Talk:Aphrodisiac

message: "Article on aphrodisiacs at the US Food and Drugs Administration website" is broken. 
"ISOBUTYL NITRITE and Related Compounds" links to a page of ads. 
Also, I'm not sure http://www.allaboutpoppers.com/ is an appropriate reference. Certainly some of the links provided on that page might be, but if that's the case it seems like it should be those that are cited. Xbao (talk) 07:03, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Broken reference link

message: The only definition of the term prosexual I found was on Urban Dictionary. 
"Some patients report a cumulative prosexual effect using the drug over time."
67.164.94.122 (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Prosexual?

message: The article page for Aphrodisiac has crashed my Firefox 3.5 more than 3 times today - there's something odd going on. The page works in Safari. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccainre (talk • contribs) 23:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Firefox crash

message: I don't know anything about this topic, so am unfit to edit it. But the Butea Superba section reads like an advertisement currently ("definitely creating a world-wide sex sensation!," "award winning Doctor!"), and lacks any credible citation. 71.87.113.23 (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Butea Superba

message: Roadrunner: please provide evidence that tiger and rhinoceros parts are NOT used as aphrodisiacs in eastern countries and/or in traditional chinese medicine. Until then I have reinstated the old version :-)--Cacycle 14:51, 10 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Tiger and rhino

message: Cacycle: Please give prove that rhino horns are used aphrosodiac in Eastern Countries. It is not used for that purpose in China; it is used to dispel "wind" in the Chinese medicine system, and is mainly to treat stroke and headaches. It can be proved by the Chinese State Pharmacopeia, not online. Samuel Curtis 06:17, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Cacycle

message: Question: How are pearls an aphrodesiac? Are they eaten? Same with rhino horns. ImmortalAl 18:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Pearls

message: Who is this Lucretia whose supposed quote appears at the end of the article? It is hardly the Lucretia to whom the link points, who was in fact said to be a faithful and hardworking wife who committed suicide after being raped. The story is found in the early chapters of Livy's history of Rome. I could find no such quote there by her. I have deleted this quote as spurious - please feel free to reinstate it if proper attribution and citation can be given. --Iacobus 05:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lucretia? 

message: I added a section on nature's own aphrodisiac, as well as making a minor edit on the Bremelanotide section, to reflect the fact that (pharmaceutical company statements notwithstanding) it is not the only aphrodisiac substance in existence.  I have a libido, my body contains no Bremelanotide, ergo one or more other substances are responsible. Poindexter Propellerhead 18:54, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Testosterone 

message: A moment ago I commented out the list, "Aphrodisiac plants" which was recently added to the article.  It consists of the following:
"Many plants are considered as source of aphrodisiacs, but few have been tested properly. The list below is of some plants that have been assumed to have potency as aphrodisiacs; some have been proven, and some need further research.
http://www.all-aphrodisiac.com/Aphrodisiac_plant.htm"
This is followed by a list of about 100 names of plants -- scientific names in all cases, followed by common names in some.  I have some problems with this list, to wit:
(1) It seemed like this article had been kept terse and sceptical, with (up 'til this point) virtually nothing claimed to be a proven aphrodisiac.  The list goes contrary to both of those editorial directions.
(2) It is a cut-and-paste from a website.  If the editor who inserted it is not the copyright holder, we have a probable copyright violation situation; if he is, we have a potential conflict of interest.
(3) I'm familiar with a fairly large number of plants on that list, and have very mixed feelings about the inclusion of most of them.  Some of them (e.g., cumin) I have never heard aphrodisiac claims for, others (syrian rue, wild cucumber, calamus) are noted primarily as psychedelics, and several (e.g., calamus, mucuna pruirens) may cause permanent damage if used frequently or incorrectly.  A few could even cause death, such as taking one which is a monoamine oxidase inhibitor when you were also taking other medications, ranging from antidepressants to decongestants.
In short, I feel that it's too much incomplete information, and I'm less than entirely comfortable with its origins.  If nobody is bothered by my having commented it out, I'd like to delete it.  Otherwise, let's discuss it. Poindexter Propellerhead 16:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massive list of plants 

message: Comment: In this list you should include TONG KAT ALI.  This information is helpful for people that cannot get hormonal assistance from their doctors. 
Also I think it should be divided into, Lore (sympathetic magic) and what herbalists and chemical studies say. 76.27.244.228 (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: It is. It is listed under Eurycoma longifolia.
--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tongkat Ali

message: I don't know if my testimony matters, anyway: I saw Dr. Oz myself on Oprah aired by Dutch TV saying that eating raw garlic enhances erections. I also provided a link for verifying my affirmations. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:13, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Mehmet Oz|Dr. Oz]] and garlic

message: Why is Yohimbe only "mentioned" as a one-word link at very end of page?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.115.177.77 (talk) 05:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Iron-clad proven example, not mentioned until very last line of page, end of link box 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Aphrodisiac. 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/20081218201806/http://palatin.com/news/news.asp?ID=201 to http://palatin.com/news/news.asp?ID=201
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090907102812/http://www.palatin.com/news/news.asp?param=221 to http://www.palatin.com/news/news.asp?param=221
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) 19:05, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: this sentence "Yohimbine, Spanish fly, mad honey, and bufo toad have no scientific evidence of providing aphrodisiac effects" is sourced to an article that doesn't appear to support it. It says they're not worth the risk; it does not say they all don't work. 86.132.16.5 (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not in citiation 

message: Ambrien is apparently an organic molecule found in ambergris, but this article links to the ambergris article via redirect. That article then has no mention of ambrien, which I found confusing. ("Ambergris mainly constitutes a tricyclic triterpene (ambrien 25%-45%), a sterole (picoprostanol 30%-40%), coprosterol (1%-5%), cholesterol (0%-1%) ...", from the article "Protection by epicoprostanol against hyperglycemia and insulitis in normal and diabetic rats", Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 1996, Vol.50(2), pp.85-90.) I couldn't find that article via regular web searches, I had to go to a university library.
That's only one problem. The article needs at the least a thorough copyedit. It was apparently written by someone who was not a native speaker of American, British, or Australian English. I may have time to go through it this weekend. IAmNitpicking (talk) 13:43, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ambrien? Also quality. 

message: The source stating "Research shows that it can have a negative effect on heart rate" is ambiguous. Unfortunately, the source is behind a paywall so I am unable to edit this to be more specific. In other words, I think this should state whether it increases or decreases heart rate, instead of simply stating it has a "negative effect". --Robin Bourge (talk) 00:00, 10 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bufo Toad Section Ambiguity 

message: Both in aphrodisiac and anaphrodisiac articles, alcohol is said to have qualities of both reducing and boosting sexual drive. What's going on here? Holdonspirit (talk) 19:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alcohol 

message: Why are medications like Viagra, Cialis, and Levitra not mentioned at all? Is there archived discussion somewhere that I missed? IAmNitpicking (talk) 00:45, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Phosphodiesterase inhibitors 

message: I am still learning about ways Wikipedians can protect and improve articles, we might want to make this article more protected and try to find more experts to edit it.
Even in this talk page there seems to be a higher incidence of amateur contributions and actually some pretty hostile language. Seems expectable because this is a topic of wide interest to people in general, apparently.
"Substances range from a variety of plants, spices, foods, and synthetic chemicals."
''
It really sounds like this was written by someone with an "herbal medicine" background. This article is bringing in a lot of people who have an active interest in the topic but might not be particularly neutral or balanced in their perspective. We can imagine there's some cultural overlap in the lay sphere between herbal medicine and an interest in aphrodisiacs. 
 
The sentence emphasises the diversity of naturally-occurring sources while bracketing "synthetic chemicals" as a single entity. I feel like in modern medicine the classification of aphrodisiac remedies would make more sense conceptually - different kinds of therapies, different pharmacological agents (utterly regardless of if they occur in nature or are synthesised by chemists), and possibly interventions.
"Therefore, they can be classified by their chemical properties (i.e., substances that are natural and unnatural)."
''
This sentence makes no sense to me - wouldn't "chemical properties" be things like, it's an acid that binds with molecule X and is metabolised like so and has this chemical structure? Molecules/chemicals obviously don't have different properties depending on how you obtained them. This sounds like someone who doesn't have a rigorous approach and has more of a folk-lore approach, believing that a plant has healing properties while a pill does not, because the plant seems more pleasing and trustworthy to them.
"Unnatural aphrodisiacs like MDMA or methamphetamine are classified as those that are manufactured to imitate a natural substance."
''
That also makes absolutely no sense but you see what the person is thinking; if a molecule is synthesised instead of "produced by nature", then it's "artificial", therefore fake, therefore whatever effect it produces is not a "real" effect but an imitation of some other real effect.
"Substances which only affect a person's behavior are susceptible to the placebo effect. It is commonplace to see the placebo effect in the debate on why aphrodisiacs work; those that argue for the placebo effect say that individuals want to believe in the effectiveness of the substance."
''
This sentence is too vague to understand but is probably wrong. Not all substances are susceptible to the placebo effect, only the ones that "affect behaviour"? I don't know but I'm pretty sure the point of the placebo is to observe how research results are obtained even when the "mechanism of action" of the supposed treatment is not actually present. I am pretty sure that could in theory be relevant to any kind of experiment; it's the idea of a scientific control. The author of this sentence might think that "the placebo effect" is a technique for priming people to feel a certain way; in this case that you could effectively increase libido with a placebo. Maybe you can but the general premise of this sentence is wrong and confusing and should probably be omitted. At best it could be replaced with "some aphrodisiac effects have been noted with the use of placebos", but only if that is true.
"Both males and females can benefit from the use of aphrodisiacs, but they are more focused on males as their properties tend to increase testosterone levels rather than estrogen levels."
Citation needed. The sentence claims that most known aphrodisiacs act by increasing testosterone. Is that true? How could one know?
Sorry to be blunt but this article is really bad. I will try to research and ask around if there's a way to get more qualified people involved in keeping the article well-maintained. 2A02:2454:3AB:5B00:8966:C5A1:6E72:6E73 (talk) 14:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Here's a source that could be beneficial: https://www.essm.org/wp-content/uploads/publications/textbooks/THE_ESSM_MANUAL_OF_SEXUAL_MEDICINE-_Index.pdf 2A02:2454:3AB:5B00:8966:C5A1:6E72:6E73 (talk) 14:02, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what to do!. Bon courage (talk) 14:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  This article seems very poor quality 

message: I can see why this article was flagged for being unbalanced. I'm hesitant to remove it; however, the article is very well-sourced. And, by definition, an article about aphrodisiacs has to address why people use them in their various forms. Otherwise, there is no context for their use and development. Finally, it does have a section about risks. I nominate the flag for deletion, but I'm hesitant to take the initiative to remove it myself.  Middleground1 (talk) 02:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: "Well sourced" is one of wikipedia's biggest flaws. Just because there are a lot of websites about something, does not make it true. This article should be reworked, or deleted. It almost looks like vandalism. 79.106.203.113 (talk) 09:05, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:VNT, Bon courage (talk) 09:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unbalanced (flag) 

message: This whole article is wrong and looks like it was written by an uneducated 10 year old. Someone really needs to fix it. This one article alone discredits all of Wikipedia. 79.106.203.113 (talk) 09:03, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong