Talk:Persistent genital arousal disorder/Archive 1

title
If it is a syndrome then the words in the title are capitalised. FearÉIREANN 01:01, 21 Dec 2003 (UTC) Not necessarily.

The word "persistant" should be changed to either "pesky", "distracting" or "annoying". Thewayofthegunn (talk) 11:57, 8 January 2011 (UTC)thewayofthegunn

source
Mainichi itself is a reliable news source. It is referencing the Shukan Post, which I think is closer to a tabloid. I don't think it's unbiased reporting (neutral point of view) to link the Mainichi article about the Shukan Post article. --SFTheWanderer 16:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

PSA
I'm guessing PSAS can also affect men... --Kitetsu 11:04, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Kitetsu, PSAS could potentially affect men as well. There are several men listed as members on the support forums, and they complain of the same feelings that the women do. Research hasn't been done to the point of including men, however, but the symptoms are often similar; constant, painful arousal, disassociation of pleasure relating to orgasm, and, in some cases, the wish to never have an orgasm again. There is no regular orgasmic feeling anymore; There is trauma and pain now associated with something that is supposed to be fun and normal. It's very distressing and humiliating for these women (and men) because they are looked upon as freaks or "lucky," even by medical professionals. The forum is going strong, as is the Yahoo group that was created. Personally, I don't think this topic should be merged with anything because it is its own subject and diagnosis and taking away the name put to the feelings would potentially trivialize the suffering the afflicted go through. We could capitalize it if necessary, however, if that's how it should be. Jennifer Radcliffe 07:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

It absolutely can affect men, I'm a man with PGAD due to lumbar radiculitis with the absence of priapism (erections). These are not the same disorder, and it does a disservice to keep removing men from this article and referring to priapism. --PhoenixRisen415 (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Reverted per what the literature generally states and WP:MEDRS. More in the section below. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't know why anyone would want to merge this with clitorism, the two articles describe completely different syndromes.


 * Yeah, I don't see it either. From the descriptions the two conditions seem independent of each other. 68.149.166.16 06:51, 19 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm guessing clitorism and priapism were included as follow-up links for those trying to chase down references to a perpetual state of (apparent) sexual excitement.


 * At this time, PSAS is not considered a male condition, although it may not be ruled out in the future.


 * --UnicornTapestry (talk) 01:49, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

template
This article is well-sourced and I don't think the unsourced template applies, therefore I have removed it.Typing monkey 06:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Are we supposed to take this seriously? Not only could it effect men? It does effect men...every man...every day. It's called normal. I think, although we try to forget or avoid it, we are creatures of nature. Therefore, we were put here to procreate. Constant sexual drive is not a disorder; not having constant sexual drive is the disorder. Not surprising, it was "discovered" by a woman, and what a surprise it mostly effects women in their 40s-50s (when you suppress sexual desire for 20-25 years, it comes back at you exponentially). I think if we do a little more "research", we'll find these women mostly come from western European Protestant backgrounds-the most sexually repressed cultural group on the planet. For a gender who is supposed to be "in touch" with their bodies and nature, you've really lost it this time. Do what men do in this situation; have at least 1 orgasm every day (alone or with help). You'll find there's a spring in your step, a twinkle in your eye & you'll move bowels on a daily basis, too.

Men admire people like, Hugh Hefner, because he's not embarrassed or afraid of his own sexual desires; and I'm sorry to say that most women are...that's the syndrome...that's the disorder. That's why heterosexual men like looking at women's bodies. That's why, according to psychologists, we think about sex every 7 seconds or so. We have jokes about persistent genital arousal; it's a normal part of our daily lives. Like, what's the advantage of eating a Chinese woman; after 15 minutes, you're hungry again. If you want to know why prostitution is the world's oldest profession, it's because men have persistent genital arousal, but for us it's not an "issue", it's a "problem". The difference between an "issue" and a "problem" is...a "problem" can be solved. Welcome to the real world...welcome to the world of men. Thewayofthegunn (talk) 18:31, 4 January 2011 (UTC)thewayofthegunn

One the symptoms is "the inability to concentrate on even simple tasks". Now you know how men feel when there's an attractive woman near by. When Albert Einstein was asked to explain Relativity, he stated: "When you sit next to a beautiful woman; 3 hours can feel like 3 minutes. When you sit on a hot stove; 3 minutes can feel like 3 hours. That's relativity." Please note the first part of his analogy...a wise man in so many ways. It's why I'm married to a latina and not a gringa.Thewayofthegunn (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2011 (UTC)thewayofthegunn

There's a huge deal of patriarchal rubbish attached to this, yes--women are still shamed for their sex drives. If we weren't shamed and called sluts (by other women as well as men) for it and allowed the same sexual freedoms without harassment and violence and shame the same way men are, yep, it would be easier for women to deal with even perfectly ordinary arousal. But this syndrome is not the same thing as having a high sex drive, as it's arousal unrelated to sexual thoughts. Sometimes persistent arousal comes with a high sex drive, sometimes it doesn't, and I expect the people who have a mismatch between their genitals and their psyches in this respect (body wants sex, brain doesn't feel like it) are the ones who suffer the most. I personally like the idea of the cognitive reframing and just dealing with it with by masturbating, but if it happens several times a day or when you're on a rumbling bus or something? Then it is a problem. The whole point is that it's unrelated to desire; hypersexuality or hyposexuality are different concerns.Snowgrouse (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

link
The link to source number 2 no longer functions properly. Reyemile (talk) 07:55, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The Mainichi Shimbun acknowledged that some of the articles in their WaiWai column were inappropriate and deleted them from their site. They continue to examine other stories in the column while taking measures to block access to all of them. Therefore, I deleted the reference to the Mainichi's WaiWai column (it is unaccessible anyway) and put "fact" tags instead. Punitive measures over Mainichi Daily News WaiWai column announced Tarafuku10 (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

"RARE" disorder
I question any reference to this condition being rare, especially when we read so closely after that this item: "the condition is also frequently unreported by sufferers who may consider it shameful or embarrassing."

If the condition is unreported or underreported, then how can anyone consider this a 'rare' disorder?? The statistics are unavailable and as long as this is considered so shameful an affliction then generalized statements should be removed. I cite Jennifer's comment: "It's very distressing and humiliating for these women (and men) because they are looked upon as freaks or "lucky," even by medical professionals."

The truth is this condition needs to be recognized as 'real' if only as a possible link to other medical conditions. It should be a question asked by ALL medical professionals when gathering history on a patient. We may then find that this is not as much a 'rare' syndrome/disorder as this article would put about.

Any other thoughts on this please add so we can edit where needed in the article. brattysoul —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.227.180 (talk) 16:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Documentary link not working
The second external link, "A Hundred Orgasms A Day", is referring to a page that doesn't exist. I found a much better alternative at http://www.documentaryz.com/c21-sexuality/1584-a-hundred-orgasms-a-day/ This page contains a lot more information and commentary about the documentary, as well as three videos. What do you think? Jeffrey87 (talk) 08:28, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Physical, pysiological or mental illness?
Is this condition a mental illness, or of a physical origin? The article isn't entirely clear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.184.41.226 (talk) 05:30, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

In many cases there is a physical origin such as tarlov cysts, spinal pathologies, pudendal nerve entrapment, in other cases it has been associated with SSRI use. --PhoenixRisen415 (talk) 21:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Persistent genital arousal disorder. 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/20071112042341/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0689/is_n1_v44/ai_19122981/pg_4 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0689/is_n1_v44/ai_19122981/pg_4
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100118124316/http://news.ninemsn.com.au/health/984359/car-crash-leaves-woman-constantly-aroused/ to http://news.ninemsn.com.au/health/984359/car-crash-leaves-woman-constantly-aroused

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) 02:44, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Proposed deletion?
Only five women have been recorded that have suffered (I mean suffered) from this condition. I'm not it is notable. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  14:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Lots of coverage by decent sources. So looks notable by that regard. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 08:59, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * F22 has done an excellent job in improving this article. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  11:17, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * It looks like this is resolved, but for what it's worth WP:NOTABILITY explicitly states that "notability does not necessarily depend on things such as fame, importance, or popularity", and I would suggest "prevalence" fits in the same category. The general notability guideline is clearly met.  And besides, five cases makes this five times as common as ribose-5-phosphate isomerase deficiency‎. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 05:12, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Adrian J. Hunter. More than five case, though. Barbara (WVS) added "20" after making her comment above. And as you can see, I've added more on the matter. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:46, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:Preserve
Barbara (WVS), regarding this, I hope you are looking to preserve this material. That piece was not simply about the male version. Anyway, if you don't preserve material like that, I will. Taking an axe to a topic with few review articles and few other academic sources is not productive, as made clear at WP:MEDDATE.

And your proposed deletion of the topic above makes no sense, but feel free to ask at WP:Med. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:32, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

A simple search on Google Books shows that the topic is WP:Notable. Something being rare does not mean it's not notable. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:35, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Taken to WP:Med. Now, if you excuse, I need to handle some other matters and then get back to this one and source things since you are simply chopping stuff. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:49, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Sourced and expanded with this edit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Note: I had to clean up some things regarding that edit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:11, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Nicely done! Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) ✐ ✉  11:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

WP:MEDORDER
Ozzie10aaaa, regarding this, this and this, like I stated with this revert, I don't see the need for the change or how it's best to have a subsection heading just to have it. WP:MEDORDER shows that the standard is to put the Classification section first for diseases, disorders, or syndromes. Yes, it says that a Classification section "may also be placed as a subheading of [D]iagnosis," but there was no Diagnosis section. You created a Diagnosis heading just to add the "Classification" section under it.

If you reply to me on this, I prefer not to be pinged since this page is on my watchlist. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:30, 16 July 2019 (UTC)
 * should you feel the article is best w/ the 'classification' section first then that's ok, as you indicated I created the "diagnosis' section to then have Classification as a subsection, upon further review I like your way better --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:14, 16 July 2019 (UTC)

In men
I reverted this material by the account per what the literature generally states and WP:MEDRS.

Doc James, Adrian J. Hunter and Ozzie10aaaa, as editors who have commented above, can I get your opinions on this? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)

The Priapism article covers men. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)


 * This condition does exist in Men, and is not the same as Priapism. Priapism is the penis remaining erect for hours in the absence of stimulation or after stimulation has ended. PGAD is being in a constant state or arousal or feeling of orgasm. I'm a man who has PGAD without Priapism (erections). I was diagnosed by Dr. Irwin Goldstein the leading authority on PGAD at the San Diego Sexual Medicine Institute http://www.sandiegosexualmedicine.com/male-issues/persistent-genital-arousal-disorder-in-men-pgad and underwent a microdisectomy which reduced symptoms. I cited two medical sources. We have several men in the Facebook support group. One spoke about this at the International Society for the Study of Women's Sexual Health "PGAD in Men - Special Concerns" http://www.isswshmeeting.org/2017/program/saturday-february-25-2017 Feel free to email with any questions, I can tell you all about living with this nightmare. --PhoenixRisen415 (talk) 22:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Your sources are poor. We go by what the literature states and with WP:Due weight. For medical topics here at Wikipedia, we also go by WP:MEDRS. Read it. See what it states about what type of sourcing Wikipedia prefers for medical topics. Your "case report in a single male" material does not cut it. Neither does your "as well as other lumbar spine cauda equina-based pathologies, including annular tears, disc impingements, spinal stenosis, or Facet cyst" material. Also see WP:Conflict of interest. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:20, 9 August 2019 (UTC)
 * That may be, PhoenixRisen, yet here at Wikipedia in all things, not just medical ones, we are bound by what the best sources say. We can't document new discoveries or events as they happen, that is not what we're for. -Crossroads- (talk) 00:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * I hear you, PhoenixRisen. You're intimately familiar with the cutting edge in this topic, and would like to update Wikipedia accordingly, which is a noble aim.  But like any encyclopedia, Wikipedia deliberately trails behind the cutting edge, especially for medical topics.  There might be an alternative outlet where you could publish far more detail on this topic, including your own experiences. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 01:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * Regarding this (followup note here), I appreciate PhoenixRisen providing this decent source. It does state "men and women" with regard to cures. My concerns are the following: This condition is very rare. The sources on this condition overwhelmingly report it as happening to women, with no mention of men. Some sources state that it only occurs in women. The primary sources that PhoenixRisen previously provided are about one or two case studies. So just two men at the most. So when this book source states "men," just how many men is Goldstein referring to? And does he distinguish priapism in men from PGAD in men, or is he just using "PGAD in men" as a synonym for "priapism in men"? If he does distinguish priapism in men from PGAD in men, or is just using "PGAD in men" as a synonym for "priapism in men," we'd need a WP:MEDRS-compliant source for that. I'm concerned about giving WP:Undue weight to men in the lead or lower in the article. The "Signs and symptoms" section, for example, is based on the research of this condition with regard to women. So any content added to that section about men should be worded to explicitly state "in men." For the lead of the Priapism article, we state, "Very rarely, clitoral priapism occurs in women." So we could do something like that for this article with regard to men and PGAD, with appropriate sourcing, but clitoral priapism is an aspect of PGAD. As mentioned in the "Classification" section of the Priapism article, clitoral priapism is associated with PGAD. So what evidence is there that priapism in men is distinct from PGAD in men? I'm also concerned about speaking on cures based on Goldstein's reports. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * Yes we need high quality sources...
 * This is good https://books.google.bg/books?id=VVFVDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA371 but simple says "several cures of men and women with PGAD secondary to radiculitis"
 * Does it mention anything more? Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 05:44, 10 August 2019 (UTC)

First Reported Case of Isolated Persistent Genital Arousal Disorder in a Male

Persistent genital arousal disorder in a male: a case report and analysis of the cause

RESTLESS GENITAL SYNDROME IN A 38-YEAR-OLD MAN: A CASE REPORT

Restless genital syndrome in a male patient relieved by pramipaxol and gabapentin

Stronger Evidence for Small Fiber Sensory Neuropathy in Restless Genital Syndrome: Two Case Reports in Males

These Men Are Constantly Having Orgasms, and It's Making Their Lives Hell — Preceding unsigned comment added by PhoenixRisen415 (talk • contribs) 06:48, 10 August 2019 (UTC)
 * We are looking for sources per WP:MEDRS. Evidence is a little weak. Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 10:30, 10 August 2019‎ (UTC)


 * PhoenixRisen, some content from the Men's Health source would be useful in a "Society and culture" section if we had one in the article, but, at this point in time, I see no need for a "Society and culture" section in the article. The social aspects with regard to women, noting that "the symptoms can impede on home or work life" and "women may feel embarrassment or shame, and avoid sexual relationships, because of the disorder," fit well in the "Signs and symptoms" section. Most importantly with respect to men, we first need solid content in the article about how the condition medically affects men before we go into societal aspects of how it affects them. I've noted my concerns above about the research on this condition thus far in relation to men. It's better to wait for more research. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2019 (UTC)


 * One of my greatest sources of frustration with Wikipedia is the shockingly widespread practice of putting information in the article that misrepresents what is stated in the cited source. This article contains a fairly mild form of that—what's stated in the article is at least somewhat similar to what the cited source says—but there is still a clear difference between the article's text, "A similar disorder in men is called priapism," and what is stated in cited source: "[PGAD] may be analogous to priapism... in men," with the author associating the two because both PGAD and priapism have been known to occur following the administration of antipsychotic medications (emphasis mine); the article states it as fact, while the cited book mentions it as a possibility.  So based on that alone, unless someone can provide a reliable source that states definitively that PGAD in women = priapism in men, I'm removing the inaccurate verbiage.
 * Based on my own knowledge and reading, I suspect that PGAD ≠ priapism based on the typical pathophysiology, i.e. PGAD is a chronic disorder with a typically neurogenic etiology, whereas priapism is almost always an acute medical emergency of vascular etiology (there are exceptions, but those are the rules). Add to this the fact that there are several case reports of men experiencing symptoms nearly identical to those experienced by women diagnosed with PGAD, symptoms not typically experienced by men with priapism, and the case for an equivalence with priapism is further diminished.
 * I understand that case reports are not strong evidence at all; unfortunately, the paucity of male cases means that we may never have anything more than a trickle of case reports in the medical literature. But I think that the fact that such cases apparently do exist merits some mention in the article, albeit with the caveat that it is overwhelmingly an affliction of women.DoctorEric (talk) 22:14, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hey, DoctorEric. I reverted this per my arguments above (specifically my "01:12, 10 August 2019 (UTC)" argument above), and per what Adrian J. Hunter, Doc James and Crossroads have stated. I understand why you made the edits, but we are not to go by what we suspect. We are to stick to what the literature states with WP:Due weight. Even adding that PGAD occurs in men is undue at this point in time. It's especially undue for the lead when the article is solely about women. There is no deadline; we can wait. Because I added "a similar disorder," you've argued that I misrepresented material. But you added that "PGAD occurs almost exclusively in women" with no source. We should not be adding "PGAD occurs almost exclusively in women" unless a WP:MEDRS-compliant source states so. And I see no WP:MEDRS-compliant source stating that; except for the outlier source above speaking of cures, I see WP:MEDRS-compliant sources attributing the disorder to women only or stating that it only occurs in women. You also added "although it may rarely occur in men as well." The disorder is extremely rare to begin with. So if anything, it is rarer in men...if it can even be accurately stated to occur in men at all.


 * As for you removing "A similar disorder in men is called priapism." and changing "and is sometimes considered to be the same as priapism in men" to "and it may be related to priapism in men"? Like I stated with this edit, the source clearly says, "It may be analogous to priapism in men." That means "may be the same thing as," "may be similar to." Not simply "related." "Related" is vague and can confuse readers. The source notes that PGAD occurs in women, with no mention of it occurring in men, and is clearly comparing PGAD to priapism. It's saying that priapism is a similar disorder, one which occurs in men. I understand the argument that stating that priapism in men is similar to PGAD, rather than may be similar to PGAD, is not as true to the source. With this 2006 "Principles and Practice of Sex Therapy, Fourth Edition" source, from Guilford Press, page 60, as a supplement to the existing source, I changed "is similar to" in the lead and "is sometimes considered to be the same as" lower in the article to "and has been compared to priapism in men." But like I noted with this edit, the "a similar disorder" wording is clearer. These two wouldn't be compared if they weren't similar. The older source that I added has a "Similarities Between PGAD In Women and Priapism In Men" section. Hopefully, no one comes along and adds an unnecessary Template:By whom tag to the "it has been compared" piece. Obviously, it's not just Goldstein et al. who have compared the two. And Template:By whom states, "Do not use this tag for material that is already supported by an inline citation. If you want to know who holds that view, all you have to do is look at the source named at the end of the sentence or paragraph. It is not necessary to inquire 'By whom?' in that circumstance." Eventually, and with a different source, I might re-add the "is similar to" wording.


 * As for what you suspect, the "Principles and Practice of Sex Therapy, Fourth Edition" source states the following: "Goldstein, De, and Johnson (2006) have suggested that PGAD in women is reminiscent of priapism in men. [...] Goldstein et al. (2006) suggest that PGAD is similar to two rare but identified forms of male priapism. One type is called 'high flow, 'arterial priapism', an inability to regulate physiologic arterial inflow to the corporal cavernosal bodies. In men, it has been associated with blunt or penetrating perineal trauma or pelvic arterial-venous malformations (Pryor et. al, 2004). Goldstein et al. (2006) note that in the condition of high-flow priapism, the physical state of abnormally high arousal is persistent and unrelated to feelings of pain or sexual desire. The other form of priapism is termed 'stuttering or recurrent' priapism. Goldstein et al. (2006) describe this condition as one of the repeated episodes of unwanted genital arousal that may or may not result in ischemic, low-flow priapism. Stuttering priapism is typically associated with sickle cell disease and may occur in men who experience 'recurrent idiopathic prolonged erections.' The condition is one of unrelenting genital smooth muscle relaxation which eventually progresses to permanent erectile dysfunction. Hower, for some men, ischemic, low-flow priapism has resulted in stuttering or recurrent priapism." The source then goes on to talk about hypotheses. After that, and noting that there is no literature to support the hypotheses, it relays that "several men have come forward complaining that they, too, suffer from this problem. It is conceivable that they are experiencing what Goldstein and colleagues have descried as high-flow arterial stuttering priapism. " So, given Goldstein's aforementioned latest research (noted above), I again ask: Does Goldstein distinguish priapism in men from PGAD in men, or is he just using "PGAD in men" as a synonym for "priapism in men"? If he does distinguish priapism in men from PGAD in men, or is just using "PGAD in men" as a synonym for "priapism in men," we'd need a WP:MEDRS-compliant source for that. This is why I state that we need stronger sourcing. It is why I state that we need to wait. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:16, 15 October 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Flyer22 Reborn. I am indeed well aware of the high-flow, arterial priapism (it is what I specifically had in mind when I stated, "there are exceptions").  But while genital tumescence is a common feature of PGAD, it is not a necessary one, and it is certainly not (at least not in most cases) the cause of PGAD.
 * Based on your talk comments and edits, I worry that you really don't "get" PGAD. I'm not saying that you haven't done research—you clearly have—nor that research into male PGAD is robust—it clearly isn't.  It just seems that you've focused so much on minor points that you have never grasped what it means for a person, male or female, to suffer from this condition.
 * PGAD is not walking around with a permanent erection, penile or clitoral. It's not even a constant urge to have sex or masturbate.  It is a near-constant sensation akin to the plateau phase of the sexual response cycle, but without a preceding excitement phase or the generally expected pleasure, and which is often not relieved (or not for long) by orgasm.  At first it's annoying; then maddening; and eventually debilitating.  I've read one woman's account of needing to orgasm 8 or more times to get even a brief respite from her symptoms; once she brought herself to climax 50 times in a row in a vain attempt to stop the sensation, rubbing her genitals raw in the process.  A man described the same, constant sensation, even without an erection (that doesn't sound like priapism...), that required him to masturbate 10+ times a day (see linked article below).  It consumes the victims' lives, and some resort to desperate measures: there have been suicides, and at least one woman was so desperate for the sensation to stop that she convinced her doctor to surgically remove her clitoris (sadly, removing the erectile tissue didn't relieve her symptoms, which is counter-intuitive if you accept that it's a vascular condition; I wonder if her surgeon also believed that PGAD was the same as priapism...)
 * You cited Dr, Irwin Goldstein, but here's an article where he discusses male cases of PGAD, and attributes PGAD in both sexes to irritated or compressed nerves: . I'll admit that Men's Health isn't on the same level as The BMJ, and would be reluctant to cite it in the article; but I'm pretty sure they know better than to credit a respected urogynaecologist with something he never said.  If you want to get super "brownie points," as well as education yourself on this rare but disabling condition, why don't you contact Dr. Goldstein and ask the world's foremost expert in the field of PGAD what he thinks.  According to his website, his office email is information@sdsm.info and his office number is 619-265-8865.  Why "wait," with an inaccurate article, when we could find out exactly what he meant and what he thinks?  Good luck, and let us know what you find out!
 * (I know this is an unorthodox request, and one I've never made of a fellow editor. I also know you could turn that around on me and say, "Why don't YOU call him?"  I could, but would you believe me if I told you what he'd said to me?  I think that you, as the doubter, are the one in need of convincing, and that his word will hold more weight for you than mine.) DoctorEric (talk) 00:22, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * DoctorEric, I never stated that you are not aware of the high-flow, arterial priapism. The reason I quoted the "Principles and Practice of Sex Therapy, Fourth Edition" source is to obviously explicitly show that PGAD in women has been stated to be similar to priapism in men and why, which is something you doubted. What I've stated on this matter has nothing to do with me not understanding PGAD, or whatever research or lack of research you think I've done on the matter (except for the fact that I know what the research says and that it is almost exclusively focused on women, and that there is no good or substantial research on the matter when it comes to men). What I have stated has nothing to do with "focus[ing] so much on minor points that [I] have never grasped what it means for a person, male or female, to suffer from this condition." What I have stated has to do with how Wikipedia works and accepting that. Per WP:Not a forum, Wikipedia isn't the place for editors to think about what a disorder means for someone unless we are discussing sources and how best to relay them. I don't need to be told what PGAD is or your thoughts on what PGAD is. All I need to do is go by what the WP:MEDRS-compliant sources state on the matter and not give undue weight to things, including PGAD with regard to men. The article is not inaccurate since it is following what WP:MEDRS-compliant sources state and does not even tell readers that "PGAD only occurs in women" or "PGAD does not occur in men." It implies that, yes, and focuses on women, but that is because the literature does. And contacting Goldstein, who is not the only researcher on this topic, is not going to change that. Goldstein's words alone are not WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. There's a process that sources must go through before they become WP:MEDRS-compliant. What I and others are saying is that there simply are not yet appropriate sources (not even the "cures" mention in the one WP:MEDRS-compliant source is enough) to add PGAD material with regard to men to this article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:53, 18 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Flyer22 Reborn: First, I apologize for the delay in reading and responding to your reply; it's been a very busy two weeks.
 * After reading my suggestion above, I realize that I wasn't clear in explaining why I thought you should contact Dr. Goldstein. It wasn't because I wanted you to cite his reply to you as a source (I've been editing Wikipedia for enough years to know that would never fly).  It was for your benefit, since I gather from your statements and contributions that this is a topic of interest to you.  That's not to say that your contacting him couldn't benefit the article.  Indeed, he might be able to point you to newly published research of which you and I are unaware.  Also, it is intuitive that editors who possess a thorough and accurate understanding of the subject matter about which they write produce better quality articles than those who do not.
 * I will say, in the interest of full disclosure, that I have never personally met or examined a male who suffered from PGAD. But I have heard the condition discussed in a lecture, and viewed a video of an interview with such a male patient—that was very eye-opening to me.  Also the experiences of PhoenixRisen415 (the editor who really got this whole thread started) indicate that PGAD truly does afflict men, and that it is not (at least not in all cases) just a priapism.  Admittedly, those are not reliable enough sources to cite for a Wikipedia article, but they are compelling evidence that the article as it is currently written is inaccurate, and that the truth is out there if you care to do the work to get it.  Wikipedia isn't about winning, or at least it shouldn't be; it's about editors helping other editors, and providing an accurate source of information to the world.DoctorEric (talk) 23:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I really don't see what else I can state at this point that wouldn't be redundant, except that producing better quality medical articles on Wikipedia is about adhering to WP:MEDRS (not including weak sourcing or newly published research that is not WP:MEDRS-compliant) and that this has nothing to do with me trying to win anything. I am not the only one on this talk page who has made it very clear how Wikipedia is supposed to work and why. Regardless of why you wanted me contact Goldstein, my main point on that matter is that "contacting Goldstein, who is not the only researcher on this topic, is not going to change [how the literature currently is and how Wikipedia is supposed to work]." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)