Talk:Priapism

message: Should all else fail, complete removal of the penis is necessary. This can't be true! is there any source information to back this up? This line should be removed if false as it can cause some men to worry about a non existant threat. --DragonWR12LB 07:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please review Penectomy; it is true.  Jerry 03:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion of a line 

message: "...does not return to its flaccid state (despite the absence of both physical and psychological stimulation) within four hours." Then Followed by, "Priapism is a medical emergency and needs proper treatment by a qualified medical practitioner."
A few paragraphs down under "Treatment"...
"...if the erection has been present for six hours, it is essential to contact a medical practitioner."
I think this needs some clarification... :: Colin Keigher  01:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looks like there is confusion here... 

message: I removed few pictures of classical paintings and sculptures of men with an erection as not being "depictions of Priapism" - unless you have evidence that is what the authors of the work were representing - it is much more likely these were simply pieces of erotic art. An appropriate image for this article would be something from modern medicine specific to priapism. -- Stbalbach 13:17, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: As this is a serious medical subject, I am not sure if there is room for such a section.  However, if not deemed inadequate, Priapism is mentioned jokingly in the movie Dreamcatcher as well as the novel Dreamcatcher by Stephen King. Ruedigers 17:28, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trivia 

message: This article briefly mentions a female priapism.  It only says that it's dangerous and underdiagnosed.  What is it that doesn't stop/go down/whatever?  That section also needs to cite its sources... soldierx40k 03:49, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Female Priapism section is here obviously for balance. Otherwise the article would be sexist. Proxy User (talk) 07:11, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Balance yes, prominence or priority no. The Greek myth and thus the term refer to male anatomy. Keep the female reference, but lead should reflect Relative Emphasis. Merging info on female priapism into this article would accomplish much more in the way of balance than mere political correctness about placing female before male in sequence. Martindo (talk) 03:25, 1 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:    Etymology cannot prove even proper usage, let alone generally accepted usage.   However, in this case, it is to the point that Dorland's 27th lists "Clitorism" (with two meanings) but does not see fit to make any mention of females or their anatomy in its "Priapism" entry.--Jerzy•t 04:46, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Female Priapism?

message: Sounds like a good idea until the other page is big enough.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:29, 18 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Support; the other page is so small it's a joke. Clitorism is such an unknown term because it is usually just called priapism. People looking for information regarding extended erection of the clitoris will probably search priapism. from hajatvrc with WikiLove @ 04:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: I see no where on the page that discuss prescriptions used for priapism, though the similarities to such a drug to cause a pesticide like effect that develop into the genetics may be some of the reason no medical testing is being done about this, I'm sure it is going on somewhere, and can be seen as some of the cause of crimes of passion. One example of self treatment would be, in the case of schizophrenia caused priapism, is of course using mental images of ugly people, as for non-obvious causes, like other problems, you are on your own baitie. /\^/\  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vilignoble (talk • contribs) 05:18, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current medical treatment of priapism 

message: First of all, who who most likely navigates to this entry and what to they want to take away from it?
I ask this in the Wikipedia spirit of usefulness, usability, accessibility, reliability of information, impartiality and practicality.
Before Viagra, Cialis, Levitra, et al.. this new class of wonder drugs throughout the world began putting a verbal, I mean spoken, warning teaching the world the ancient word priapism, what it means in today's medical terminology and that it can result from taking these drugs, my educated guess is that very, very few laymen, i.e. most of us individuals outside of the medical industry, had ever even heard this word, let alone had the vaguest idea of it meaning.
Then suddenly, in the blink of an eye, it's in everyone's living room and everyone's kids' ears nightly if they watch any network television at all. 
This nightly lesson, paraphrased, leaves millions and millions of half-embarrassed adult men and women, children and teenaged watchers alike, with one basic thought: 
"Beware of priapism. Priapism means [sic] a dangerous occurrence of an erection that won't go away. If four hours pass and it still persists, get thee to a doctor. STAT." 
Excuse my bluntness, but the message we all hear is this:
"Having a hard-on that lasts for hours and hours is dangerous." 
Having once been age 8, 12 and a teenager, I think I can say with some degree of expertise that 99.% of them are just about obsessed with bodily functions in general and in particular::
#1. Sex, I mean learning what it's all about, how they measure up, if they're OK, maturing on time, what medical terms as well as street terms mean.
#2. They abhor asking adults about #1.
#3. Youths in this age range hear a lot of false information about sexual matters from school and street friends.
#4. This age group is prone to believe myths about all the above.
#5. This is an age where many young people have a irrational fears about getting diseases, germs in general, having contracted any new medical condition they hear of. They worry a lot about such things and largely silently.
I'm not suggesting that this entry should be dumbed down in any way nor do I think these are the only visitors here, but I think it would no harm and only good to mention a couple things, like what priapism is not.
Do all interested contributors agree so far?
I'm currently writing some changes, but will just sign and close this for now..
Mykstor (talk) 03:27, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: This Talk page annoys the heck out of me. Article page needs work and since the word is on TV nightly, it ''is'' important

message: :<<Recently, the vibration of BMW motorcycles manufactured in 1993, coupled with a Corbin aftermarket seat, has been claimed as the cause for Priapism for one California resident.>>
I heard that piece of news, but is just one case enciclopedic?
Michele, Italy.  /  77.89.20.230 (talk) 07:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  One is not enough, I guess... 

message: The statement in our article about scarring after 48 hours means that it will definitely occur. It can start occurring after 4 hours. Will look for a source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:14, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Scarring

message: Why isn't pseudoephedrine mentioned as a treatment anymore?
I'm no doctor, but I've had many episodes of priapism and my urologist recommended I take pseudoephedrine. It's worked wonderfully, killing my erections and sparing me countless hours of pain.
In the current version of the article, only one treatment is mentioned that can be done without a doctor: applying a cold pack and pressure. Everything else is invasive. I would hate for someone with priapism to read this article and conclude that if a cold pack doesn't work, they need to go to the ER and get a needle stuck in their penis. This would take an unnecessarily long time when they could simply swallow 2-4 extra-strength Sudafed and be flaccid within 10 minutes.
It looks like Doc James removed the mention of pseudoephedrine on March 7, 2017. Since he's a doctor according to his profile, I'm putting this issue on the Talk page rather reversing his edit myself. Weirdo87 (talk) 15:18, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not a doctor, but it seems like there could be an opposite concern here where taking 2-4 extra strength Sudafed causes its own set of problems. That would be 2-4 of the recommened dose, yeah? - Scarpy (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: The danger of taking 2-4 extra-strength Sudafed is negligible, especially compared to the danger of allowing an episode of priapism to continue and become more severe. The bigger issue is that pseudoephedrine bought over the counter is almost always mixed with something else, usually acetaminophen/paracetamol. The maximum daily dose for acetaminophen/paracetamol is 3000 mg or 4000 mg, depending on who you ask, since taking more can damage your liver. So if you take a bunch of pseudoephedrine to combat an episode of priapism, you don't have to worry about taking too much pseudoephedrine so much as taking too much acetaminophen/paracetamol, or whatever other drug the pseudoephedrine is mixed with. This is why you should get the extra-strength variety, since it'll have 60 mg of pseudoephedrine rather than 30 mg, but the amount of the other drug will be the same. And you should avoid extended release pseudoephedrine, since you want it all to hit you as quickly as possible to end your episode of priapism. Weirdo87 (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoephedrine 

message: ; Infobox: Frequency 1 in 60,000 males per year[3]
; Lead: Priapism occurs in about 1 in 20,000 to 1 in 100,000 males per year.[3]
Maybe this was deliberate, but it's initially confusing. — MaxEnt 00:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discrepancy