Pictures created by people who knew full well how they could be interpreted. For pictures to fit in here there needs to be an element of plausible deniability, although it can be a tenuous one...
Personally this doesn't feel like true theyknew material, because this is one of those "this is how they had to advertise because nobody would allow them to say the real purpose of the items" rather than "suggestive thing presented as normal with a lot of rib-to-elbow action and stifled giggles behind the scenes, often hidden from management"
It's one of those "it fits the literal definition but not the spirit" situations. Idk Maybe it's just me.
It'll never not be funny though
You're right, Chief.
And that sort of thing had been commonplace since the Victorian times.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SScVqAytfHU&t=405
Contoured to use comfortably around eyes, brows, chin and other parts of the body
Wasn't this supposed to be a facial massager, sir?
Gentle, penetrating massage
"...About seven inches long..."
High impact plastic...
Perfect size for most "purses"
Ok buddy sure
What is "Overheard in the ED more often than anyone'd like to know"?
Two C batteries? That thing is a beast.
Nah, things were much less energy efficient back then.
I actually wish more devices used C and D batteries as those last longer.
I especially hate when a device uses AAA batteries when AA would easily fit.
My stylus uses AAAA batteries which was the same exact sound I made when AAAs didn’t fit inside.
Also fun fact inside of a 9V is a bunch of AAAAs you can pop out because who the fuck keeps AAAAs on hand
What?? I refuse to believe the blocky 9V is just a few AAAAs in a trenchcoat.
Well, it is. 6 cells of 1.5 V each, wired in series. That’s also why the 9 V block has both poles on the same side.
I always thought having both poles close by was to lick and get a little shock
Last few I've pulled apart contained a stack of 6 oblong, coin shaped batteries. Disappoint.
Not really. Things don't magically get better just because time has passed. Efficiency reaches a plateau, and the laws of thermodynamics prevent any further improvements.
Since it's a battery operated device, they're almost certainly using brushed motors. Those are less efficient than brushless, but brushed DC motors are cheap and easy to run from a DC source. The complex electronics to run brushless motors only got cheap in the last decade or so, and there's still plenty of sex toy vibrators that use brushed because it's easy and doesn't take much space in the device.
The difference isn't even that big. About 75-80% efficient for brushed, and 85-90% efficient for brushless. The extra complication of electronics isn't always worthwhile even today. The basic mechanics of this stuff was invented over a century ago and was all but perfected decades before OP's advertisement ever existed. It can't be better than 100% efficiency, and it's already pretty close to that. Unless someone comes up with a really clever design that gets brushless efficiency with little to no additional electronics, there's not much improvement to be seen.
Batteries, OTOH, have improved by leaps since then.
In case madame needs to pour some concrete in a pinch and has to remove any air bubbles
Actually not really. Even the D type batteries would have smaller circumference than the average.
The size of the battery only adds capacity, not power. You gotta increase voltage.
It also increases the amount of current you can draw from the battery at once (the C rating).
I feel bad for the people who bought them and never thought to use them anywhere other than their face.
Contoured to use comfortably around eyes, brows, chin and other parts of the body.
Gentle penetrating massage.
I dunno if I'd chance it - I heard you can poke your eye out with one of those things...
Nah, it penetrates gently. It's in the advert.
All I see is that it costs 4,99
I think that hairstyle was popular in the mid-1960s - if I'm right, that's roughly $50 in today's money.
Edit: source is https://www.usinflationcalculator.com/ using the year 1965, and the official US government inflation calculator seems to concur.
Im guessing the year is 1970. That $5 is equivalent to $31 now.
Bought right for a cheap, but otherwise quality vibrator.
There are Aliexpress vibrators roughly that price right now. They probably break right away, and the plastic is questionable to insert into the human body, but they exist.
Plastic from that era probably has the same descriptors.
It would sure be traumatizing, if I just remembered finding this facial massager with a bunch of oddly interesting magazines next to my parents bed, when I was a young boy...
Sure would be. It was traumatizing enough asking my mother what a minstrel is, and getting a detailed explanation of menstruation instead. Too soon, mom!
LOL
wife-hack of the 50s
and other parts of the body
I’m pretty sure I bought a baby blue one for my gf 18 years ago.
Do we still have products that use completely different advertising on purpose like this ?
I think the Hitachi Magic Wand advertises (or rather used to advertise the last time I looked at it) itself as a muscle massager and doesn't mention anything sexual.
But it's probably the most popular wand vibrator people use
Sorry, I'm so American that the only thing I can see is a bullet.
at first I was like "wow 5 dollars it's amazing how inflation hasn't really done much to that" and then I was like "oh yeah.... slaves..."
Possible explanation for my husband's "don't chip your teeth" jokes?
