Talk:Prostate massage

Addiction to sex
That last comment about addiction seems misguided, and the website it links to does not strike me as the most scientifically trustworthy; anyone have any suggestions for replacement?. Most men do like prostate massage, but they don't declare openly that they do so.

Comment 3
I have removed this text from the article:


 * Prolonged milking activity (over the course of several years) may cause addiction to, or worse, obsession with sex - see http://www.actionlove.com/cases/case10177.htm 

Justification: the page cited recommends a treatment that it also sells. -- Karada 08:49, 28 May 2004 (UTC)

BDSM category?
Why is this article categorised under BDSM since it is kind of misleading to suggest that prostatic massage is a BDSM activity when in fact only prostate milking is? Beno1000 00:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Bad info
Part of the mechanism for orgasm for a male involves the accumulation of seminal fluids within the prostate and associated ducts; accordingly, once the prostate is mostly emptied of fluids, a male will be incapable of achieving erection for a period of 24-96 hours, and typically unable to achieve orgasm for some additional time after that.

I admit I don't have personal experience, but I find this highly unlikely. You can have your prostate removed and still have erections and orgasms.


 * Agreed, the concept that prostate milking is an effective erection inhibitor for a number of days can hold no more than the status of a "fetishistic belief" without medical evidence. Should be removed.


 * The culprit is the "72 hr" claim. The rest looks sensible. Suggest restore, but with critical review 1st. Objections? FT2 (Talk 02:59, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I see communities of men in pursuit of the prostate orgasm. To me, a "prostate orgasm" sounds like a fetishist's belief. There are no credible sources to support this claim. Self reports and a few videos on porn sites that can easily be faked exist. If I am wrong, can anyone provide medical evodence? I would also like to know how on earth the prostate can be related to involuntary muscle spasms. Thanks in advance.

Reverting again -- explaining
Hi Ratel, you removed two citations in the article with the following comments: "prostate massage is not commonly used in the treatment of prostatitis." and Prostatitis Treatments at MayoClinic.com, which I reviewed, and although I am not an M.D., but this seems like a perfectly good citation to me. Besides, it seems to tupport your preferred perspective that prostate massage in not appropriate, so I am not sure why you want to remove it.

Your comment on removal was: "(→Medical prostate massage: a fogotten paragraph at mayo clinic site (that should not be there) does not override research" But you did not provide any research that indicated that the citation was incorrect, only your opinion. A cite like this (Mayo clinic) would carry more weight than the opinion of an editor.  You may be an M.D. and board certified in that area, so I don't mean to be insulting.  We just need more than the kind of rationale you have given in order to remove citeable references.

You also removed a good citation: "Researchers have suggestsed that prostate massage can benefit individuals with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) Kassolik, K., Andrzejewski, W., Brzozowski, M., Trzesicka, E., Apoznanski, W., Szydelko, T., Steciwko, A., Staniszewski, A., & Bujnowska-Fedak, M. (2007). Medical massage as a physiotherapeutic method in benign prostatic hyperplasia in men. Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies,11, 121-128."

You said "This study is not published on PubMed, therefore not acceptable here". Of course, for Wikipedia, a citation need not be published on Pubmed in order to be considered reliable and verifiable. This may not be your opinion. It may not be the opinion of others, but is is a valid and citable POV for Wikipedia. You can, of course, give an alternate POV and citation to balance this statement. But, removing it because you don't agree isn't how we do things. We aren;t here to give medical opinions, of course. If there are different medical resources that indicate different treatments the best we can do is allow the ones that have appropriate citations, and not allow ones that do not have citations.

I'd like to discuss this with you further before I put them back in. Please let me know your thoughts. Atom (talk) 22:07, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * These are medical matters, not ordinary Wikipedia material. There are other criteria for inclusion when medical issues are raised. PubMed Central, aka MEDLINE, is an archive of all recognized biomedical and life sciences journals, and is part of the US National Library of Medicine. Papers and articles that cannot be found on that database are simply not recognized by the medical profession. For further reading, I refer you to Wikipedia:Reliable sources (medicine-related articles). The Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies is not peer-reviewed by urologists or indeed by any qualified medical professional dealing with BPH or CPPS. It is therefore not appropriate to use such a source when discussing diseases like BPH. If you can find any confirmation for using massage of the prostate as a therapy for a hormonal condition in a secondary source (not a primary source), or in a high quality journal like The Journal of Urology, then I'd be happy to include this material here. I suggest you review the studies already cited on the page such as and  to see why I am not keen to have this topic promoted to the lay public. In addition, massaging the prostate can result in tearing the very short segment of the urethra just below the prostate and immediately before the beginning of the penile urethra (this part is usually referred to as "membranous urethra"). The tearing can be very small and indistinguishable on routine examination but during the healing process this results in urethral stricture. In short, if the person giving you a massage has short fingers there is a significant probability that he/she might give you a urethral stricture. Moreover, indiscriminate (inappropriate massages) can result in pushing back even normal urethral flora into the epididymis and subsequent epididymitis. 99.99% of people are not aware of this, including most doctors. The Mayo clinic page is simply outdated and is based on an erroneous movement in the late 1990s to treat CBP with repetitive prostatic massage. Subsequent studies found the manoeuvre to be ineffective. ► RATEL ◄  23:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your reply. I think it best to err on the side of caution in these kind of matters, and in this case I think that is your viewpoint.  I'm sure that your time is quite busy, but the reasoning that you gave initially needs to be more sufficient.  Of course I recognize the reputation of Medline and the NIH.  But, Wikipedia, per WP:MEDRS does not require listing on medline to be a reliable source.  If the reference in question were listed there, that would be a good thing, but not being listed is not a disqualification.


 * I have no vested interest in any POV, I have been objecting to removal of what has appeared to be valid citations for insufficient reasoning. Your most recent comment that the Journal of Bodywork and Movement Therapies not being an adequate source on this topic seems to me to be sufficient reasoning.   It does seem to be a recognized and peer reviewed journal, peer reviewed by the Irish Association pf Physical Therapists, Australian Pilates Method Association and the National Association of Myofascial Trigger Point Therapists and not by Urologists, or people who appear to be qualified in the specific area.  I agree that it does not meet the WP:MEDRS] standard for this topic.


 * I'm still confused about the Mayo clinic edit though. The Mayo clinic article does not indicate prostatic massage as appropriate treatment for prostatitis.  It is general and informational, and the closest that it could come to that kind of statement would be "A variety of treatments as well as self-care measures also can provide relief."  But this is in the context of just having said "Pain relievers and several weeks of treatment with antibiotic are typically needed for category 1 and 2 prostatitis, which are bacterial infections."  The Mayo clinic is arguably the best clinic in the world.  I agree that this is a general informational study, and not a research article.  But, if we are not going to give medical advice, and people reading the article are going to get general information from somewhere, it seems that the Mayo clinic would be one of may good sources for general information.  I read the whole article, and it does not seem to be out of date.  Atom (talk) 14:24, 4 September 2008 (UTC)


 * The Mayo page is a page on treating prostatitis, and they are talking there about treating prostatitis specifically. I shall contact them and have that section removed, because there is not one single high-quality source for the statement about "unblocking plugs" from acini within the prostate. That idea, a fantasy BTW, was one circulated by patients themselves late last century. It's sad to see Mayo fail so badly on this issue. I suggest you try to find one other good quality resource for the idea (eg eMedicine, etc).► RATEL ◄ 16:42, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Prostate non-essential to orgasm
The presence of the prostate is essential to ejaculate, but its presence is not essential for the occurrence of the orgasm: men who have undergone prostatectomy for treatment of prostate cancer are still able to orgasm. Therefore I am changing the ending clause of the first sentence in the second paragraph of the introduction to reflect that. 68.40.202.135 (talk) 05:16, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Where is sexual stimulation discussion?
This article is entirely geared towards medical massage and only briefly mentions the sexual stimulation of the prostate, mainly in the context of a tool for this purpose, this article seems unbalanced in it's current form.--Doug.(talk • contribs) 11:27, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

I have marked the articles with Template:NPOV due to the highly unbalanced discussion and downgraded the article to "C-Class" within WP:SEX. --Doug.(talk • contribs) 12:15, 30 August 2009 (UTC)


 * Rather than tag the article, go to Medline and see if there are any facts and decent sources. Then include them. Untagged. ► RATEL ◄ 23:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Risks
"Even a non-invasive prostate massage may carry a risk, which is increased if the massage is "vigorous".[13] Bacteria or cancer cells may be liberated and spread through the blood stream; prostatic calculi if present, may tear delicate membranes within the prostate, an internal massage may result in perforation of bowel and/or contamination; it may cause a hemorrhoid flare-up." The cited source for this is a website run by someone who is not a medical professional; is it any more authoritative than we are? The source article cites a couple of medical-journal articles. Are these available on the web? Can someone look these (or similar articles) up and use them, rather than chronicprostatitis.com, as the source, or remove this information if it is not well substantiated? Peter Chastain (talk) 18:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Removed that section; we don't need 2 Risk sections on the page. ► RATEL ◄ 22:44, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

What does statement about "most active mammals" mean?
The first paragraph contains this statement at time of writing: "Normally, in mammals found to be most active during the time of ejaculation, this organ also faces many threats from disease."

What does it mean? What mammals are "found to be most active during the time of ejaculation"? Are not all ejaculators dynamically active during ejaculation activity? And where is the research showing such alleged "most active" mammals' prostrates are threatened by disease?

At first glance, this statement seems either dubious, or badly lacking in cited supporting evidence, or needs a clarifying rewriting.

--174.16.24.183 (talk) 02:59, 26 April 2010 (UTC)


 * I also found the sentence odd, and assumed it might have been a mistranslation from another language, or something similar. Since it's useless in its current form, and that it's been there for a while without corrections, I'll remove it. 66.11.179.30 (talk) 05:38, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

Prostate massage is performed in good faith by some urologists in the US, Canada, and Europe (including Italy, France, Sweden) besides Russia and China and most other countries. From my research I don't believe that this is some kind of backward procedure only performed by foreign savages.

Since I have done extensive research into this I have added some information into the history and current urology culture on this procedure. I will update this with complete references when I have time. This information is found in mainstream urology textbooks, the opinions of prominent urologists and peer reviewed studies. I see no reason for anyone to remove what I have added. I have also added back in some information on sexual prostate massage because it is absolutely relevant and many people practice this. Everyone be on the lookout for more Ratel sockpuppets if they come along and remove what I've added.

76.10.131.247 (talk) 20:02, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Butt plugs
What lead the author to write most men prefer butt plugs? I think the opposite is true in that a minority of men prefer butt plugs. Or at least try to provide what leads you to believe that this is the case even if the source is suspect or not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:B:A3C0:7:A132:A846:53EF:24D0 (talk) 01:29, 28 August 2013 (UTC)

Butt plugs are not for homosexuals. Using them is not sick. Well, not anymore than any other sexual activity! Dannman (talk) 13:48, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

Source 10, 11 and "butt plug" section
The source 10 and 11 are commercial websites trying to sell equipment and can't be considered as valid citation of the supposed "preference" or "superiority" of equipment versus finger. Besides, doctors use a finger for medical prostate massage and seem to be able to reach the prostate by this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Camentielle (talk • contribs) 08:02, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

Suggested changes


I have made changes but I suggest splitting this article into prostate massage for treatment of type II and iii diseases, and sexual play. It is confusing to include both, along with electro-ejaculation. objection to blocked acini comes from recent published opinions of MDs, but the anatomists of the 19th and 18th centuries did find blocked acini in dead patients who happeded to suffer prostatitis when they died. Cutting the prostate open relieved their symptoms. I can provide references, but a google book search will reveal this information. Do not discount it because it is old. Anatomists contributed to most of modern medicine. Silver nitrate is an antibiotic although because it is not an organic molecule it is not described as one (antiseptic would be true). Canadaisbad (talk) 21:00, 21 February 2015 (UTC)
 * You are of course welcome to insert properly sourced edits and add them for historical interest. I have removed your personal attack above, and I have commented on your userpage about your username. Ratel (talk) 01:23, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Removal of link with good data on prostate massage
removed this link, saying that the site promotes "garbage" nutraceuticals. See discussion on his Talk page. I disagree. I looked further into this and find that a 2016 review study in the official journal of the European Association of Urology concludes that while phyto-pharmaceuticals on their own, like all other forms of treatment, fail to "reveal a clear therapeutic benefit", they are more effective in multimodal treatment (combined treatments). This is like the boat that only moves when all anchors are lifted, and not before. The review study states that Therefore, clinical evidence qualifies certain phytotherapeutic agents as a treatment modality. With only very few side effects, they can be recommended as primary therapy or a combination in multimodal treatment regimens. Moroever the fact that the site promotes these substances do not detract from the content of the linked page, which offers data beyond the encyclopedic on a topic that concerns many men. Just saying... labeling everything spam because you don't like advertisements risks throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Ratel (talk) 02:53, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * the web page is not a valuable EL. It is a patient advocacy site full of advertising.  The sideshow about whether quercetin is garbage or not is just that, a sideshow.  The point is that the link is not useful as an WP:EL in WIkipedia.  We have better information on prostate massage from the good sources used in the article.  Actually read WP:EL, Ratel.   Jytdog (talk) 02:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * You mean, read it yet again? :¬) What can normally be linked? .... Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail, or other reasons."  ✅ The only ELNO we can argue about is objectionable amounts of advertising, but that seems a subjective judgement. I don't find the side column ads intrusive ... no pop-ups or other nasties. Note also:  Links to potentially revenue-generating web pages are not prohibited, even though the website owner might earn money through advertisements, sales, or (in the case of non-profit organizations) donations. Choose which pages to link based on the immediate benefit to Wikipedia readers that click on the link, not based on the organization's tax status or your guess at whether the website's owner might earn money from the link. I'd argue that the content is more than our article supplies, e.g the very informative diagram (copyrighted and used with permission), and the opinions of the urologist. But I'm not going to make a federal case, just think we are losing not gaining here by deleting the link. And you'll see from my edit history that I am usually quick to delete spam links.... Ratel (talk) 04:01, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Just checked: link has been there for over 8 years, scrutinized by numerous sysops. I don't want an OWN accusation so I'm leaving it up to others to restore it. Ratel (talk) 04:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes bad things get stuck into WP and linger for ages. I fixed something last month that had been dead wrong for 13 years. Jytdog (talk) 04:39, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Prostate massage. 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/20100401063732/http://www.aneros.com/prostate-massagers/helix/ to http://www.aneros.com/prostate-massagers/helix/

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) 07:01, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Orphaned references in Prostate massage
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Prostate massage's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Answer": From Anal masturbation:  From Prostate:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 18:26, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Split proposal
Proposing to split the sexual section of the article into a separate page. Humansexuality (talk) 03:59, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Oppose; there is no reason to WP:SIZESPLIT, as it is small together. It is also largely unsourced. Crossroads -talk- 22:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Male orgasm
Significantly, the cited source puts the word "although" in front of the latter statement, which appears in a footnote, not the main text:. The source is not a WP:MEDRS, the term "centered in" is quite vague, and the focus is on how these two forms of orgasm are, not how they are similar. Male orgasms after radical prostatectomy are also possible. This suggests that the prostate is not to the male orgasm. I suggest removing this sentence unless a better source can be found. --Sangdeboeuf (talk) 09:26, 11 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Replaced and tweaked here. Crossroads -talk- 04:37, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Redovite masaže prostate za čišćenje žlijezde od bakterija i zdravlje
Meni moja djevojka svakodnevno masira prostatu pogotovo nakon analnog seksa koji prakticiramo bez zaštite. Tako žlijezda prostata ostaje zdrava i čista bez bakterija i mikroba. 95.168.121.49 (talk) 10:06, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Redoviti pregledi prostate za spolno aktivne muškarce
od iznimne je važnosti pregledavati prostatu kod urologa bar jednom godišnje. Ja imam 40 godina i idem od svoje 35te jednom godišnje na digitorektalni pregled prostate. I stoga bi muškarci baš kao i žene što obavljaju redovite ginekološke preglede. Jazbac (talk) 04:17, 24 May 2023 (UTC)