Talk:Prostate/Archive 1

Archive 1

link between prostate and g-spot?

i'm wondering.. would it be tasteful to have a part about the link between the prostate and the female g-spot when it comes to sexual pleasure?.. --zen

There's no problem with adding that information. Ground 02:35, 3 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Do you have any source for this information? We should know who has compared the prostate to the G-spot, and hopefully get an external link to the source. I find the last sentence about pegging un-ecyclopedic and unessecary. You've already said that stimulation of the prostate can be pleasurable, why mention one specific method of stimulation by name? Skylark 16:43, 16 October 2005 (UTC)

prostate in different mammalian species

Article says that the prostate "differs considerably" between various mammalian species. What is the source for that? It would be good to have some discussion of the differences. Also which species of mammal do not have prostates? This source (article from Palm Beach Post) claims that the kangaroo has a prostate but the platypus does not. Is it true that all theria have prostates while all prototheria do not? --Mathew5000 21:47, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Prostate Enlargement and Relevant Treatments

There doesn't seem to be an entry for information on this topic. Janice Vian, Ph.D. 16:39, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Anal stimulation how-to guide

The whole section needs to be trimmed to something simply mentioning sexual pleasure derived from stimulation of the prostate. As the section currently reads, it is most certainly inappropriate for an encyclopedia article. "Insert well-lubricated finger or small dildo"? Whoever wrote that, are you nuts? Wikipedia is not sexual technique guidebook. The clitoris article, to the best of my knowledge, does not include a step-by-step guide to cunnilingus, either. Unigolyn 10:19, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Well it should mention about anal stimulation giving sexual pleasure to the prostate, but the step by step guide doesn't belong here, it would belong on the anal stimulation page. So maybe under the section there should be a "see also anal stimulation" wiki link JayKeaton 08:53, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Video Overview of the Prostate

I suggest that we add this link to the external links section: Video Guide to the Prostate

For someone who is really trying to get an understanding of what the prostate is and how it interacts with male anatomy, I thought this was a pretty good video - it's short, clear, and uses language accessable to an 8th grader. Plus, the visual overview makes it a lot easier to really understand what the prostate is. Jrsvc (talk) 13:01, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Multimedia links are not allowed, see WP:EL. ► RATEL ◄ 15:20, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Why was my edit reversed?

I made an edit that the prostate had entered popular culture due to the method of checking it's health, and it was deleted without even giving a reason why. If you want to clarify the weasel words "some comics," try Bill Engvall's story about how "With all the advances in modern medicine, this is still the only way to check for that mess!"

I'd like to request permission to re-add that edit, without starting an edit war.--Wikieditor1988 (talk) 22:54, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

It's called WP:OR. Come back when you find a citable source that says that. ► RATEL ◄ 23:03, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Would Bill Engvall's DVD Here's your sign be sufficient citation for you, considering we're talking about how comical this situation is?--Wikieditor1988 (talk) 19:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Function

The phrase first ejaculate fractions is confusing. Could someone clarify whether "first" refers to: the first spurts of an ejaculation? or the first ejaculation in a series? This phrase also occurs verbatim on the seminal vesicle page.

This information is not on the ejaculation page. The Volume section of that page only indirectly refers to declining volume of semen during subsequent ejaculations. Perhaps someone can clarify here or there whether the decline in volume is due to depletion of the seminal vesicles, prostate, or both. Martindo (talk) 22:39, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Stenting the Prostate?

Are you sure it takes 30 days? That seems to be a long time for a procedure. I don't know the subject, but did someone mean to say 30 minutes? Rebele | Talk ^{The only way to win the game is to not play the game.} 17:52, 27 May 2010 (UTC)

Volume?

What's the average volume of the prostate, in mL? I ask, because the number is reported in sonogram descriptions. I suspect it is somewhere around 20 mL... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.23.217.175 (talk) 10:15, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

pH of prostrate fluid

Several other sites say that the prostrate secretion is acidic, balancing the alkaline secretion of the seminal fluid. The article says "slightly basic." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Safelton (talk • contribs) 05:31, 11 March 2007.

I think there is a pH range. I believe that it can be about pH 6.5 which is more alkaline compared to the vagina. I also read somewhere else that the secretions can neutralize the vagina to 7-7.4 which is the best pH for sperm to "swim" in.

What is the source for the following sentence: However, masturbating 5 times a week will induce immediate and detrimental psychological effects. And what is the evidence it is true? It sounds like either a joke or an extract from a tract on moral behavior circa 1920.

Hello!

We are now the 29/6/09 and there is still the pH problem: the fluid is alkalik so how can the pH be lower the 7.45 (the higher range)? Please update. Thank you and G.od bless you materially and spiritually. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yehudah770 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Prostate secretions are acidic, but only make up about 30% of ejaculate. 60% of ejaculate is alkaline fluid from the seminal vesicles. Msfishi (talk) 13:52, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

post hoc ergo propter hoc

Prostate cancer as the major reason for death? Are you kidding me? PC may be present in quite a lot of dead men, but not the reason. "You may die WITH but not BECAUSE of!"

Is this last comment from someone in denial?

-True, many of prostate cancers behave indolent. However, because of its extremely high prevalence, it is the second leading cause of cancer-related deaths in the U.S. (after lung cancer). Q.E.D. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.197.71.139 (talk) 10:14, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Female prostate

The paragraph that I removed is plagiarized, word for word, from this Seattle Times article. Please don't re-add it. (I re-added it earlier today because I thought it was vandalism when I removed it, but I didn't realize at the time that it was copied from somewhere else.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hanacy (talk • contribs) 07:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

The solution is to rephrase and cite, not remove. ► RATEL ◄ 14:11, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Is this really right:

The Skene's gland, also known as the paraurethral gland, found in females, is homologous to the prostate gland in males. However, evolutionarily, the uterus is in the same position as the prostate gland.

Homology (biology) is an evolutionary term. The uterus is in the same anatomical position as the prostate. I think the word "evolutionarily" should be changed to "anatomically". Do I miss something? --83.255.34.189 (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Proper catagorization of section Female Prostate

The following has been extracted from this page: Prostate

Categories: Exocrine system | Glands | Greek loanwords | Male reproductive system | Sexual anatomy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the female prostate gland, see Skene's gland.

I'm not prepared, nor qualified, to comment on the human female's Skene's glands serving the same role as the human male's prostate gland. However, let's consider its' inclusion under the male reproductive system category. This Wikipedia page is categorized under "Male reproductive system." The rest of the page in its' entirety is a discussion of a male anatomical and physiological organ system. The topic of the female prostate should be extracted from this page and presented within the "Female reproductive system" category. The female reproductive system category pages do not, and should not, discuss all of the analogous or non-analogous anatomical and physiological entities of the male reproductive system. Should not the relevent information here be limited to the simple link re-directing readers to the Female reproductive system category at the top of the page?

Autoandragogist (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Prostate Cancer and Masturbation Link

I've just reinstated the section about masturbation decreasing risk of prostate cancer. This is a properly attributed to a reliable source (BBC News web site) and I have also read about the research in New Scientist and other sources. Could whoever removed it explain why this was done? You might be shy about certain topics but this seems to be a real fact backed up by verifiable research so I see no reason why it shouldn't be included as an informative addition to this article. Paulfp 08:39, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Masturbation is said to reduce the risk of prostate cancer. Would it be more accurate to say that ejaculation reduces the risk? In particular, intercourse (which leads to ejaculation) in a monogamous, STD-free relationship. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.255.245.172 (talk) 03:07, August 23, 2007 (UTC)

September 2011 any section the above author describes has yet again been removed and there is no reference on this talk page as to why. WebMD.com has an extensive article on this subject and the research is pretty interesting. WebMd's article conflicts with a study in Australia published in New Science It does appear that there is enough literature and discussion on the web to warrant a section on Wikipedia. However, it also appears there is a puritanical removal of any discussion of this subject or worse yet misinformation being inserted. Unfortunately for the moment I do not have the time to create a balanced paragraph and research literature on this subject....if another editor wishes to take this apparently "taboo" subject on save your work here so someone can add it back if it gets removed again. Pbmaise (talk) 00:10, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

References

Pics or it was only wishful thinking (orgasm solely through receptive anal intercourse)

In the section Male sexual response the article now says:

It is possible for men to achieve orgasm solely through stimulation of the prostate gland, such as prostate massage or receptive anal intercourse.[29][30][31]

29. "The male hot spot — Massaging the prostate". Go Ask Alice!. 2002-09-27 (Last Updated/Reviewed on 2008-03-28). Retrieved 2010-04-21.

30. Rosenthal, Martha (2012). Human Sexuality: From Cells to Society. Cengage Learning. pp. 133–135. ISBN 0618755713, 9780618755714. Retrieved September 17, 2012.

31. Barry R. Komisaruk, Beverly Whipple, Sara Nasserzadeh, Carlos Beyer-Flores (2009). The Orgasm Answer Guide. JHU Press. pp. 108–109. ISBN 0-8018-9396-8, 9780801893964. Retrieved 6 November 2011.

I find the statement that it would be possible for men to achieve orgasm solely through stimulation of the prostate gland in the form of receptive anal intercourse a very strong one, and I am not willing to accept the veracity of such a claim without proper documentation. In a cyberspace clogged with pornographic material there must be loads of commercially available reels showing ejaculating men in such circumstances if it is neurologically possible. If such a film would be mentioned the statement can stay, but just referring some random sexual educational material, even if it maybe of high academic quality, is totally unsatisfactory from my perspective. Give me a solid reference or take out the claim! (Personal accounts on this talk-page would be fully satisfactory - to prove the existence of Bigfoot, but is of course not applicable in this matter.) --81.229.102.134 (talk) 14:27, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

LOL! I take it that you are joking? A pornographic reel, or rather an educational sex reel, should be used instead of quality references...such as scholarly sources? Also, ejaculation doesn't always equate to orgasm, even though it usually does. And, really, prostate stimulation is not separate from penile stimulation. Part of the penis, internally, is still being stimulated. Flyer22 (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for appreciating my point, but seriously, which scholarly sources can be trusted in this matter? In lack of a reel I would settle for a quality survey among some subgroup of the male population who regularly engage in receptive anal intercourse - how big a portion of such a group of men has personally experienced an orgasm solely as the result of such a practice? I dare to surmise less than 100 per cent, and also less than 10, but is it more than 1 per cent? That is my question - I believe it is zero per cent! Have you any reason to believe otherwise, does for instance Kinsey mention anything about it in his work? 81.229.102.134 (talk) 16:32, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, and will look further into this topic. But I haven't yet come across the type of information you are looking for. I certainly don't think that a big portion of heterosexual couples practice pegging or fingering of the man's prostate (if fingering alone does the job at all). But this source by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), with information published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ), states, "There are little published data on how many heterosexual men would like their anus to be sexually stimulated in a heterosexual relationship," but that, "Anecdotally, it is a substantial number. What data we do have almost all relate to penetrative sexual acts, and the superficial contact of the anal ring with fingers or the tongue is even less well documented but may be assumed to be a common sexual activity for men of all sexual orientations."

Basically, per WP:Verifiability, when reporting information that is likely to be challenged, we can only report what WP:Reliable sources report. And even for information that is not likely to be challenged, we are still usually supposed to apply WP:Verifiability. A lot of reliable sources state that men can orgasm solely through physical stimulation of the prostate. I don't believe that these sources, including high-quality ones that are available online, would be reporting this with absolute certainty if it weren't true. And you have to keep in mind that the prostate is connected to the penis; it's essentially the base of the penis. So that is the big reason why an orgasm by prostate stimulation is possible. Some sources, such as the Beverly Whipple source listed above, specifically mention that some men report this type of orgasm, describing it as "deeper," more global and intense, longer lasting, and associated with greater feelings of ecstasy than orgasm elicited by penile stimulation only. So unless those men, or the sources, are lying... Flyer22 (talk) 17:33, 1 February 2013 (UTC)

I just have to point out the obvious: to float away into descriptions of "quality", deeper, more intense, etc., in a discussion about quantity, one or zero, is a very standard way to avoid a tricky question. So to me, it is clear that those men, and in effect the sources quoting them, are indeed lying. Why would they tell such lies? Maybe the answer is: Why not? (The scientific approach would of course be "ejaculation occurring after X seconds of Y-type stimulus applied to body part Y." with a neat table presenting the experimental results. A discussion of quality is the opposite of such a scientific investigation, and must be discarded as myths and wish-ful thinking.) --81.229.102.134 (talk) 17:41, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

This discussion is about whether or not it is possible for a man to achieve orgasm solely through prostate stimulation. I mentioned that sources (reliable sources) and men have stated that it is possible and has happened, and, specifically, what men have described such an orgasm to feel like. It is not at all about avoiding a tricky question, but rather about answering one of your questions. The main point was what I stated above about following what reliable sources state. And now the main point is that we are not supposed to discard reliable sources because we believe that the sources and/or the people mentioned in the sources are lying, unless we have valid proof (verified by reliable sources) that they are lying. And even in cases where the sources and/or people mentioned in the sources are lying, we may keep the material and contrast that with material stating that they have been reported as lies. I do not believe that the many reliable sources that state that such an orgasm is possible are lying. But inclusion or exclusion of this material is not supposed to be based on what you or I personally think. Flyer22 (talk) 18:13, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Further, I could always ask WP:MED to weigh in on this if you want more opinions from Wikipedia editors on this topic. Flyer22 (talk) 18:16, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

In medieval times we could have been discussing the making of gold from metals of lesser value, and a good reference in such a discussion would than possibly have stated that is is fully possible to turn lead into gold, and indeed testify to the much higher quality of such gold compared to gold from more traditional sources. An even better source in such a discussion would of course offer an explicit recipe of how to make lead turn into gold. The sources I am looking for in the matter at hand are the equivalences of the gold making recipes. I suggest that some words about the short-comings of the current sources should be added to the article, to alert the reader to the very fragile nature of human understanding and knowledge of the matter. (This fragility is what bothers me, among all the pornografic material floating around, there should be lots and lots of graphical proofs of the matter, if the sources are reporting the truth.) --81.229.102.134 (talk) 19:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

IP, I can't help you out on this any more than what I've stated above. And I'm not sure what "words about the short-comings of the current sources" you are referring to. Are you speaking of your own words? We are not supposed to add our own commentary to Wikipedia articles in such a way. And like I've stated before, "ejaculation doesn't always equate to orgasm, even though it usually does." This means that just because a man has ejaculated, it doesn't mean that he has experienced an orgasm. So a pornographic reel would be unreliable in certain cases. Also, since pornography is abundant, I don't doubt that there are pornographic films or clips out there showing a man having an orgasm from anal sex. The things to ponder about that are: Can those films or clips be trusted unless we see ejaculation? Can they be trusted, given that ejaculation doesn't always equate to orgasm? And can we use any such source as a source for the information you dispute? It's a definite no for the final question. Flyer22 (talk) 20:48, 7 February 2013 (UTC)

What we lack is probably precision, instead of saying: "It is possible for men to achieve orgasm solely through stimulation of the prostate gland, such as (...) receptive anal intercourse" we should say: "More than ten per cent of all gay men frequently engaging in anal sex experience orgasm with ejaculation in more than ten per cent of the cases due solely to the stimulation of the prostate gland during the receptive act". If we go for such an explicit and measurable statement we can discuss the sources in a straight forward way. A mere "possibility" statement, lacks the precision needed for a more serious scrutiny of the reference documents. Can we add any precision from the sources at hand? (It is possible to drown in a sink, but the occurrences are too rare to discuss in the context of sinks and/or that of drowning - only in a This is unbelievable-type of setting can such things be discussed.) --81.229.102.134 (talk) 17:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Yes, I understand what you mean about precision. But like I mentioned, "I can't help you out on this any more than what I've stated above." I noted that I "will look further into this topic. But I haven't yet come across the type of information you are looking for." Also, the sources on this topic (orgasm solely through stimulation of the prostate) don't always, or even most of the time, specify whether or not the men are gay or are involved in heterosexual receptive anal sex (such as pegging mentioned above) or are simply stimulating their own anuses. Flyer22 (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Given the sources at hand, paying attention to their recent publication, their low number, their anecdotal character and lack of precision, my judgement is that the strongest claim that can be made would be something like:

In the last twenty years or so a small number of sexologists have reported that some men claim that they have achieved orgasm solely through stimulation of the prostate gland, in some cases in the form of prostate massage, in others during receptive anal intercourse.

Are there any reasons not to adjust the article to this minimum claim? --81.229.102.134 (talk) 15:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

The reasons not to are what I've already stated above. We follow WP:Verifiability at this site (what the sources state); your text, the alteration aspect, is not verified by the sources. And I'm not sure what you mean by "their low number." And again, many reliable sources report the same thing on this topic; I will likely trade out the Go Ask Alice! source for a different one and may also add an additional one. I really do not see what more there is to discuss in this section. We can, or rather should, only follow Wikipedia policies and/or guidelines when it comes to including or excluding information in Wikipedia articles. Flyer22 (talk) 16:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Well WP:Verifiability says: "When reliable sources disagree, present what the various sources say, give each side its due weight, and maintain a neutral point of view." From your perspective - not mine - you should consider my words in these matters a reliable source which disagrees with the sources given now, for sake of argument we can assume that I am a gay man with an extensive sex life who has never seen any of my partners climax as I have subjected them to wild receptive anal intercourse. WP:Verifiability also says "Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." In my case I could go ask all my (hypothetical) former lovers to write down their experiences and I would get a lot of sources to add to the article, but that is not important to me - the phrase "to be sure something is true" has an other meaning in these matters than it has in contexts like "to be sure the moon is made of cheese". In your case I suggest you go look for sources with a different view, I am sure you can find them if you try, and then you could consider my suggestion above a "neutral point of view" description of the discrepancy between the present sources and the ones you will find if you go look for them. Start out asking your male friends if they ever have climaxed in the way the present sources say. I really want to help here, because there is no reason this article should give a biased view on these matters, but I don't think my help is needed when it comes to finding the appropriate sources. What do you think? --81.229.102.134 (talk) 18:52, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

For Wikipedia, your words are not a reliable source. Neither are your friends' words or your lovers' words; the same applies to my words and the words of people I know. WP:Verifiability and WP:Reliable sources make that very clear. If any of your or my friends, for example, were to self-publish information, the WP:Reliable sources guideline states: "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications." This isn't about WP:Neutrality, not unless there are actually reliable sources disagreeing that men can have an orgasm solely through prostate stimulation alone. I've already told you that I will look further into some things we've discussed. But for the last time, "I can't help you out on this any more than what I've stated above." Flyer22 (talk) 19:27, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

I imagine that Wikipedia can be a confusing place for people new to its ways. We call it "the encyclopedia anyone can edit", but that doesn't mean "the encyclopedia anyone can ask someone else to edit in a way they would like to see". If a user wants to see doubt cast on statements based on reliable sources, then I'm afraid that it is really up to them to do the work of finding the new reliable sources that clearly cast the doubt. Flyer22 has clearly stated pretty well all the areas of policy that impinge on this. I would list:

1. Good quality sources are needed (WP:RS or WP:MEDRS), and porn videos are never going to count for such (for example they can be faked, retouched, edited; they are usually copyright; sitting watching one to verify something would amount to original research anyway, etc)
2. Personal experience, even if backed by a hundred signed affidavits is always going to amount to original research and would never do.

I think the only other part of Wikipedia policy that may be relevant here is WP:WEIGHT, especially the bit that says: "If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article." Note that the emphasis is on 'viewpoints' (of relevant published academics). We have a well-published viewpoint in the article. If the opposite viewpoint needs to be given some due degree of weight, then all we need from 81.229.102.134 are links a few of the (what will need to be) several, easy to find publications where the opposite viewpoint is expressed. It is surprising to any newcomer just how many policies and guidelines we have, but it may be worth adding that continuing to debate the same point on a Talk page for too long, without coming up with any usable references, is also discouraged under WP:TPG. --Nigelj (talk) 23:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

The human race has had sex, including coitus per rectum, especially with men on the receiving side, on its mind for at least ten million years, and has been writing about it extensively for at least five thousand years. If anal intercourse would automatically - that is with no other stimulation added - more or less often, but regularly anyhow, result in a climax for the receiving part there would be tons of literary – more or less autobiographical – descriptions of, and references to, such experiences, literary pieces of work of all ages, at least in the dozen from Roman time and onwards. We would have heard about it in all kinds of naughty medieval stories, just imagine! Now --- this is not the case, there are no such historical texts. Instead in the last twenty or thirty years we have seen a few texts claiming the occurrence of such orgasms, but the number of such texts and the way they have reached us very clearly show that they are fantasies or deliberate lies. To make a reasoned evaluation of such modern "fantasies" in the light of all other sexual descriptions (and depictions!) up until 1980 is the task for the editors of this article. I might add that I indeed have come across a fictional "only from what was given from behind" orgasm description, but is was a novel from the 80’s and the orgasm was related in third person, in contrast to the rest of the sex descriptions that were first person – thus clearly a fantasy, maybe even a fantasy within the story. --81.229.102.134 (talk) 17:18, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

I need to reiterate that lengthy prose, epic stories spanning millions or thousands of years, and so on, count for nothing in these discussions. The sentence in question has three citations - a website published by 'The Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York', and two books. They all support the wording given. No more and no less. You have said you would like to article wording to be different, but you have not produced a single link to a reliable source that would help achieve that. WP:TPG says, "Talk pages are for improving the encyclopedia, not for expressing personal opinions on a subject or an editor." --Nigelj (talk) 19:34, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Sexual Behavior in the Human Male, ISBN 978-0-253-33412-1, a.k.a Kinsey Report no 1. --81.229.102.134 (talk) 16:38, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

BPH

BPH can be treated with medication or with surgery that removes the prostate. Actually you would find that this is the last resort, it is neither a common treatment, or one that is considered above minimally invasive procedures. Therefore it is of note that these procedures be mentioned to inform the public. There are a number which are widely carried out, TUNA and TUMP - all of which have greater success when a spanner catheter is used for post treatment. Although these use a number of company's products - because of IP and no other alternatives or generic brands available - they also deserve inclusion. Jmunroo (talk) 06:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC) I challange Ratel's claim that I have vandalised a page by mentioning procedures that are commonplace. Jmunroo (talk) 06:51, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

New comments go at the bottom, not top. In addition, the edits you are making to pages include removing key information in other editors' citations, and other key numerical data. This looks like vandalism. Example here ► RATEL ◄ 09:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Even harmful edits that are not explicitly made in bad faith are not considered vandalism. For example, adding a personal opinion to an article once is not vandalism — it's just not helpful, and should be removed or restated. Not all vandalism is obvious, nor are all massive or controversial changes vandalism. Careful attention needs to be given to whether changes made are beneficial, detrimental but well intended, or outright vandalism. Jmunroo (talk) 11:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC) Think the reference data must have been lost on two of the refs - they were my refs anyway. I should add back in.

Sorry, but I don't know how to add this request other than add it to a subtalk. Would you all please make this page in English? It's written in medicalese, which few speak. I am looking for information on what the prostate is, but after reading this article, all I know now is it's location and it adds fluids to ejaculations to give semen a fighting chance against the acidic climate of the vagina. Pretty bad, considering how long this page is. I came to find out what they can do when it stops the ability to urinate. I never found out, because this article is written in medicalese, not English. So what? You can use big words. It means nothing unless you communicate with those you're trying to communicate with. So a translation into English would help. Please! After all, the only reason someone is reading about the prostate is it's personal. It's important to that person. Atwhatcost (talk) 13:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

Image: Prostate middle lobe orig.jpg

Personally speaking, I find the image to be much too graphic. I wonder if a less bloody image could be sourced. Thanks.--Ratha K (talk) 11:15, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Cancer In the first sentence of this paragraph about porstate cancer --> (estimated by some specialists at 3%[citation needed]) On this page I found : Deaths from prostate cancer | Prostate cancer is the third leading cause of cancer death in American men, behind lung cancer and colorectal cancer. About 1 man in 39 will die of prostate cancer. (1/39 = 2.56...%) Could this link serve as a reference here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Herwigneefs (talk • contribs) 11:56, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Original source

Original text taken from NIH Publication No. , a public domain resource which can be found at http://www.niddk.nih.gov/health/urolog/pubs/prospro/prospro.htm#prostate

(this url no longer exists -- see https://www.niddk.nih.gov/health-information/urologic-diseases/prostate-problems for its probable successor) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.100.173 (talk) 04:57, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Claims that prostate is missing in various eutherian mammals, marsupials and monotremes

The article cites a textbook (Understanding Human Anatomy Through Evolution by Bruce D. Olsen) for this claim, which is made on page 112 of the second edition of that book. However, that textbook provides no references to any sources, primary or secondary, in support of that claim. In the case of mustelids, Mead (1970) [1] provides a table showing which species have well-developed or poorly-developed prostates, but does not claim the prostate is absent in any mustelid. Even this table may understate prostate development in mustelids; Mead claims that Mustela furo (ferrets) have poorly-developed prostates citing Allanson (1932), but Bo et al. (2019) [2] have published photographs of the gross anatomy and cross-sections of intact ferret prostates showing that they are clearly well developed. The Olsen textbook is clearly not a reliable source for this claim and it should be removed.

Furthermore, the claim that the prostate is absent in marsupial moles is contradicted by the table in Rodger and Hughes (1973) [3] citing Sweet (1907), and the existence of a functional prostate in monotremes has more recently been described as "controversial" by Temple-Smith and Grant (2002) [4]. barto (talk) 18:32, 29 August 2021 (UTC)