Talk:Vaginismus/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Note

took in text from CDC public domain document at http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/drh/Africa_pdf/Chap_10.pdf

Recent edit

I reverted this edit because it had POV language in it (such as "Anyone trying to make money or offering unique fast solutions to this problem should be sued".) However, much of the edit seemed to be well intentioned, so if the anon who added it would like to discuss changes we could make to the edit, I'd like to welcome you here, and let you know that your contributions are welcome as long as they can conform to Wikipedia standards, and I invite you to join in the discussion here. (I'm leaving the message here instead of on the talk page, because the change is from an anon with one edit.) --Arcadian 15:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Edits by User:62.31.184.124

Twice User:62.31.184.124 has reverted my edit to the Treatment section of this article. As I put much effort into the edit, I request that the user explain the reasoning behind their reversion. In the meantime, I have re-reverted the article so that it contains my edit. Joie de Vivre 16:01, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I also put much effort into writing the original article which you have basically wiped out completely. A lot of the things you have written are false - women with vaginismus are no more likely to have problems with sexual arousal than any other woman and yet you make out like they are. It is also not true that arousal is the "key" to painfree penetration - I suppose we should all take a vibrator into the gyno's office next time we go see him shall we? Women with vaginismus do not JUST want to be able to have sex, they want to be able to use tampons and have gyno exams, using arousal as a key to success undermines this as clearly you shouldn't have to be aroused to do those things.

"Despite popular belief, orgasm need not be the goal of masturbation. The reason may be to simply increase comfort with the genital area, to explore various sensations through genital and clitoral touch, and to become aware of those sensations which are relaxing and pleasurable. Sexual arousal causes changes in the shape and color of the vulva, as well as in the vaginal lubrication produced. As a woman becomes more aware of her individual sexual response, she can learn which sensations are best for bringing her to a state of arousal. She will then be better equipped to teach her partner(s) which sensations feel best for her."

That has nothing to do with vaginismus. There is no evidence to suggest that women with vaginismus masturbate any more or less than any other woman. Just because they can not be penetrated, does not mean that they can not masturbate. They don't need to be taught about these things as if they are sexually immature or inexperienced. You focus far too much on intercourse and sexual arousal - for many women with vaginismus, the reason they have it is because they live in a society which is already obsessed with anything to do with sex.

You do not emphasise enough the right of the woman to choose whether or not she treats vaginismus.

You use long words, where before there were none and they are simply not needed -"rapid resolution of the condition."

It appears that you just want to sex the article up with a load of wishy washy rubbish about masturbation sexual arousal. This is NOT what vaginismus is about. It deters from the actual problem which we are trying to portray and only makes vaginismic women feel more inadequate as they are faced with something full of sex this and sex that. We should be trying to empower these women to make their own choices when it comes to vaginismus and sex not forcing a load of tosh down their necks about the importance of sexual arousal and masturbation.

"most women who do not have vaginismus usually do experience pain or discomfort if they insert objects into their vagina without prior sexual arousal." - This is also false. Why on earth would we use tampons if this was the case? This sentence will probably just put fear into women with vaginismus who believe RIGHTLY that inserting objects into their vagina should NOT be painful and does not have to be whether they are aroused or not.

I hope this clarifies things for you.

First, I want to thank you for joining me in the discussion. I am glad that you are interested in making this article more accurate. Let's discuss your concerns. It seems like your major concern has to do with the content about how women with vaginismus experience and express their sexuality.

I agree with you that sexual arousal is not appropriate or necessary for the insertion of tampons, or during internal gynecological exams. However, attempting sexual penetration prior to or without achieving a state of sexual arousal is generally painful for women, perhaps because a penis, dildo or fist is much larger and more difficult to insert vaginally than a tampon or speculum. Sexual penetration is the type of penetration to which I was referring in the sentence about the importance of arousal, but the difference between sexual and non-sexual penetration (and the appropriateness of arousal) is not clearly addressed in this section. Rather than throw out this content, I have now included it in a section titled Sexuality. It is clear that the kind of penetration mentioned in that section is specifically sexual, and not related to that of tampons or gynecological exams. As you mentioned, I also included a sentence stating that some vaginismic women may choose to not seek treatment.

I ask that you not revert the existing edition back to your prior version, because much of the work I did in the rest of the article was to edit for encyclopedic tone, as well as to remove the heteronormative references. Not all vaginismic women engage in sex with men, and the previous version was slanted towards heterosexual women. Most instances of the phrase "sexual intercourse" have been changed to read "penetrative sex" because this phrasing makes no assumptions about the gender of the woman's sex partner. You are free to edit the article. Joie de Vivre 18:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

External link

There is a lot of very helpful information about vaginismus (symptoms, causes, treatment, etc.) on the vaginismus.com website that is free. I do not think the link should have been removed. Yes, the website offers commercial products, but it is definitely a website with the most detailed information on the subject and would be of great interest to anyone looking for more information and help with the vaginismus condition. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.64.120.185 (talk • contribs) 14:01, May 24, 2007 (UTC).

Can you demonstrate what is available for free on the site? There must be significant content available for free in order for it not to be considered mainly commercial. Joie de Vivre 19:13, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Here are some examples:

• Symptoms
• Causes
• Diagnosis

• Treatment

• A good size list of FAQs
• Community: This section of the website contains a huge list of resources (books, links, etc. related to the condition and treatment)

There is a considerable amount of valuable content on the vaginismus.com website, even more content than the other website that you left on this page. I can provide more examples if you are still unsure. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.64.120.185 (talk • contribs) 15:00, May 24, 2007 (UTC).

Please sign your comments with four tildes i.e. "~~~~" so that we can know who is speaking. Thanks. Anyway, that link is commercial. The "free content" consists of vague information about vaginismus. The relevant content seems to be at the for-pay forums, and in my opinion the site exists primarily to sell a book, a DVD, and a dilator kit (or all three together for $100). This site is already the #1 hit on Google for "vaginismus" so I am sure sales won't suffer for it not being listed here. Joie de Vivre 23:19, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

P.S. In case you are not convinced, the site is set up with links from section to section, with the "stuff for sale" and the "pay forums" as the last two. the so-called "news section" features a review of their book at the top. the "books" section also features their book at the top with a "buy now" link and "find on amazon" links for the others. the site is cleverly set up but it is still commercial. Joie de Vivre 23:25, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi Joie, thank you for your thoughts. The vaginismus.com site has much more information on the topics of diagnosis, causes, etc. (previous links as discussed above) than is available in wikipedia. Although yes, there is a commercial aspect, the nature of vaginismus requires commercial products (such as dilators) for effective treatment and keeping the link off is preventing women from getting more information and resources on the subject than what is here - which serves nobody. The ultimate goal of wikipedia should be to help people... especially with problems like vaginismus —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.89.217.154 (talk • contribs) 16:52, May 25, 2007 (UTC).

Please sign your comments by typing four tildes "~~~~" at the end of what you have written. Do not go back and add four tildes to your old comments because they will be timestamped incorrectly.

Since we disagree about this I have asked for a third opinion at WP:3O. As I said, the website is the #1 Google hit for "vaginismus" so the suggestion that there is some injustice being done by keeping it off Wikipedia is ludicrous. If a person knows how to look something up on Wikipedia they know how to look something up on Google.

Wikipedia's primary purpose is to provide encyclopedic information, not to serve as a directory. I would like to point out that we should not bend the rules to "help people". I believe the primary parties being "helped" by adding this link to Wikipedia are Mark and Lisa Carter, with their "Vaginismus Treatment Kit" on the site, priced at $109.90 ($115.89 outside the US). Joie de Vivre 22:51, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

3rd Opinion

I think we don't need this link per arguments above. There is a dmoz entry for Vaginismus so I would suggest adding {{NoMoreLinks}} and {{dmoz|Health/Women's_Health/Conditions_and_Diseases/Vagina/Vaginismus|Vaginismus}} to the external links sections. I would also recommend adding more inline citations to the article to conform to a higher standard of quality.TheRingess (talk) 00:18, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Added the templates. Agree that more citations are needed, so added moresources template.Joie de Vivre 00:27, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Possible

Is it possible to know why the non-profit Vaginismus Awareness Network has been removed after being given permission to be listed among the external links (See Talk Page 1) ?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by !babininja (talk • contribs)

External link

Hi,

Can we add the following link: http://www.vaginismus-awareness-network.org/?

This is a non profit website which offers information to women, their partners and gynecologists. It is all free and there is nothing at all commercial about the site.

Thanks

Yeah, I've looked it over now, and I don't see why not. That other link was commercial, this one adds lots of useful information that the article does not have. OK. Joie de Vivre 22:59, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

Masturbation

there is an inordinate percentage of this article devoted to masturbation, which many would argue has nothing to do with vaginismus, yet for some reason has its own paragraph and heading. this compromises the objective, purely informative purpose of the article - no printed encyclopedia would devote so much attention in an article on vaginismus to masturbation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.215.104.180 (talk) 05:28, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I just checked the 13 Jan 2008 version of the article and I disagree that there is an "inordinate percentage" at that time, and there's even less now. The section does, however, read a bit too much like a "How to" rather than an encyclopedic entry on potential treatment/avoidance. It needs to be rewritten and sourced, but if the length stays the same, or even grows a little, I certainly see no problem. - 142.167.65.139 (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC) (User:BalthCat)

Experience of vaginismus doesn't cite any sources

I don't know the tag for a section that doesn't cite sources, so I can't tag it, though. nhinchey (talk) 12:12, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Childbirth

This article does not talk about how it affects women with the condition during childbirth, if it does at all. This seems like a topical issue for the article. (If it's obvious that it isn't an issue, and I'm just ignorant of the physiology, I'm assuming that others would also make the same mistake.) - 142.167.65.139 (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC) (User:BalthCat)

Vegetables?

Medical dilators may be obtained online, or tapered vegetables can be used at home instead, with the same effect.? Really? I'm a little uncertain as to whether this is serious or not... Spock of Vulcan (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Emotional Response

The Emotional Response section uses informal language and filler words. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.78.190 (talk) 07:43, 15 June 2011 (UTC)

Agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.75.62.218 (talk) 17:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

I worked on that some during my comprehensive edit of the article today. It's still unsourced and hugely subjective, but I didn't want to just delete it all. For now, it can serve as a placeholder until — ideally — someone can find, paraphrase and properly cite a reputable source documenting sufferers' actual experiences. IMO leaving that paragraph or two there in the meantime is preferable to having nothing there at all. —GrammarFascist (talk) 05:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Botox treatment (Are you kidding me?!)

I don't have access to the journal article referenced for this section, and the wording of the procedure description that had been in the article sounded... odd. I can see why sedation or general anesthesia might be necessary in order for a vaginismus sufferer to be able to receive intra-vaginal or even peri-vaginal injection. But the idea that a dilator — much less a "large" one! — would routinely be inserted into a patient drugged unconscious when the point of using a paralytic agent such as Botox would be to prevent the reflex from occurring with patient-controlled penetration seems, frankly, more like something to be found in pornographic fiction than in a procedure likely to meet the relevant standard of care. It would be fantastic if actual reconstructive surgeons, or even others with access to the article, could check up on what's actually in the cited article, and correct the section of the article here as appropriate... —GrammarFascist (talk) 05:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Treatment

What does this mean? "Alternative treatment requires only patient intervention using a discreet 'Vaginal Acceptance Trainer'."

There are no citations. When I google "Vaginal Acceptance Trainer" I get a commercial website for a trademarked "Vaginal Acceptance Trainer" here: http://www.vagi-wave.co.uk/.

I personally suffer from this condition and I am leery of commercial products without seeing some medical backing. Also the device is £59 for a plastic wand, so they're clearly for-profit. I feel the same way about vaginismus.com. You can buy dilators for much less, around $12 is what I typically pay. It saddens me that in the void of good medical advice, these profiteers appear.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Fejoa rock (talk • contribs) 18:28, 27 January 2013

You are correct that there was nothing on this. It just sounds like another type of dilator. I deleted it and stated that a secondary source citation was needed that it actually didn't stretch the tissue.Simoni217 (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

Hi, there were a few more references to the "vaginal acceptance trainer" that I changed to "dilator"Celesteroyce (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

Broad Additions Made

Hello all, As part of a class assignment, I researched and wrote a paper on this subject, and then had to edit the article according to my research. Below I summarized my changes, and they address a number of concerns expressed above. My major issue was that I could not get multiple citations of the same website to show up as one reference, and I apologize for that. Otherwise, please read, review, and reply! Thank you!

Changes Summary

• Added second to last paragraph under Primary vaginismus because Lamont Classification is for use in GYN exams, and not necessarily applicable at home.
• Made minor grammatical edit to beginning of last paragraph
• Added list under Secondary Vaginismus
• Added last paragraph under Prevalence
• Added Cycle of Pain under Treatment (could not upload graphic because of copywrite)
• Moved last paragraph of Treatment to second to last paragraph of Physical because it made more sense there categorically
• Added last paragraph of Psychological because the article did not mention Sensate Focusing at all
• Added last paragraph to Physical
• Added middle paragraph to Neuromodulators because women should be warned of the risks of surgical so-called solutions to sexual dysfunctions
• Added references to General (i.e. emotional experience) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lufia16 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggested external link.

I see that you have no External links section in this article. Is that by design? If so, why? If not, I suggest the following Sharecare page, "Q. What are vaginal panic attacks?" Sharecare has many articles and videos on health-related topics that are presented in an easily understood way. Dr. Mehmet Oz is the presenter in this video as it's a segment from his show. I see nowhere on the page or site where they are selling anything. This segment on vaginismus is not an in-depth article with a lot of new technical information, but the video is very valuable for people who have difficulty visualizing the material.

The condition is briefly described as are some of the causes, a fly-through "Visible Woman" model type illustration of the pelvic organs is quickly shown, then the use of biofeedback in treating the condition is described and demonstrated on a fully clothed woman utilizing her forearm muscles. The video diffuses both the audience's nervous tittering and, I imagine, reduces stress in fearful sufferers who are seeking information. http://www.sharecare.com/health/gynecology/what-are-vaginal-panic-attacks Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Causes

Wow, the Causes section of this article has surprisingly few footnotes. Did anyone research this, or was it just guesswork? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oulipal (talk • contribs) 17:56, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Vaginismus. 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/20131020055743/http://sogc.org/publications/when-sex-hurts-vaginismus/ to http://sogc.org/publications/when-sex-hurts-vaginismus/

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 07:49, 9 December 2017 (UTC)

Gender-neutral language

As seen with this edit, Doc James reverted Kdingcong's use of gender-neutral language. Deddish reverted Doc James, and I reverted Deddish. Yes, trans men and non-binary people exist, but "vaginismus" is not about everyone. Stating "vaginismus, sometimes called vaginism, is a condition that affects a woman's ability to engage in vaginal penetration" is far less confusing for readers than "vaginismus, sometimes called vaginism, is a condition that affects a person's ability to engage in vaginal penetration." After all, who are we referring to when we state "person's"? Readers could take that to mean either partner, so that if it's a cisgender heterosexual couple, then it could mean that it's the man who has vaginismus. But that's not the case. The original wording is not confusing at all.

There are a lot of things we won't change on Wikipedia when it comes to anatomical matters. This is per our WP:Due weight policy. But as seen at Talk:Human penis/Archive 1#"male humans" should be changed to "humans assigned male at birth", I and others did consider not beginning the Human penis article with the statement that it's something that male humans have. The article now simply begins by describing the organ as male, and this is because the literature does. We can't state that it's simply something that some people have and not specify it as a male reproductive system organ. And for the Vaginismus article, "people with vaginas" would not be an improvement either. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:37, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Agree this is about biological sex, not about gender. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

@Flyer22 Reborn: The name, combined with the wording, pretty clearly implies to me that it's a problem with the patient's vagina, but I see how it could briefly confuse others. Besides that however, there are several other edits in Kdingkong's version that I can't imagine would confuse anyone: "A woman/individual with vaginismus... women/people with vaginismus..." etc. If it's established early on that vaginismus is something that affects the patient's vagina, "woman" (or likewise "person with vagina" or whatever else) doesn't really need repeating; it doesn't add clarity or new information; and making it neutral doesn't detract anything but gendering.

I would propose rewording the sentence in the first paragraph to "Vaginismus... is a gynecological condition where the vagina is difficult to penetrate, which can impede (activities such as) sexual intercourse..."

Of the other reverts, the only one that looks like it might be awkward by most peoples' standards (although I could be wrong about that) is, "It is commonly discovered in teenage girls and women in their early twenties, as this is when..." vs "teenagers and those in their early twenties..." In place of that, I think "Patients commonly discover(/are commonly diagnosed with) the condition in their teens or early twenties, when..." is quite sufficient. Deddish (talk) 07:19, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Deddish, I considered the title being "Vaginismus" making it clear that it's about one who has a vagina, but I've seen readers confused about things despite the title. In this case, going by an example I gave above, readers could easily think that it applies to people who don't have vaginas as well. As for not needing to consistently state "woman" or "girl" if we make it clear early on that we mean "people with vaginas," I agree. But I object to stating "people with vaginas." As for your suggested wording for the lead sentence, I could go along with that. How about you, Doc? As for "patients," we commonly avoid "patients" and "victims" per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Careful language, but I personally don't have an issue with using those terms on Wikipedia and I don't see the guideline currently suggesting to avoid "patients" except for when it comes to "One third of XYZ patients" not always being the same as "One third of people with XYZ." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Regarding this, BallenaBlanca was correct to revert Bluejorts. And so was I. This is per above. Again, we follow the literature with WP:Due weight. We also go by WP:STICKTOTHESOURCES. We've already reworded the lead sentence so that it doesn't unnecessarily state "woman." It now states, "Vaginismus is a condition in which involuntary muscle spasm prevents vaginal penetration." And there is no other part of the lead that is unnecessarily gendered either. But something like "about 0.5% of women are affected" should be gendered. There is no sign that the source includes trans men, non-binary people, or intersex people. We absolutely should not be replacing "women" with "people with vaginas." If one wants trans men or non-binary people specifically acknowledged in the article, the way to do that is to find WP:MEDRS-compliant sources that talk about vaginismus among trans men or non-binary people...and then include the information.

Pinging Doc James in case he didn't see the latest matter concerning removing "women" and "girls." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:35, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

As seen with this edit, I reworded some material so that "woman," "women" and "people" are not needed. "Woman" and "women" are needed for other parts, such as when the source is talking about teenage girls and women in their early twenties. Other recent edits by me are seen here and here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:22, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Also, regarding trans women, the vagina and neovagina are different. But, anyway, if anyone has WP:Reliable sources (preferably academic ones rather than media ones) about vaginismus among trans women, feel free to include material on trans women. Media-sourced material would go in a "Society and culture" section. See WP:MEDSECTIONS. For the other sections in the article, WP:MEDRS-compliant sources should be used. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:48, 17 February 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:59, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

Using "women" in the biological sense is appropriate when it is used in that manner such as in this case. I do not support moving to "people with vaginas" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:46, 17 February 2019 (UTC)