Talk:Sexual dysfunction/Archive 1

Archive 1

Orgasm Disorders

Can someone who knows wikipedia better than I do link orgasm disorders to anorgasmia?? That article is better written, more balanced, and a lot more informative. Rachaella (talk) 02:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• I think that there should be further description regarding physiological or psychological causes of orgasm disorder.
  • Based off Susan Nolen-Hoeksema, in the book of "Abnormal Psychology" one in three women complain about the inability to have an orgasm during sexual stimulation after going through menopause. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.227.44.192 (talk) 01:54, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Can

Can we agree on a different title for this page? "Sexual problems" sounds distinctly un-encyclopedic for an otherwise very good article. JFW | T@lk 10:45, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Paraphilias

Could we maybe agree whether this is a psychological disorder or a "related problem"? I don't think it is both.

Also, how is "lack of a sexual partner" a sexual problem worth noting? Ashmodai 09:39, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Proposed merge

Merger was Proposed by User:Beland on 2007-06-02T15:27:10 without an explanation--Keerllston 18:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Not feasible. Here's why:

• Asexuality in humans is a legitimate orientation in the eyes of many. Whether it exists is not a matter that needs to be debated: People think it does, and this is an encyclopedia.
• The articles are of a good size now. Merging the two would make this article much too large.
• Asexual organizations exist.
• Asexual reproduction is listed at the very top as an alternate use for the term.

—BorgHunter ^ubx (talk) 20:38, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

• This proposed merge is not necessary because Sexual dysfunction is its own outstanding topic. There is no need for a merge.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.65.6.40 (talk • contribs) 2007-06-29T23:05:21

• Health/Ease and Disease are separate pages, Function and Dysfunction are different topics.--Keerllston 18:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Given that consensus is not reached, given that there is no argument for merging, I am removing the merge tag.--Keerllston 18:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Sexual addiction

Can sexual addiction be considered a sexual dysfunction?

Saaraleigh 03:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Circumcision?

Is a circumcision honestly thought by doctors to be a sexual problem??? I think that should be removed from the list. soldierx40k (talk) 18:27, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Treatment Edits

I have a relationship to the research discussed in the manual physical therapy section. I am aware of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines and will abide by them. I am volunteering information for this talk page only, and ask for Wikipedians’ help in determining if some or all of these edits are suitable for the page.

Treating sexual dysfunction in females
Although there are no approved pharmaceuticals for addressing female sexual dysfunction, several are under investigation for their effectiveness in treating female sexual disorders (desire, arousal, orgasm).^[1] A vacuum device is the only approved medical device for arousal and orgasm disorders. It is designed to increase blood flow to the clitoris and external genitalia.^[1] Women experiencing pain with intercourse are often prescribed lubricants and/or hormone therapy.^[1] Many patients with female sexual dysfunction are often also referred to a counselor or therapist for psychosocial counseling.^[1]

A manual physical therapy, the Wurn Technique, which is designed to reduce pelvic and vaginal adhesions, may also be beneficial for women experiencing sexual pain and dysfunction. In a controlled study, Increasing orgasm and decreasing intercourse pain by a manual physical therapy technique,^[2] twenty-three (23) women reporting painful intercourse and/or sexual dysfunction received a 20-hour program of manipulative physical therapy. Their results were compared using the validated Female Sexual Function Index, with post-test vs. pretest scores. Results after therapy were significant (P </= .003) on all measures, with individual measures and P-values as follows: desire (P < .001), arousal (P = .0033), lubrication (P < .001), orgasm (P < .001), satisfaction (P < .001), and pain (P < .001). A second study to improve sexual function in patients with endometriosis showed similar statistical results.^[3]

1. Amato P, MD. An update on therapeutic approaches to female sexual dysfunction [1]. 2007. Retrieved August 14, 2008.
2. Wurn LJ, Wurn BF, King CR, Roscow AS, Scharf ES, Shuster JJ. Increasing Orgasm and Decreasing Dyspareunia by a Manual Physical Therapy Technique. Med Gen Med 2004 Dec 14; 6(4): 47. PMID 15775874.
3. Wurn LJ, Wurn BF, King CR, Roscow AS, Scharf ES, Shuster JJ. Improving sexual function in patients with endometriosis via a pelvic physical therapy. Fertil Steril. 2006; 86 (Supp 2): S29-30. Abstract.

--Research6840 (talk) 20:46, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

These edits are neutral and reliable sources. As no opposition or discussion has occurred since this talk was posted more than a month ago, I moved the edits to the page. Research6840 (talk) 19:58, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

PR?

"Unlike disorders of orgasm, as the success of Viagra (sildenafil citrate) attests, most erectile disorders in men are primarily physical conditions."

This sounds like a PR statement, that contradicts the notion that erectile dysfunction often has a psychological component. 92.225.41.254 (talk) 11:32, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move.  Sandstein  20:48, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

---

Sexual dysfunction → Sexual disorders – By definition, the term 'dysfunction' does not incorporate sexual disorders due to a mental disorder (e.g. paraphilias) whereas the term 'sexual disorders' incorporates all. Relisted. BDD (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2013 (UTC) Robbiecee2 (talk) 02:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC) Robbiecee2 (talk) 02:26, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

• Note: There is a discussion about this here. This move is likely to be controversial, and so a proper move discussion about it should be had before a move, if any, is made. If a move is made, the title also shouldn't be in plural form. Flyer22 (talk) 02:38, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Here is the updated version of the above linked discussion, where two other people have weighed in thus far. Instead of deleting the Sexual disorder redirect or simply not having it redirect to Sexual dysfunction, I suggested that maybe renaming this article to Sexual disorder might be the better option. However, I expressed caution on that.

The following text is some of what I stated to Robbiecee2 in the discussion: ...the term "sexual disorder" is not restricted to psychological sexual disorders, and extends to physical sexual disorders as well. And the term "sexual dysfunction" is not restricted to physical sexual disorders, because it also extends to psychological sexual disorders. It's pretty much vice versa. Like I stated, the terms are "treated as synonyms very often, both by medical professionals and laypeople." The ICD-10 includes a Sexual dysfunction section that includes sexual disorders; some of these are things that you would classify as sexual dysfunctions, such as erectile dysfunction. Erectile dysfunction is alternatively called "male erectile disorder." And hypoactive sexual desire disorder, for another example, is commonly listed as a sexual dysfunction. The ICD-10 says: "Sexual response is a psychosomatic process and both psychological and somatic processes are usually involved in the causation of sexual dysfunction." And even Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) treats "sexual dysfunction" and "sexual disorder" as synonyms, with a "Sexual Dysfunctions, Psychological" heading while naming sexual disorders beneath that. While paraphilias, which are usually described as sexual disorders and/or as mental disorders, may not be commonly described as sexual dysfunctions, I don't agree that this means that we should not have the term "sexual disorder" redirect to the Sexual dysfunction article. Creating a Sexual disorder article and trying to maintain a difference between that and sexual dysfunctions would be difficult because, as various reliable sources show, it would be arbitrary. It might be best to rename the Sexual dysfunction article to Sexual disorder, which would of course cover physical and psychological sexual dysfunctions, as well as paraphilias. But the term "disorder" can be more so stigmatizing, and so an argument can be made, based on that, to leave the article titled as it is. Flyer22 (talk) 17:12, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: I informed Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology of this discussion. I'm not sure how much help Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Psychology provides, but it's usually no help to inform Wikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexuality of topics due to the level of inactivity there, so I did not leave a message about this at that project. Flyer22 (talk) 17:55, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I have said in the other page: My concern about the term 'dysfunction' is that in layman terms (and by definition) the term refers to "malfunctioning, as of an organ or structure of the body." and this is the definition used by the general population. Therefore, a psychological disorder would not necessarily fall under this category and so, an article with 'dysfunction' in the title should not include psychological disorders that do not result in a malfunction of an organ or structure of the body. Robbiecee2 (talk) 19:30, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

It's also been argued that the term "dysfunction" is not generally used by laypeople in the way that Robbiecee2 has described. Flyer22 (talk) 20:09, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Look up the definition, don't use your own. Robbiecee2 (talk) 20:23, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Robbiecee2, you are using your own. Not me. Like I advised you, read WP:Original research. Flyer22 (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

How am I using my own ? I clearly cited definitions from 3 different sources. Robbiecee2 (talk) 20:43, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

You are synthesizing. See the WP:SYNTH part of the WP:Original research policy. You are using these sources to draw conclusions that are not explicitly stated by these sources, such "this is the definition used by the general population." And the assertion that "Therefore, a psychological disorder would not necessarily fall under this category" can also only be based on your view of what the general population thinks...since medical sources show that psychological disorders do fall under the category of dysfunction. Flyer22 (talk) 21:02, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

If I were to take any one of those three definitions and asked random people out on the street if they thought a mental disorder would fall under that definition, what do you think the consensus would be ? And stop liking me to things. Just because you have been on wikipedia for nearly 6 years, that does not in any way give you some sort of authority over me or that I should do what you tell me so please do not think that. Robbiecee2 (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the consensus would not be what you expect. And you need to be linked to things (our policies and guidelines) precisely because of the type of reply you just gave me. It's not about thinking that I have some sort of authority over you. It's about using my experience to show you how things are supposed to be done here. You asked for my help, and are now shunning it because I am informing you of things that are going to take time for you to learn and/or things that you don't want to read/hear. Well, this is what editing Wikipedia is like. Flyer22 (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I think the consensus would be what I expect. I no longer want your "help" because you're not being helpful to me. So please leave me alone and stop monitoring me. Robbiecee2 (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

I'm involved in this discussion, so I may still partake in it. As for not helping you, it is your right to believe that I am not. And I already explained "the monitoring" you part. Flyer22 (talk) 21:39, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Just stop it, please. I came here to develop articles and help educate other people, and you're making it an overall bad experience for me. Robbiecee2 (talk) 21:49, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Stop accusing me of harassment. You are basically telling me that I can't continue to show up at the articles that I edit/watch over because you will be there. It is your right to state that I have not been helpful, but I consider pointing you to our policies and guidelines and explaining how things work when you ask, which is what I have done, to be helpful. You shouldn't expect me or anyone else to look the other way when you are doing something wrong at an article. But I will try to refrain from pointing you to any more policies or guidelines, since it's clear that you don't take the time to thoroughly read them. Flyer22 (talk) 21:57, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Why should I stop doing something you don't like when you won't stop doing something I don't like? Nice copy and paste though. I have responded in the other page. Robbiecee2 (talk) 22:03, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

My statement that you stop accusing me of harassment is a different matter. But I also replied on the other page. Flyer22 (talk) 22:35, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, people, let's get back on topic here. I have some questions. Why exactly is this move being requested? What is problematic about the current naming, and what benefit would the new name provide?

As far as I know, "sexual dysfunction" is the most common English term used to refer to a failure of sexual arousal. I have never heard the term "sexual disorder" used in this context. Why would we want to rename this article to something nobody is going to search for? --Aurochs (Talk | Block) 01:02, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Aurochs, it's discussed extensively in the WP:RfD discussion linked above. Robbiecee2 and I would be repeating what has already been argued there, as we have somewhat done above. However, my "17:12, 15 January 2013" post near the start of this section above summarizes what the debate is about and how this move discussion came to exist. Flyer22 (talk) 01:12, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

On a side note: The Jerry Springer-type argument between Robbiecee2 and I is currently resolved. And I have commonly heard/read people (including researchers) use the term "sexual disorder" to refer to sexual arousal issues such as erectile dysfunction. My arguments in these discussions have been based more so on reliable sources, however. The term "sexual dysfunction" also covers more than sexual arousal issues, whether it's physical and/or psychological issues affecting one's sexual ability, which is one of the things Robbiecee2 and I have been discussing. Flyer22 (talk) 01:33, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, Flyer22 is correct. My point is that 'dysfunction' refers to physiological difficulties and not psychological issues such as paraphilias. Whereas 'disorder' would cover both physiological problems and psychological disorders. Although some would disagree. Robbiecee2 (talk) 14:47, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Note: the freedictionary.com definition for dysfunction is 'Abnormal or impaired functioning, especially of a bodily system or social group.' and the definition for disorder is 'An ailment that affects the function of mind or body'. The latter of which I feel would be more definitive for the article as a whole, and most people at the university I attend use 'dysfunction' to refer to physiological problems and 'disorder' to refer to psychological sexual disorders, such as disorders of sexual preference, although I am in Scotland so this might be different in other areas. Robbiecee2 (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Definitions and most commonly used name: To everyone, the Clinical Manual of Sexual Disorders, 2009 source addresses the topic of defining sexual dysfunction. Among many other things, it states, "A major issue complicating the study of sexual dysfunctions is the absence of a set of commonly accepted operational definitions." It also uses "sexual disorder" and "sexual dysfunction" interchangeably, but, from what I see, shows that "sexual dysfunction" is the most commonly used term for both physiological/physical and psychological sexual problems among medical sources. This is also shown by the Infobox disease of this article, which lists sources that go by the title Sexual dysfunction while putting both physiological/physical and psychological sexual problems under that title (although the part of the ICD-10's title that says "not caused by organic disorder or disease" confuses me because, for example, erectile dysfunction, which it lists, can be caused by organic disorder or disease). There are also sources like WebMD's entry Female Sexual Dysfunction, which lists physical and psychological causes. Based on all of this, I'm certain that "sexual dysfunction" is more commonly used for both physiological/physical and psychological sexual problems, even if not commonly used for paraphilias. And per Wikipedia:MEDMOS#Naming conventions, "The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name) or a historical eponym that has been superseded." Flyer22 (talk) 17:43, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for that information, and I agree with you that physiological dysfunctions caused by psychological disturbances can be defined as sexual dysfunctions. Can anyone else weigh in? And note that the book you quoted from itself uses 'disorders' rather than 'dysfunctions'. Robbiecee2 (talk) 22:45, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

You're welcome. And, yeah, the fact that it uses "sexual disorders" as its title didn't escape me and I felt that you may mention that title aspect. But the rest of what goes along with that post is more significant on the whole sexual dysfunction vs. sexual disorder topic. Flyer22 (talk) 23:09, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Yes, however you have to think why the authors decided to go with that title. I'm interested to see what others think. Robbiecee2 (talk) 23:40, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

They probably went with it because of what they state about "the absence of a set of commonly accepted operational definitions" being a "major issue complicating the study of sexual dysfunctions." Yeah, let's wait and see if others weigh in on all or some of this. Flyer22 (talk) 23:50, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

This can't be that controversial is no one is commenting? Also the new DSM will have a Sexual Dysfunctions subsection and a seperate Paraphillic Disorders subsection. Robbiecee2 (talk) 10:47, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

I take it as the other way around -- it can't be okay to move since others have not supported your suggestion to move. No WP:CONSENSUS has formed for the move, and so that's another reason that the article should stay where it is. And, indeed, that is what the closer of this discussion will state: No consensus to move. Flyer22 (talk) 13:48, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

But there's no consensus to keep it the same either. Robbiecee2 (talk) 15:26, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

There is in my view, because the current title is the title that this article has been at for years without being contested. Either way, I was simply telling you how the move discussion process works when it's a template proposal and often even when it's not a template proposal (except that a person usually doesn't come along and close the discussion with a statement in the latter case). Flyer22 (talk) 15:31, 20 February 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Merge Sexual function to Sexual dysfunction

I think these are basically describing the same issue, just with titles referring to the functional versus dysfunctional side (as with spinal cord non-injury versus spinal cord injury). I don't think the Sexual function article is long enough to justify being a separate article, and neither does the difference in the topic compared to sexual dysfunction. The content may very well be moved to the sexual dysfunction article without any major modification. Mikael Häggström (talk) 17:29, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Not really, the "Sexual function" article describes one model of approaching the treatment of sexual dysfunctions related to cancer, and there are probably many of them used by different centers of research/treatment of the most diverse sexual dysfunctions. I believe the "sexual function" model must be linked on the sexual dysfunction article as a topic with a brief description of it's objectives/aim, uses and limitations (like: "Approach to cancer related sexual dysfunctions", or if it has really been extrapolated to non-cancer patients, "Kalokinska institute guideline" - just because naming the topic "sexual function" is too generic and non-descriptive) and the "sexual function" article should be marked as a stub to be developed on it's own by better describing the guideline. Varum1 (talk) 20:48, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

DSM-5 Sexual Dysfunction Definition

Since the DSM-5 came out, this page should entail a brief description according to the manual. I think this should be put in there because it's the most recent diagnosis of the dysfunction.
According to the DSM-5, sexual dysfunction requires a person to feel extreme distress and interpersonal strain for a minimum of 6 months (excluding substance/medication-induced sexual dysfunction). Amtyno (talk) 02:24, 16 April 2014 (UTC)

Causes Diseases are also common causes of erectile dysfunctional; especially in men. Diseases such as cardiovascular disease, multiple sclerosis, kidney failure, vascular disease and spinal cord injury are the source of erectile dysfunction.[1]

Jump up ^ Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2013). Sexual Dysfnctions. In Abnormal Psychology. McGraw Hill Education. ISBN-10: 0078035384 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arethabd (talk • contribs) 03:45, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sexual dysfunction. 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/20081004092107/http://www.femalesexualdysfunctiononline.org/commentaries/commentaries.cfm?abs_id=abs_007 to http://www.femalesexualdysfunctiononline.org/commentaries/commentaries.cfm?abs_id=abs_007
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090320071354/http://www.issm.info/v4/index.asp to http://www.issm.info/v4/index.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131018092257/http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001951.htm to https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/article/001951.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:24, 20 May 2017 (UTC)