An article/interview in the Times home section today includes the following passage:
I was awfully impressed with your sex-toy research. That chart detailing how to clean them is so comprehensive! Who knew sex toys came in so many materials? To whom did you turn for that?
I went to Babeland, which is a sex-toy store in my neighborhood. They took me through the store and showed me every toy and material and explained the care and cleaning of each one.
I will say that the idea of toys in stone and Pyrex made me raise an eyebrow.
Yes, the first seems cold and the second, well, I would worry about breakage.
Also, I felt the bong-cleaning section was very thorough.
The Times seems recently to have developed an editorial enthusiasm for sex toys. A few months ago an article bylined "the staff" on the blog of the New York Times Magazine featured a member of the Times magazine staff advising "I think all women should have at least one vibrator. That they use regularly."
And then there was Joyce Wadler's column from November that began: "I've been thinking about an extremely beautiful sex toy an old boyfriend got me...This toy, which was silver and shaped like a stylized banana, was so complicated I never used it." The column went on to discuss the "problem" of disposing of the device in an environmentally responsible manner.
The Wadler column was at least funny, but something about the tone of the other two articles seemed somehow off to me. And given that the newspaper has been offering buyouts to longtime staffers and eliminating some blogs and standalone sections in an effort to save money, it seems a bit odd that the paper has the resources to devote to such extensive coverage of this topic.