Passion Dust
vaginal cosmetics
Passion Dust Intimacy Capsules were a novelty cosmetic product, introduced in 2017, that consisted of capsules full of small, glittering particles, intended to be inserted into the vaginal canal before sex. The product was advertised as making the female genitalia "look, feel and taste soft, sweet and magical". It has been criticised for potentially carrying serious health risks.
Passion Dust was invented by Lola-Butterflie Von-Kerius, an American who sold the product from her home via the Internet under the label Pretty Woman Inc. According to her website, the "passion dust" is made of gelatin, starch-based edible glitter, gum arabic, Corn starch and vegetable sodium stearate.
Following reports of the viral success of Passion Dust in 2017, gynecologists interviewed by news media warned that the use of Passion Dust may carry serious health risks. The starch and gelatin this product contains may encourage the growth of harmful bacteria and fungi, which may cause infections such as bacterial vaginosis or vaginal yeast infection, and inflammation of the vagina. The glitter particles may scratch the vaginal mucosa, allowing infection of the vaginal walls, and they may also migrate up through the cervix to cause similar damage to the lining of the uterus. The website of Pretty Woman Inc. states that the product is harmless.
This brief starts where responsible research should: with the source description of “Passion Dust” as vaginal cosmetics. Everything that follows is an evidence route, not borrowed authority.
Why this record matters
The subject matters to the general reference register because the source frames it as vaginal cosmetics. Its deeper value depends on whether names, dates, institutions and citations support that framing.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Jul 3, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q39086391. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2017.
Overview language is designed for orientation and should not be treated as a substitute for the evidence cited beneath it. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Passion Dust”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Passion Dust primary sources, Passion Dust archive and Passion research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Passion Dust”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Passion Dust” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.