From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Medicine (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Women's Health (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

External link[edit]


Can we add the following link:

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.


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)


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 (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. - (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC) (User:BalthCat)

Experience of vaginismus doesn't cite any sources[edit]

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)


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.) - (talk) 04:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC) (User:BalthCat)


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[edit]

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

Agree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (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?!)[edit]

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)


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:

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 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 (talkcontribs) 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[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 19:15, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Suggested external link.[edit]

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. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 19:43, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


Wow, the Causes section of this article has surprisingly few footnotes. Did anyone research this, or was it just guesswork?

External links modified[edit]

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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required on behalf of editors regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification, as with any edit, using the archive tools per instructions below. This message updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 1 May 2018).

  • 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[edit]

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 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)