Talk:Prostate massage

message: I have removed this text from the article:
:Prolonged milking activity (over the course of several years) may cause addiction to, or worse, obsession with sex - see http://www.actionlove.com/cases/case10177.htm 
Justification: the page cited recommends a treatment that it also sells. -- Karada 08:49, 28 May 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment 3

message: Why is this article categorised under BDSM since it is kind of misleading to suggest that prostatic massage is a BDSM activity when in fact only prostate milking is? Beno1000 00:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  BDSM category? 

message: Part of the mechanism for orgasm for a male involves the accumulation of seminal fluids within the prostate and associated ducts; accordingly, once the prostate is mostly emptied of fluids, a male will be incapable of achieving erection for a period of 24-96 hours, and typically unable to achieve orgasm for some additional time after that.
I admit I don't have personal experience, but I find this highly unlikely.  You can have your prostate removed and still have erections and orgasms.
:Agreed, the concept that prostate milking is an effective erection inhibitor for a number of days can hold no more than the status of a "fetishistic belief" without medical evidence. Should be removed.
::The culprit is the "72 hr" claim. The rest looks sensible. Suggest restore, but with critical review 1st. Objections? FT2 (Talk | email) 02:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad info 

message: The presence of the prostate is essential to ejaculate, but its presence is not essential for the occurrence of the orgasm: men who have undergone prostatectomy for treatment of prostate cancer are still able to orgasm.  Therefore I am changing the ending clause of the first sentence in the second paragraph of the introduction to reflect that.  68.40.202.135 (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Prostate non-essential to orgasm 

message: This article is entirely geared towards medical massage and only briefly mentions the sexual stimulation of the prostate, mainly in the context of a tool for this purpose, this article seems unbalanced in it's current form.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 11:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than tag the article, go to Medline and see if there are any facts and decent sources. Then include them. Untagged. ► RATEL ◄ 23:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where is sexual stimulation discussion? 

message: "Even a non-invasive prostate massage may carry a risk, which is increased if the massage is "vigorous".[13] Bacteria or cancer cells may be liberated and spread through the blood stream; prostatic calculi if present, may tear delicate membranes within the prostate, an internal massage may result in perforation of bowel and/or contamination; it may cause a hemorrhoid flare-up." The cited source for this is a website run by someone who is not a medical professional; is it any more authoritative than we are? The source article cites a couple of medical-journal articles. Are these available on the web? Can someone look these (or similar articles) up and use them, rather than chronicprostatitis.com, as the source, or remove this information if it is not well substantiated? Peter Chastain (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed that section; we don't need 2 Risk sections on the page. ► RATEL ◄ 22:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Risks 

message: The first paragraph contains this statement at time of writing: "Normally, in mammals found to be most active during the time of ejaculation, this organ also faces many threats from disease."
What does it mean? What mammals are "found to be most active during the time of ejaculation"? Are not all ejaculators dynamically active during ejaculation activity? And where is the research showing such alleged "most active" mammals' prostrates are threatened by disease?
At first glance, this statement seems either dubious, or badly lacking in cited supporting evidence, or needs a clarifying rewriting.
--174.16.24.183 (talk) 02:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  What does statement about "most active mammals" mean? 

message: What lead the author to write most men prefer butt plugs?  I think the opposite is true in that a minority of men prefer butt plugs.  Or at least try to provide what leads you to believe that this is the case even if the source is suspect or not.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:B:A3C0:7:A132:A846:53EF:24D0 (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Butt plugs 

message: The source 10 and 11 are commercial websites trying to sell equipment and can't be considered as valid citation of the supposed "preference" or "superiority" of equipment versus finger. Besides, doctors use a finger for medical prostate massage and seem to be able to reach the prostate by this way.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camentielle (talk • contribs) 08:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source 10, 11 and "butt plug" section 

message: <personal attack removed, including header. Stop that. Bishonen | talk 21:51, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You are of course welcome to insert properly sourced edits and add them for historical interest. I have removed your personal attack above, and I have commented on your userpage about your username. Ratel (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggested changes

message: removed this link, saying that the site promotes "garbage" nutraceuticals. See discussion on his Talk page. I disagree. I looked further into this and find that a 2016 review study in the official journal of the European Association of Urology concludes that while phyto-pharmaceuticals on their own, like all other forms of treatment, fail to "reveal a clear therapeutic benefit", they are more effective in multimodal treatment (combined treatments). This is like the boat that only moves when all anchors are lifted, and not before. The review study states that  Moroever the fact that the site promotes these substances do not detract from the content of the linked page, which offers data beyond the encyclopedic on a topic that concerns many men. Just saying... labeling everything spam because you don't like advertisements risks throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Ratel (talk) 02:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: the web page is not a valuable EL.  It is a patient advocacy site full of advertising.  The sideshow about whether quercetin is garbage or not is just that, a sideshow.  The point is that the link is not useful as an WP:EL in WIkipedia.  We have better information on prostate massage from the good sources used in the article.  Actually read WP:EL, Ratel.   Jytdog (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: You mean, read it yet again? :¬)  What can normally be linked? .... Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail, or other reasons."   The only ELNO we can argue about is objectionable amounts of advertising, but that seems a subjective judgement. I don't find the side column ads intrusive ... no pop-ups or other nasties. Note also:  Links to potentially revenue-generating web pages are not prohibited, even though the website owner might earn money through advertisements, sales, or (in the case of non-profit organizations) donations. Choose which pages to link based on the immediate benefit to Wikipedia readers that click on the link, not based on the organization's tax status or your guess at whether the website's owner might earn money from the link. I'd argue that the content is more than our article supplies, e.g the very informative diagram (copyrighted and used with permission), and the opinions of the urologist. But I'm not going to make a federal case, just think we are losing not gaining here by deleting the link. And you'll see from my edit history that I am usually quick to delete spam links.... Ratel (talk) 04:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

text: Just checked: link has been there for over 8 years, scrutinized by numerous sysops. I don't want an OWN accusation so I'm leaving it up to others to restore it. Ratel (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes bad things get stuck into WP and linger for ages.  I fixed something last month that had been dead wrong for 13 years. Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of link with good data on prostate massage 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Prostate massage. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100401063732/http://www.aneros.com/prostate-massagers/helix/ to http://www.aneros.com/prostate-massagers/helix/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Prostate massage's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "Answer":
From Anal masturbation: 
From Prostate: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 18:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Prostate massage]] 

message: Proposing to split the sexual section of the article into a separate page. Humansexuality (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split proposal 

message: Significantly, the cited source puts the word "although" in front of the latter statement, which appears in a footnote, not the main text: . The source is not a WP:MEDRS, the term "centered in" is quite vague, and the focus is on how these two forms of orgasm are , not how they are similar. Male orgasms after radical prostatectomy are also possible. This suggests that the prostate is not  to the male orgasm. I suggest removing this sentence unless a better source can be found. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Replaced and tweaked here. Crossroads -talk- 04:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Male orgasm 

message: Meni moja djevojka svakodnevno masira prostatu pogotovo nakon analnog seksa koji prakticiramo bez zaštite. Tako žlijezda prostata ostaje zdrava i čista bez bakterija i mikroba. 95.168.121.49 (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redovite masaže prostate za čišćenje žlijezde od bakterija i zdravlje 

message: od iznimne je važnosti pregledavati prostatu kod urologa bar jednom godišnje. Ja imam 40 godina i idem od svoje 35te jednom godišnje na digitorektalni pregled prostate. I stoga bi muškarci baš kao i žene što obavljaju redovite ginekološke preglede. Jazbac (talk) 04:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redoviti pregledi prostate za spolno aktivne muškarce