Talk:Persistent genital arousal disorder

message: There is no consensus that PGAD actually exists. This seems to be an attempt to apply a label to a fictional condition as a precursor to "sell" a cure.
I move to have this article scrapped & removed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.241.245 (talk) 14:45, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I stated here and here, regardless of its [lack of  classification in the DSM and ICD], the condition exists. Just like trypophobia exists. [...] Sources on this topic do mention its proposed etiologies, but that's different. And this article is clear that the causes aren't known/are speculated. But medical and academic sources usually just refer to this as a condition or disorder." You generally will not find valid sources debating the existence of persistent genital arousal disorder. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

text: Also, considering that PGAD has been associated with clitoral priapism -- has been equated with it -- and compared to priapism in men and also to vulvodynia in women, it makes one wonder why you think this condition doesn't exist in women. I wonder if you are trolling. But WP:Not a forum. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:32, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not only does PGAD exist, it makes sense that it exists. "There’s about a 50% overlap between how much blood flows to a male’s genital response and how “turned on” he feels — his “subjective arousal;” and there’s about 10% overlap for women’s genital response and subjective arousal" - Emily Nagowski. PGAD likely represents extreme cases of non-concordant arousal, something women are already more likely to experience. I would be interested in adding to the article this tidbit on the greater prevalence of arousal non-concordance in women if others agree that it is relevant. Livin270 (talk) 01:09, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Fake Illness

message: This is reported in some males but the article makes it appear as an only female disease. Andrew Z. Colvin • Talk 06:38, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: That appears to have been discussed here. Crossroads -talk- 06:53, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Males 

message: The Classification and History sections convey the same type of information. Both sections deal with the naming of the disorder, and various conceptualizations or valuations of it. There is information in the latter section: "In 2006, Leiblum renamed the condition to "persistent genital arousal disorder" to indicate that genital arousal sensations are different from those that result from true sexual arousal." - that essentially answers a subjective issue being raised in the earlier section. This subjective statement, and its partner: "The condition has been characterized by a researcher as being a term with no scientific basis.[7] There is concern that the title may be misleading because, since the genital arousal is unwanted, it is dubious to characterize it as arousal.[7]" - have a fake reference; the cited source does not even mention PGAD. Propose to merge the Classification and History sections and remove falsely sourced statements. Livin270 (talk) 01:30, 29 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Classification" and "History" sections redundant 

message: Male PGAD: A Case Study of the Rare and Debilitating Persistent Genital Arousal Disorder, by William M. Love ISBN:978-1-716-38420-2 —¿philoserf? (talk) 03:03, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  source offered by an IP editor