From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Broken reference link[edit]

"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 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)


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." (talk) 04:06, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Firefox crash[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 23:33, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Butea Superba[edit]

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. (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Tiger and rhino[edit]

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, Joncolvin


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)


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


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)


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)


Thanks to 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[edit]

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. [1]"

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[edit]

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. (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[edit]

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)


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[edit]

Why is Yohimbe only "mentioned" as a one-word link at very end of page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:57, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

  1. ^