feb 19 (UTC)

Suggested link to external article

I have an article on my own wiki which is more extensive than the article here and which I think could be usefully linked to this one, perhaps as "further reading" or "see also". Could someone check it out?

It's at:

http://www.peter-masters.com/wiki/index.php/Wax_play

Thanks

Pmasters (talk) 06:01, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

I think it would alright to add as an external link, particularly since this article isn't facing a problem with too large of an external link section. Further reading sections are generally discouraged unless the source can be later expanded into the article which self published sources, while potentially informative, often cannot be referenced due to not meeting the criteria for WP:reliable sources. I'll go ahead and add an external link section for this though.AerobicFox (talk) 06:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for that. "External links" hadn't occurred to me. I'll file that away for future requests :) Pmasters (talk) 11:13, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Sleazy converting between °C anf °F

The article stated that 6°C difference in temperature equals 43°F, which is false. 6°C absolute temperature equals 43°F, but the article means temperature difference, which is in this case 11°F. That is, assuming the value given in Celsius is right (without citations, I can't be sure). I'll edit the page according to this assumption; if the original Fahrenheit value happens to be correct, the correct conversion to Celsius is 24°C. (Why do we keep using imperial units again?) Thermate (talk) 12:36, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I just noticed that this nice template is used for conversion. I corrected the °C unit specification to C-change at the appropriate places. By using the template, the original editor also made it unambiguous that the Celsius value is correct (or at least that value was meant) Thermate (talk) 12:44, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

According to this page, beeswax candles melt at 11°F. I am quite certain that's not true. Also, why is there no data at all about the melting point of gel candles? Their 'wax' is hot enough to land the unwary in the emergency room. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.17.173.253 (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

It's 11°F hotter than equivalent paraffin candles. Whatever that means. Also still unbacked by citations, but at least a little more believable. Thermate (talk) 11:12, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

I removed the claims about carcinogenicity

Wax is "quite toxic" because it comes from petroleum? Save it for the blog, please! Paraffin wax is chemically identical to the plastic tubs we use to store all kinds of food and medical supplies. (It's a very low molecular weight polyethylene.) It could have serious impurities, but that claim demands strong evidence. Piojo (talk) 07:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)