Talk:Aphrodisiac

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 19 August 2019 and 29 November 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Amilon3. Peer reviewers: Martijn Koning IIT, Juliahonda.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Broken reference link
"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)

Prosexual?
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)

Firefox crash
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)

Butea Superba
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)

Tiger and rhino
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)

Removed Yohimbe from "other drugs". There is evidence that Yohimbe does affect sexual motivation. For example, http://www.biopsychiatry.com/yohim.htm Joncolvin

Cacycle
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)

-- In the last time the plant maca of south america gets more and more an importance. --Fackel 17:59, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Cacycle: I think that the idea that we should keep anything on wikipedia until it is proven false is absolutely absurd. As long as we aren't discussing matters of religion and faith (which should still be stated as beliefs, not facts), statements should be kept off page. For example, I could assert that alien races sent ninjas to earth to destroy all humans or that unicorns exist, but unless I have significant evidence or a respectable source that agrees, I cannot make such an assertion without many others believing the same. Until a source is found I am removing that part of the entry. --Foe666 09:02, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

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

Lucretia?
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)

Testosterone
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)

Bremelanotide
Thanks to 4.229.165.244 for toning down the language a bit more. I think the original wording was based on a pharma press release, so it did sound very much like an ad, because it was. Poindexter Propellerhead 11:12, 31 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I value your skepticism, but in this case the aphrodisiac properties of bremelanotide are well established in animal tests as well as in humans. There are more than twenty scientific studies and review articles, just run a PubMed search for "bremelanotide OR PT-141". The drug is through phase I and II clinical tests and is now in phase III. No company would waste the millions of dollars needed for clinical tests on an inactive compound. And the recent wording was definitely not based on any pharma release as they are extremely cautious in their formulations and would probably never use the word "aphrodisiac" themselves. For these reasons I am planning to reinstate the intro passage about bremelanotide soon. Cacycle 13:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * My concerns are threefold. I have read all of the PubMed articles or their abstracts except for one, where neither the abstract or the article is online (and the article has never been translated into English). Of the 21 which can be looked at, 8 are simply notices that it is under trial. Another 9 are reports published by Palatin, the company that owns the patent on it. Two are mentions in overviews of it and competing chemicals, one is a theoretical look at how the family of chemicals might work with regard to ED, and one is an actual trial done on rats. In short, of 22 mentions on PubMed, there is one (presumably) independent trial.


 * Here's a quick & dirty survey that's kind of interesting: searching PubMed for "PT-141" + "aphrodisiac" or "Bremelanotide" + "aphrodisiac" returns no hits at all. For purposes of contrast, "tribulus terrestris" + "aphrodisiac" returns 5 independent studies, "Eurycoma longifolia" + "aphrodisiac" returns 11 independent studies. These are not new substances, they have been used as aphrodisiacs in Indian and Indonesian folk medicine for centuries. And there's not even any economic incentive for studying them, since they can't be patented. Which brings me to my second concern.


 * Palatin's press release language is that Bremelanotide is the first and only aphrodisiac. That is inconsistent with work that has been done on other substances, as you may note from the citations I've started appending in the sections on testosterone, tribulus and yohimbine. And there are a great many others that I haven't put in (yet), for those and other compounds. I have no problem at all with mention of Bremelanotide, how it's in trial, or how it's looking promising, so long as it doesn't extend to claims that scores of peer reviewed studies would say are false.


 * It may well be great stuff, I'm sure that will be clearer when they have an actual product available that people can try. Until then, I am reluctant to get carried away by hype surrounding what is still a vaporware product, nearly unseen outside of Palatin's labs. Doing so might help Palatin's stock prices, but I don't think it would make for a better article. I hope that clarifies my perspective on the subject. Poindexter Propellerhead 20:29, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Massive list of plants
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. "

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)

Tongkat Ali
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)


 * It is. It is listed under Eurycoma longifolia.

--Anna Frodesiak (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Oz and garlic
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)

Plants
put, hell, back, the other plants some in past versions and also nor writed

Iron-clad proven example, not mentioned until very last line of page, end of link box
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)

External links modified
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)

Phenethylamines and Other Drugs
If we're going to cite sources, can we not fucking make the exact OPPOSITE of what those sources say? Or acknowledge there's significant ambiguity in its efficacy as an aphordisiac? Let's also not use hearsay sources (eg "has been reported") and go straight to the primary article, can we? Regarding "Amphetamine and methamphetamine are phenethylamine derivatives which are known to increase libido and cause frequent or prolonged erections as potential side effects, particularly at high supratherapeutic doses where sexual hyperexcitability and hypersexuality can occur.[8][9][10]"

9. Hearsay source. "Amphetamine has been reported [emphasis added] to increase libido...may [emphasis added] increase libido, but sometimes causes impotence or delayed ejaculation...The drug is without marked effect on sexual function when used in normal therapeutic doses" Also, I'm sorry, but I have a hard time believing reports of increased libido for "supratherapeutic doses" because a supratherapeutic dose of amphetamine(s) means you're fucking high. -Gunne LM (2013). "Effects of Amphetamines in Humans". Drug Addiction II: Amphetamine, Psychotogen, and Marihuana Dependence. Berlin, Germany; Heidelberg,

10. "libido DECREASED [emphasis added]" -Adderall XR Prescribing Information" (PDF). United States Food and Drug Administration. December 2013. pp. 4–8. Retrieved 30 December 2013.

11. "amphetamine and methylphenidate can [emphasis added] increase sexual desire by increasing dopamine release". A postulated mechanism of action to explain anecdotal reports of increased desire is NOT evidence for actually increased desire. And really, if you're going to amphetamines, it'd make more sense to add the other well-studied but also equivocal drugs used to increase desire (eg bupropion) - Montgomery KA (June 2008). "Sexual desire disorders". Psychiatry (Edgmont). 5 (6): 50–55. PMC 2695750 Freely accessible. .

12. Okay. What the fuck, ppl. "Impotence and changes in libido" is not increased libido, it's changes. That could mean up OR down. Don't cite changes as evidence it's an aphrodisiac. It could just as easily be an anaphrodisiac. - "Desoxyn Prescribing Information" (PDF). United States Food and Drug Administration. December 2013. Retrieved 6 January 2014. ADVERSE REACTIONS ... changes in libido; frequent or prolonged erections. [emphasis added]

13. And yet other sources state "erectile dysfunction...and impaired arousal from antimuscarinic actions. Sexual dysfunction is a major cause of nonadherence...antimuscarinic effects include...reduced sexual arousal" p.290 Waller & Sampson. ISBN:9780702071676. - Kapoor, AK; Raju, SM (2013). Illustrated Medical Pharmacology. New Delhi: Jaypee Brothers Medical Publishers (P) Ltd. p. 130. ISBN 978-93-5090-655-2.

Evilbob0 (talk) 05:19, 8 July 2018 (UTC)


 * Given what the sources above say and the wording for the phenethylamines section – i.e., "[amphetamines] are known to increase libido and cause frequent or prolonged erections as potential side effects" – this isn't inaccurate; however, it doesn't mention the alternative possibility. I remember an older revision of this article including a clause afterward which stated "although libido is reduced in some." I've restored something to that effect in that section.
 * As for antimuscarinics, if that source states that those 3 drugs increase libido as a side effect in overdose and it states that antimuscarinics in general reduce libido, that's not a contradiction. There's 5 muscarinic receptors and variations in binding affinity/efficacy at different muscarinic receptors (and even their non-muscarinic receptor targets) would likely account for that. Nonetheless, I can't find a WP:MEDRS-quality review on pubmed about antimuscarinics and "libido" or "sexual arousal", and I don't really trust textbooks to accurately list drug side effects since they're not peer reviewed, so I'm deleting the mention of those.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 07:12, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Oh, also, "amphetamine and methylphenidate can [emphasis added] increase sexual desire by increasing dopamine release". A postulated mechanism of action to explain anecdotal reports of increased desire is NOT evidence for actually increased desire. The source you cited literally stated sexual desire is regulated by dopamine neurotransmission. If you want to know specifically what brain region is involved, it's the part of the mesolimbic pathway that projects onto the nucleus accumbens shell; the cognitive process that mediates sexual arousal is incentive salience. The neuropsychopharmacology of libido is really not that complicated since it's just a desire.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 07:32, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Not in citiation
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)

Recent edits
I suspect WP:MEDRS violations, but I'd let you sort it out. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:42, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I'll alert WP:Med to the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm doing this for a class. If you guys end up deleting things can you provide a detailed reason here, so that it is documented for my professor's review. We are approaching the end of the semester and this is my final project. Thanks in advance. Amilon3 (talk)


 * See WP:MEDRS: we have very high standards for allowable WP:SOURCES. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:25, 4 November 2019 (UTC)


 * The information under the section "Types" was meant more as a reference for aphrodisiacs used cross-culturally, not intended as medical advice, but instead information on its usage throughout history. This is why I added a section "Risks" that reemphasizes the debate on this topic. Is that still not acceptable? Amilon3 (talk)


 * I do not make the call. I simply stated that the edits were suspect. I am neither the most learned nor the most radical editor. The community of editors makes the call, according to WP:RULES. Tgeorgescu (talk) 04:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * Ok, community, here is my intent: NOT TO BE USED AS MEDICAL ADVISE, BUT AS A HISTORICAL REVIEW OF ITS USE CROSS-CULTURALLY. If you were to see all my edits before deletions, I think this would show. I am open to rephrasing if the wording seems to be inferring medical advise. Amilon3 (talk) 05:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)


 * I would like to suggest putting some sort of "disclaimer" sentence, similar to the last paragraph of the section above, right at the top of the "Types" section to further avoid the impression of medical advise. Also,, just out of interest, what kind of a class project is that? Regards --Yhdwww (talk) 14:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)


 * It is for my Human Sexuality class! Thanks for the suggestion, I will add a disclaimer in the beginning as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amilon3 (talk • contribs) 05:06, 18 November 2019 (UTC) ‎


 * I'm sorry, but I'm still waiting for that disclaimer. I'm just a little concerned it looks like a list of legitimate aphrodisiac options. --Yhdwww (talk) 18:33, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Ambrien? Also quality.
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)

Bufo Toad Section Ambiguity
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)

Alcohol
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)

Phosphodiesterase inhibitors
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)

This article seems very poor quality
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)


 * 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)
 * You know what to do!. Bon courage (talk) 14:04, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Unbalanced (flag)
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)


 * "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)
 * See WP:VNT, Bon courage (talk) 09:26, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Wrong
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)

Current Research in Food Science is not a reliable source
Concerning this revert, the journal in question is not MEDLINE-indexed, indicating it is possibly predatory and does not have enough publishing history to be reliable. See WP:MEDRS under Predatory journals and WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Zefr (talk) 00:07, 4 July 2024 (UTC)